Some people, dogmatic absolutists, try to reduce all questions to matters of fact. They think that every question has one and only one correct answer. Others, subjective relativists, try to reduce all questions to matters of subjective opinions. They think that no question has correct or incorrect answers but that all questions whatsoever are matters of opinion: "I have my opinion and you have yours. Mine is right for me and yours is right for you." Neither absolutist nor relativist leaves room for what is crucial to success in human life: matters of reasoned judgment.
Many important questions require our best judgment. It is required when we sit on a jury, when we assess a political candidate, when we take sides in a family argument, when we decide to support an educational reform movement, when we decide on how to raise our children, how to spend our money, or how much time to dedicate to public service. Judgment based on sound reasoning goes beyond, but is never to be equated with, fact or opinion alone. When one reasons well through conflicting system questions, one does more than state facts. Furthermore, a well-reasoned position is not to be described as mere "opinion." We sometimes call a judge's verdict an "opinion," but we not only expect, we demand, that it be based on relevant evidence and sound reasoning.
When questions requiring reasoned judgment are reduced to matters of subjective preference, counterfeit critical thinking occurs. Some people, then, come to uncritically assume that everyone's "opinion" is of equal value. Their capacity to appreciate the importance of intellectual standards diminishes, and we can expect to hear comments such as these: "What if I don't like these standards? Why shouldn't I use my own standards? Don't I have a right to my own opinion? What if I'm just an emotional person? What if I like to follow my intuition? What if I think spirituality is more important than reason? What if I don't believe in being 'rational'?" When people reject questions calling for sound evidence and good reasoning, they fail to see the difference between offering legitimate reasons and evidence in support of a view and simply asserting the view.
Intellectually responsible persons, in contrast, recognize questions of judgment for what they are: questions requiring the consideration of alternative points of view. Put another way, intellectually responsible persons recognize when a question calls for good reasoning (from multiple points of view), and they behave in accordance with that responsibility. This means that they realize when there is more than one reasonable way to answer a question.
To determine which of these three types of questions we are dealing with (in any given case) we can ask the following questions: Are there relevant facts we need to consider? If yes, then either the facts alone settle the question (and we are dealing with a question of procedure), or the facts can be interpreted in different ways (and the question is debatable). If there are no facts to consider, then it is a matter of personal preference. Remember, if a matter is not one of personal preference, then there must be some facts that bear on the question. If the facts settle the question, then it is a "one system" procedural question. 引自 Questioning Dogmatic Absolutism and Subjective Relativism
