Public versus Private Reasoning
Something important to remember in philosophical writing and argumentation—especially for this
class—is the distinction between public and private reasoning. I’ll walk you through it here to help make
it very clear.
We all have positions on certain issues. And, if asked to defend our position, we often come up with
reasons why we hold such a position. In a philosophy course, you’ll often be asked to provide those
reasons.
Think about an example. Where do you stand on the issue of, say, eating meat? You may have a whole
host of reasons why you think it is morally acceptable or morally wrong to eat meat. Some of them may
be deeply personal (private reasoning). Some of them may have to do with facts and figures or common
assumptions (public reasoning). For example, I choose not to eat meat for a number of reasons. One of
them is that I had a terrible experience eating meat when I was 15 in Scotland. I ate some haggis, which
is some sort of intestinal dish that was really awful and traumatizing! Now that, for sure, is an example
of private reasoning. There are other reasons I also choose not to eat meat. I’ve seen the horror that
goes on in factory farms, both for the animals and for the underpaid, exploited workers that are
expected to work under very bad, harmful conditions. Those things are examples of public reasoning.
Now— you may not agree that that is a sufficient reason to quit eating meat. That’s fine! But you can
understand the reasoning because it is something that is accessible to you. You’ve never had the exact
same experience I have in Scotland (or, you likely haven’t!) but you can have such an experience as I
have learning about factory farms.
This is the distinction between public and private reasoning. Private reasoning is reasoning based on
why you personally stand where you stand on a particular issue. It is shaped by your own experiences,
biases, heritage, background, etc. Public reasoning is reasoning based on common experiences (not
unique to you) facts, figures, etc. It is accessible to others in a way that public reasoning is not.
Religious reasoning is another great example. Say you are a Christian but your friend is not and you want
to convince them not to steal. You can’t simply say “because the Bible says not to!” If they don’t share
that same personal reason (that is, that you believe in some level of textual authority of the Bible), then
that reason certainly won’t convince them. It may not even make sense or resonate with them at all. Or,
if it will, it will take a long time and a lot of persuasive work. Instead, when you do not share the same
private reasoning, you’ll want to find reasons based on things you both already agree upon. So, in the
case of stealing, you could argue that it is unjust or that it has bad consequences and so on. This is public
reasoning—the kind that is based on shared experiences, assumptions, and facts. Everyone has
experiences with instances of injustice in the world. Everyone can resonate with the risk of negative
consequences. Now, this doesn’t mean your friend will agree with you, but the conversation can move
forward because you are now both talking about things you can both identify with. You’ll see that public
and private reasoning don’t have anything to do with how many people you are talking to or who
agrees and who doesn’t, but with the kinds of reasoning that are used to back up an argument.
In this class, I expect your arguments to use public reasoning and not private reasoning. It is important to
note that religion and philosophy are not synonymous. They do have a lot in common and we have to
talk about both in many cases. BUT this isn’t a theology class and I am not a religion instructor. That
said, you MAY NOT use religious arguments alone (private reasoning) as the basis of your philosophical
arguments in writings for this class. That is not to say that you can’t use religious arguments for yourself
or as underlying support for your claims, but it cannot be the whole argument. I will occasionally ask for
your personal views and only at that time would it be appropriate to use religious arguments of some
nature.
A further way of explaining this distinction between public and private reasoning is by thinking of it as a
language. You may speak both Portuguese and English, but if I only speak English, you better argue with
me in English! Otherwise, we won’t be on the same page at all. It is the same with religious language and
other types of private reasoning. Unless you’re sure I speak the language (or that I’ve had the same
experience), you should stick with the one you know that I know. That is, always use public reasoning for
initial philosophical discourse. This prevents people from reaching an impasse where the discussion can
go no further. Public reasoning, which is based on common assumptions, shared experiences, and facts,
keeps the lines of discourse open. When we all know what we are talking about, we can make progress
in coming to conclusions.