I came across this useful quotation from Etienne Gilson about the limits of reasoning, in a piece at First Things criticizing  Princeton University’s star utilitarian, Peter Singer, who, it seems, has been wondering out aloud what the exact harm in necrophilia and bestiality is:

“A third way of recognizing the false sciences which idealism generates is by the fact that they feel it necessary to “ground” their objects. That is because they are not sure their objects exist. For the realist, whose thought is concerned with being, the Good, the True and the Beautiful are in the fullest sense real, since they are simply being itself as desired, known and admired. But as soon as thought substitutes itself for knowledge, these transcendentals begin to float in the air without knowing where to perch themselves. This is why idealism spends its time “grounding” morality, knowledge and art, as though the way men should act were not written in the nature of man, the manner of knowing in the very structure of our intellect, and the arts in the practical activity of the artist himself. The realist never has to ground anything, but he has to discover the foundations of his operations, and it is always in the nature of things that he finds them: operatio sequitur esse.”

Comment:

Why should reason always trump something like, say, experience or tradition, which embodies the collective reasoning AND practical experience of generations of communities spanning the globe?

I don’t fault Singer for wanting rational grounds for moral assertions. That is fair.

I fault him for thinking that because one cannot always find the rational grounds for a moral position, one must therefore abandon the position, even though it may be advocated and defended by tradition, experience, and instinct.

It should be the burden of those wanting to upend traditional morality to make persuasive arguments for their position, rather than the reverse.