raisontort

Raisontort is a term used in speculative discussions of argumentation and ethics to describe a pattern of reasoning in which an argument maintains internal logical coherence while leading to conclusions that are morally questionable or socially controversial. The concept functions as a diagnostic label for examining how rational methods can be deployed to justify outcomes that may be harmful, unjust, or at odds with widely accepted norms.

The word is a portmanteau of raison (French for reason) and tort (French for wrong or civil wrong). It emphasizes the tension between rational analysis and normative evaluation. The term emerged in early 21st-century debates about how sophisticated reasoning can accompany ethically contested conclusions.

In practice, raisontort identifies a dual-process structure: a formal argument that is valid or sound, and a normative layer that approves the conclusion based on selective premises, framed values, or anticipated consequences. It invites scrutiny of premises, implications, and the influence of rhetorical technique.

Scholars discuss raisontort in law, policy analysis, AI governance, and media discourse to illustrate how rationalization can obscure ethical considerations. Critics caution that the label can be pejorative or vague, and recommend explicit criteria for separating raisontort from legitimate argumentation, such as transparency of premises and consideration of counterarguments.

See also: rationalization, moral disengagement, cognitive bias, argumentation theory.