Word changes: deterioration in view

In comparing the definitions of a word in dictionaries from two different eras, I ran across an interesting example of the deterioration of the view of Man as a causative, responsible being.

The first definition is from the Century Dictionary, an online dictionary which contains images of a dictionary apparently published near the end of the 1800's/beginning of the 1900's.

The word is "Reason":

"An idea acting as a cause to create or confirm a belief, or to induce a voluntary action; a judgment or belief going to determine a given belief or line of conduct."

So, reason is a cause that leads to action. It is an idea that leads to something being done or a belief being held.

It is a causative agent -- something that results in an effect: the causative nature is very clear.

From the Macmillan Dictionary for Students published in 1981:

"something, as a fact or circumstance, which serves as a ground, motive, or cause."

Significantly less clearly causative. Now it is something out there that might possibly serve as a cause. It is not necessarily actually a cause, but might be interpreted that way.

From the Webster's New World Dictionary for Young Readers from 1989:

"something said to explain or try to explain an act, idea, etc."

Nothing causative about this any more. Now a reason is just an excuse used to justify something that was done. So, thoughs or actions might have happened -- who knows how -- and the "reason" is what we use to explain what we believe or do. Very little causativeness there.

The second definition in the same dictionary does say:

"a cause for some action, feeling, etc." but the example sentence is "Noisy neighbors were our reason for moving."

In other words, there may be a cause, but here we're talking about someone else causing something. So we still haven't identified the individual as being causative.

What's been removed from the definition?

The idea of a responsible, causative agent capable of coming to conclusions that result in beliefs and actions.

To my mind, what's been removed is the person himself.

I guess somewhere between 1900 and 1989, the core of Man got lost. Perhaps in that time he changed from a causative agent to a lump of chemicals that reacts and then provides explanations for why he acted.

Or perhaps he didn't change but the PR about him did. Perhaps someone has a reason ("an idea acting as a cause to create or confirm a belief, or to induce a voluntary action; a judgment or belief going to determine a given belief or line of conduct") that leads to belief and action to promote an image of Man that makes him out to be far less causative than he used to be.

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, just a great deal of stupidity and perhaps some financial or political advantage that someone might have somewhere.

I wonder what would happen if our kids were taught that they are causative people whose thoughts, decisions and reasons matter because they mean something and they are responsible?

Personally, I like the 1900's view better and, I suspect, society at large might run better if each individual was viewed as a causative agent rather than someone who thinks of excuses to explain why they did the stupid things they just did. :-)