Giving a “reason” is the basis of rationality. In some sense, such a statement is merely a tautology, a redundancy in propositional logic (as pointed out by Wittgenstein), or what Kant had termed as an analytic a priori statement, where the subject (“reason”) is essentially identical to the object (“rationality”) in definitional terms. But it is precisely the providing of a reason which forms the proper basis for proceeding in a rational manner.
Thus, if a X states that it will rain today, the follow-up query might be: “Why do you believe that?” If X answers, “Because I say so,” such a “reason” would not be an acceptable basis to act upon, precisely because it is neither a valid reason nor a basis of rationality. Contrast that to the following: “Because the national weather service, after an extensive study of the weather patterns for the past two weeks, has concluded that there is a 97% chance of rain today.” Now, one may argue that predictions concerning the weather are notoriously unreliable to begin with; but nevertheless, the latter forms a basis for proceeding in a rational manner, while the former gives us no such foundation.
Similarly, in all sectors of one’s life, one has an expectation of giving and receiving “reasons” for which to act upon. In a Federal Disability Retirement case, we are expected to provide reasons for why a Federal or Postal employee is “eligible” for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Conversely, it is a “reasonable” expectation to receive a “reason” when a Federal Disability Retirement application is denied at any stage of the process. Templates used by OPM will often only present the most superficial of reasons; and some reasonings as proposed by OPM may be self-contradictory.
In the end, whatever the reasons given, the Federal or Postal disability retirement applicant must respond with reasons why OPM is wrong, or provide a rational basis for a difference of opinions. But that is another matter for a different blog altogether — the very issue of “opinions” and what should be the foundation of a valid one. For, after all, we each of us possess them, and a scant few make much of a difference.
Robert R. McGill, Esquire