The contemptuous attitude toward popular writing so often affected by learned men is, then, nothing but an unwarranted prejudice. And it may not be uninteresting to inquire into its psychological motivation. May I be allowed to recommend to the reader that, whenever in this human world he finds a totally unreasonable opinion adopted by large bodies of people, he make a practice of looking, not for reasons, but for motives. He will thus save himself much time which might otherwise be wasted in searching for rationality where none exists.
(W. T. Stace, "The Snobbishness of the Learned," in Atlantic Essays, ed. Samuel N. Bogorad and Cary B. Graham [Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1958], 94-104, at 98 [italics in original] [essay first published in 1936])
Note from KBJ: Stace places two restrictions on the move from reasons to motives. First, the opinion in question must be "totally unreasonable" (as opposed to merely unreasonable). Second, it must be "adopted by large bodies of people" (as opposed to one or a few). That I think your opinion on some topic unreasonable does not license a move, on my part, from considering your reasons for the opinion to speculating about your motives for holding it. This happens all too often in political discourse. I say that I oppose homosexual "marriage." Instead of asking for my reasons, you impute bad motives to me, such as bigotry. This may make you feel good, but it does nothing to advance public discourse, and it certainly gets us no closer to the truth (if there is truth to be had on that issue). In my experience, there is far more cynicism among progressives than among conservatives, probably because of the influence of Karl Marx (1818-1883). Marx refused to take things at face value. He insisted on finding sinister interests. Those who could not be brought around to his view were said to have a "false consciousness." (How convenient!) Another famous cynic was Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), also a progressive. Philosophers are taught to focus on reasons rather than motives. The latter are to be left to psychologists and psychotherapists. Unfortunately, some credentialed philosophers lack philosophical aptitude and spend much of their time questioning the motives of those with whom they disagree. Support the war in Iraq? You're a warmonger or a profiteer. Oppose homosexual "marriage"? You're a bigot. Oppose abortion? You're a misogynist. Oppose Barack Obama? You're a racist. Oppose open borders? You're a xenophobe/nativist/restrictionist. It's quite unedifying, this mindless resort to motives. Philosophers who engage in this sort of cynicism should turn in their membership cards. They are a disgrace to a great profession.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 