Morality as Emotive - Coursework Example

Morality as Emotive Name Institutional Affiliation Introduction Morality can be defined as the ability of a person to tell whether certain actions, responses, activities et cetera are proper or improper. In simpler terms, it is the ability of a person to tell whether something is right or wrong. When morality is being measured, there are certain guidelines that will often be used. These guidelines will often come from a certain way of life, influence or culture. The person that will be making the judgment of morality will often have been highly influenced by a certain phenomenon in their lives. Morality can also be used to describe something that is righteous or that is considered good. From the given definitions above, one thing is clear; there are no permanent of definite standards that can be used for measurement of morality. It is for this reason that questions have arisen as to whether morality is something that is emotive, objective or relative. There are those that have argued that morality is something that is objective. That is to say that when a person is making a moral decision, he should not in any way allow himself to be influenced by his feelings. This means that he should be able to follow a certain code of conduct that is laid down for measurement of morality, whether or not he believes in it. Emotive is quite the opposite of objective. It means that when a person is expected to gauge whether something is morally upright, he should base his decision on what he feels. This is often a person who has been influenced by certain factors such as religion, culture, and ways of life and so on. He will thus use the knowledge that he acquired from them to make the decision of morality. Relative morality often means that the person uses the present situation to decide whether something is moral or not. This means that the stand of this person on morality is shifty and the decision he makes today for a particular issue may be totally the opposite when he is faced with a different circumstance. It also means that there is no permanent way that morality can be measured as it strictly follows the current situation. This paper argues that morality is emotive. It solely depends on the gut feelings that a person has. Morality as Emotive A scholar once performed an experiment that is very useful in the explanation of the ties between morality and emotion. He asked his students to go out and randomly ask people to give up their seats for them (Blass, 2004). After a shorter while than he expected, his students came back. They had been too frustrated to go on with the experiment, since none of them had received a positive response. The lecturer then decided to do it for himself. When he asked people while he looked fine, nobody seemed willing to give up their seat. However, when he appeared looking sickly and frail, the first person he asked to give up his seat did so without hesitation. All through the journey, he felt like he had to continue acting as though he deserved the seat. This begs the question; does morality only come to us when we are motivated? Several of the researches that have been carried out in the past seem to be for the idea that morality is directly connected to the human emotion. They have said that there must be something that runs in the minds of humans when they begin to use certain terms such as good or bad. These are just some of the many terms that will often be mentioned when a discussion arises about morality. These are conclusions of psychologists who studied what goes on in the mind of humans when they use those words. They have also studied what directs or affects the humans to think in the manner that they do, that makes them arrive at these decisions. While some of the research was done using both empirical and laboratory testing. Empirical Testing One of the best examples of empirical experiments that have been used for the same analysis in the past is one that was carried out by Moll, et al (2003). Here the subjects were asked two questions. One of them required that they use their moral judgment to decide and the other one was a factual sentence that they only had to confirm or deny. In both cases, they were only allowed to give one word answers; yes or no. it was found that, when they were deciding about the moral sentence, the parts of the brain that have been associated with emotions were more active than when they were deciding about the factual sentence. A different experiment that measured the same phenomenon was carried out by Sanfey, et al. in this case, they used two subjects. One of them was given a certain amount of money and asked to divide with the other party. The result was that the first subject did not divide the money equally. In him too, it was found that brain cells associated with emotions were most active. Greene et, al (2001) carried out yet another experiment. In this case, the subjects were treated to as social dilemma. They were shown a video of a man in a restaurant that after being disgusted by the food, spat it out and spoke rudely. They were asked whether this had been the right response or not. there were those that were for it and others against. However, it was found that in both of them, the same brain cells were at work. These findings simply serve to defend the thesis of the paper; that emotions indeed are at play when people are making judgments on morality in whatever given situation. although this fact is no longer in question, there is still a part that is yet to be fully understood. That is, the extent to which these emotions are in play in moral judgment. It has not been fully established whether they are just effects of the moral judgment process or that they go deeper into the process. The issue of whether emotion plays a role in the determination of a moral dilemma does not stop there. There have been other findings that defend the fact that the type of emotion at a particular time may have a direct influence in the way that a person judges a situation. for example, what this means to say is that a person may be going through a tough time. when he is asked to judge a person that is going through something similar, he is likely to take the side of the person (Berthoz, 2002). The reason for this is that he is able to fully understand the position that the second person is in, and thus understands why he makes the decisions she does. If the same person is found in an exactly opposite situation to that of the second person, there is a high chance that he may fail to reason in the same way. In order to further prove this point, another group of researchers carried out a different experiment. In this case, they were told about a man who found a dead dog at his front yard. The dog had been killed at that point by a speeding car. He then decided to slaughter the dead do and have it for dinner. Two different groups of people were asked to tell whether the decision of the home owner was right or wrong. The researchers then decided to add a twist to the scenario. They placed one group on very neatly arranged clean desks. The second group had their desks filled will all sorts of filth. The first group that was seated on clean desks agreed with the decision of the home owner, while the second group chose the negative. From this experiment, it was clear that the first group of people did not see any wrong in what the farmer did because it did not tally with their feelings they had not sat in filth and thus did not see the dog as an animal that is not only filthy in nature but was already lying on a road that was barely clean. The second group did not agree with the decisions of the person. The reason was that they had been made to see and sit in filth and thus were easily disgusted. These feelings of disgust were easy to arouse using the experiment of the dog, thus their conclusion. Yet another experiment has been carried out. In this case, the researchers chose a certain random word. Two groups were selected. The first group was hypnotized to be disgusted whenever they heard the particular word. The two groups were then presented with various scenarios, some of them conflicting, that all had the particular chosen word. It was found that the first group judged harshly those scenarios that had that word than they did the others. The results of the second experiment were found to be non-uniform like the first case. There is one explanation that was drawn from this experiment. It was that clear that when people are making judgment, it is often based on their emotion. It does not often matter whether they have believed in something for a long time or not. they will judge the situation according to the emotions that they have inside of them at the time of the situation. These experiments have all proven that indeed emotions do play a major role in decision of morality. However, a follow up question has often been asked. Do these emotions have to be there for one to be able to make moral judgments? The answer is yes. They have to be there. It is for this reason that many times people are taught foster certain emotions, most of which they will carry with them for a long time , and will help in judgment. It goes back to one of the definitions that were mentioned earlier for the word morality. It was stated that morality is often influenced by an existing set of rule or a certain following of phenomena such as the laws, culture beliefs and religion. People have become cognizant of the fact that emotions play an important role in decision making. It is for this reason that humans are introduced to certain phenomena from when they are young. It is for this reason that people who have been brought up in a certain culture seldom change to something else, especially when it does not have the same values as his. It often takes a very rigorous process for a person to be convinced to change their religion. Most of those who have done so usually have a story of having suffered in the hands of their former religion, which adds weight to the fact that emotion pays a key role in moral decisions. Conclusion the paper explains why there are often a lot of religious misunderstandings between major religions in the world. these people have often been taught a certain method of reasoning which sometimes unfortunate clashes with those of others. The two groups are likely to enter a serious clash because each of them believes that they are right and the other party is wrong. In all countries round the world, governments have come to the recognition of this fact. They have therefore come up with a set of rules that are deemed central and do not infringe on any one party more than the other. The rules will then often be taught to people over and over and for a long time, until it is registered in their brains that this is what is right and should be followed. References Blass, T. (2004). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York: Basic Books. Moll, J., R. DE Olivierra-Souza, and P. J. Eslinger. (2003). Morals and the human brain: A working model. Neuroreport 14: 299–305. Greene, J. D., R. B. Sommerville, L. E. Nystrom, J. M. Darley, and J. D. Cohen.( 2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 293: 2105–8. Berthoz, S., J. L. Armony, R. J. R. Blair, and R. J. Dolan. (2002). An fMRI study of intentional and unintentional (embarrassing) violations of social norms. Brain 125: 1696–708. Read More

