Rationalism

## Philosophy

"The criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive". Actions should be based on truth and reason alone should be used to determine the truth. This could be asked, "why?". Rationalism itself could be reasoned by pages and pages of arguments and propositions. But the reason is very simple. If we are not reasonable then we are certain to die. Though we could still die even if we are reasonable, the chances of escaping death are higher when we are reasonable and certain if we are unreasonable, it then becomes only a matter of time, probability and chance (luck).

For e.g., Sikh Motorcycle riders need not wear a helmet, The NDP government, in 2018, made an exception for the Sikhs in the law that requires a helmet to be worn by all riders. Let us, for the time being, (1) not go into the politics of whether the Sikhs should or not, (2) let us not, for the time being, debate whether it is moral or correct for the government to show such discrimination. But let us inspect only the rationality of wearing a helmet.
1. Is it reasonable to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle?
2. Is it a fact that riders who wear a helmet do not die?
3. Is it a fact that riders who wear a helmet do not get hurt?
4. Is it a fact that the helmet reduces the chance of death and injury?
5. Is reducing the chances of death and injury of the people the responsibility of a government?
6. Or it is not a responsibility but an objective of the government?
7. If it is said it is a responsibility of the government to reduce the chances of death and injury, does it mean that the government is also responsible for reducing self-inflicted death and injury?
8. Does not, not wearing a helmet, and getting hurt or dead constitute self-infliction of injury? if yes then is the government responsible for reducing self-injury? if yes, then is it not an encroachment on the autonomy of a human?
9. A 2011 data shows, 17500 people were admitted to hospitals for self-injury, none of them seem to have injured themselves by not wearing a helmet. In light of the previous fact, Is it safe to say that if people wanted to hurt themselves, riding a bike without a helmet will not be the choice, zero chances?
10. Then why do we have a law requiring people to wear helmets? first of all the law to wear helmets itself is not reasonable. Secondly, if Sikhs who are also humans, could be exempted from wearing helmets, it is possible that the other humans could also be exempted from wearing a helmet. It cannot be argued as "impossible" The government can say "we do not want to exempt other people", but ask why? what is the reason? then two invalid arguments would be given. .
11. Argument (one) We have a responsibility to ensure the safety of people. Are Sikhs not people? if yes then does the government does not want to ensure the safety of Sikhs? "They wear a turban when they ride". Is it a CSA (Canadian Standards Association) certified Turban? "no", then how does the government know that the turban is safe? had it done any scientific trials to support its statement?
12. Argument (two) It costs more to treat a patient who does not wear a helmet. There are not many Sikhs, and there are not many motorcycle riding Sikhs, and even if they ride they were a turban (how do you know? is there a law for them to wear turban when riding motorcycle?), hence the chances of Sikhs getting hurt are less, and the cost to the taxpayer is less or almost negligible, hence it is allowable.
13. The point of this argument is to demonstrate that "reason" should be the only method of determining what is true. The exemption of Sikhs to wear a helmet is not based on reason but based on "emotion". It does not matter if the decision to allow then to ride without a helmet is right or wrong. It does not even matter to us that this decision is "irrational" because it is not our objective to fight irrationality, people are free to be stupid and have their right to be irrational. However, what we are protesting here is the "discrimination" and the contradiction. Either discrimination is acceptable or discrimination is not acceptable. Double standards are unfair, and unfairness is caused by oppression, and humans will fight oppression.

## References

1. ↑ Bourke, Vernon J., "Rationalism," p. 263 in Runes (1962).
2. ↑ https://web.archive.org/web/20191211124927/https://www.princeton.edu/~msmith/mypapers/Smith-Reasons-With-Rationalism-2009.pdf
3. ↑ https://globalnews.ca/news/4114178/alberta-sikh-motorcycle-helmet/
4. ↑ http://www.szasz.com/undergraduate/carrcapstone.pdf
5. ↑ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/17500-canadians-were-hospitalized-for-self-injury-last-year-cihi-reports/article582563/