Can disputes over what is reasonable or unreasonable to believe be resolved objectively?

Question

Suppose there are two debaters A and B, and a proposition X. A thinks X is reasonable, and believes X. B does not think X is reasonable, and therefore lacks a belief in X. Thus, A and B are in disagreement about the reasonableness of X. Can disputes of this kind be resolved objectively in all cases? If so, what is the objective standard that must be followed to resolve the dispute? Where did that standard come from, and why is this specific standard the one that everyone should follow?

Answer 1

It depends on what you mean by 'objectively'. If objectivity is taken to be the consensus of subjective agents, for instance, by subscribing to a convention, then there is, let's call it, a first-order capacity to resolve reasonableness by examining the principles of reason. For instance, in the analysis of argumentation, if the parties subscribe to classical logic, have similar views on terminology, have a system for structuring and evaluating proofs, then yes, there is some degree of objectivity. Typically, for instance, in a debating society, there is some shared notion of fallacy, rhetoric, and logic that participants submit to and that judges can invoke in evaluation.

But what happens when the parties in the debate object to their logics? What if one participant accepts non-classical logic as a way of arguing and another does not? What if there is a basic difference in the analysis of informal reasoning in regards to warrant, rebuttal, inference, and so on? Then the debate spills over from "objective claims" into the nature of objectivity and inference itself. This is a common occurrence in philosophy, and this is generally taken as a metaphysical dispute, that is, a dispute of first principles, in the language of Descartes.

Then, since metaphysical theories come into play, for instance, what constitutes an adequate theory of truth, what does it mean to have incommensurable language, what should be admitted to exist and what rejected (in other words meta-ethical, meta-ontological, and meta-epistemological disputes), one often finds oneself in yet another layer of disputes about fact and value that may make the original argument entirely unacceptable. In such a case, unless there are "objective rules" for meta-philosophical discussion accepted, it's hard to see how objectivity can resolve the matter.

In practice, generally such arguments often become polemical as a lack of common ground tends to frustrate both parties. Of course, quietism is another way to respond to these circumstances.

Answer 2

It may be that the only way a claim can be objectively more or less reasonable is via empirical test, and every other belief is unjustified or subjective, varying from person to person in the same way preference for ice cream is. Or perhaps not. If you want to look for epistemic virtues for non scientific beliefs, then these include attentiveness, creativity, curiousity etc..

appropriate activation of epistemic virtues contributes a further element to the objectivity of the decision-making process. Their involvement in the process serves to ensure that the theoretical virtues are rigorously and cor- rectly applied.

I don't know of any equivalent standards for belief (in general, as opposed to e.g. explanatory power in science) itself, though consensus and consistency may be a good start.

If you're looking for guarantees of objectivity, these may not exist, perhaps even for scientific research (errors in data collection etc.). Anyway, in general there's no one answer

"Conceptions of objectivity are different for scientific work, for everyday concerns, and for social, moral and aesthetic questions and so there is not one simple definition of objectivity that can be applied to all.

I would suggest reading this

Answer 3

The sort of debate that you depict would descend into chaos unless there were an arbiter accepted by both sides. Any reasonable arbiter would employ all of the principles and tools of reason advanced over the ages. This would not be objective, in the sense that human agency is needed. Perhaps there might be an artificial intelligence arbiter one day? I am not aware of the development of any standard of what is reasonable. Imagine a debate about abortion. A states that human life begins at conception. Therefore, is unjustifiable in all cases. B states that bodily autonomy is paramount. Therefore, the state has no right to abridge the right to abortion. A might be asked for evidence to prove their contention. B might be asked to prove that bodily autonomy is paramount. A is being asked a question of fact. B is being asked a philosophical question. A relies on reason from faith. B relies on liberal thought impinging on politics. A can provide no scientific evidence. B cannot provide evidence that all philosophical thought concurs that bodily autonomy is paramount. A is behaving reasonably in the context of their faith. B is behaving reasonably within the context of liberal philosophy and politics. If the proposition is that the state has the right to abridge access to abortion in all cases, B can rely on the common law principle that human life begins at birth. B can also rely on documents like the UN Declaration of Human Rights, articles 3, 7, and 12. So, although philosophically the debate between A and B cannot be reasonably arbitrated, it can be in the context of law in the West. Unfortunately, in other jurisdictions it could be arbitrated in the other direction. Even in the West, however, it could be arbitrated in the other direction because of authoritarian ideology among the judiciary. So it is possible that a particular debate cannot be satisfactorily arbitrated philosophically or legally. The imagined AI arbiter would rely on human input, so would be no more successful than a human arbiter.

Answer 4

Reasonability is a characteristic of Mind.Mind is a phenomena. It arises , changes and vanishes. Mind can suffer from psychological diseases. People can go mad for various reasons like vanity , jealousy , love , hate , biases etc. In such a circumstances, reasonability can not be expected always. Therefore objectivity can not be expected always if the involved parties are not reasonable .

Therefore in case of disputes , if the involved parties have healthy mind and share a common ground of justice then objectivity can be reached in the dispute settlements. Objectivity itself is an impermanent phenomena as the mind is an impermanent phenomena.

Answer 5

The clear answer is no. Any disagreement between two people relies upon assumptions that cannot be proven. Perhaps one can use the number of these assumptions as a standard for deciding between two theories…but this very standard would be another assumption :)