Logic Puzzles: We All Have Reasons

"You don't need a reason to help people."

This is a well-meaning statement that is shared often in some fashion through social networks, yet it is untrue. All actions have at least one reason attached to them, whether that reason is known or not. Yes, you can help people without having a conscious reason why you should or should not, but all motion has its cause. You may have acted on instinct, you may have not known what else to do, or you may have been following your moral obligation to be helpful, but you had a reason.

That beginning sentence is used to reduce feelings of selfishness in those who have to think before they aid someone. These people may not have a clear value system that they follow to the letter, so the situation is likely to impact their actions. They must think about the pluses and minuses of aiding another. This phrase which I am writing about glosses over the issue. There is a clear problem in its logic. If you do not need a reason to help people, do you need a reason to not help people? Do you need a reason for any action whatsoever? The phrase brings up the question of which actions need good reasons, but does not go into explanation. Another problem also exists.

What the statement does is imply morality without going into any detail at all. It is never mentioned why helping a person is right, or why doing the right thing is good. It assumes the individual already knows these things, and that is careless. If a person already knows that helping is both right and good, then he or she will follow their morals and help others. Saying you do not need a reason can imply that you do not need morals, as morals are the main reason for moral action. And people who question whether they should follow such morals are likely to also question the morals themselves. I assume that there simply was not enough thought put into the sentence to understand the underlying issues, and that enough people understand that it speaks of selfish reasons only. Still, I wanted to talk about it.

This is not the only example of ambiguity among the many things that get passed around online. It is not the prime example of shortsightedness either. However, I do think it is worthwhile to bring to light the issues involved with these types of ideas, because they can be widely supported while not widely understood.

(I should add that a circumstance may indeed occur where one must think whether they should help another or not. Clearly, I talk about people who do not know why they should do the smallest of things for others, but there are cases where helping could prove problematic for the individual. Sometimes there is no clear answer.)