All through the journey, he felt like he had to continue acting as though he deserved the seat. This begs the question; does morality only come to us when we are motivated? Several of the researches that have been carried out in the past seem to be for the idea that morality is directly connected to the human emotion. They have said that there must be something that runs in the minds of humans when they begin to use certain terms such as good or bad. These are just some of the many terms that will often be mentioned when a discussion arises about morality.

These are conclusions of psychologists who studied what goes on in the mind of humans when they use those words. They have also studied what directs or affects the humans to think in the manner that they do, that makes them arrive at these decisions. While some of the research was done using both empirical and laboratory testing. Empirical Testing One of the best examples of empirical experiments that have been used for the same analysis in the past is one that was carried out by Moll, et al (2003).

Here the subjects were asked two questions. One of them required that they use their moral judgment to decide and the other one was a factual sentence that they only had to confirm or deny. In both cases, they were only allowed to give one word answers; yes or no. it was found that, when they were deciding about the moral sentence, the parts of the brain that have been associated with emotions were more active than when they were deciding about the factual sentence. A different experiment that measured the same phenomenon was carried out by Sanfey, et al.

in this case, they used two subjects. One of them was given a certain amount of money and asked to divide with the other party. The result was that the first subject did not divide the money equally. In him too, it was found that brain cells associated with emotions were most active. Greene et, al (2001) carried out yet another experiment. In this case, the subjects were treated to as social dilemma. They were shown a video of a man in a restaurant that after being disgusted by the food, spat it out and spoke rudely.

They were asked whether this had been the right response or not. there were those that were for it and others against. However, it was found that in both of them, the same brain cells were at work. These findings simply serve to defend the thesis of the paper; that emotions indeed are at play when people are making judgments on morality in whatever given situation. although this fact is no longer in question, there is still a part that is yet to be fully understood. That is, the extent to which these emotions are in play in moral judgment.

It has not been fully established whether they are just effects of the moral judgment process or that they go deeper into the process. The issue of whether emotion plays a role in the determination of a moral dilemma does not stop there. There have been other findings that defend the fact that the type of emotion at a particular time may have a direct influence in the way that a person judges a situation. for example, what this means to say is that a person may be going through a tough time.

when he is asked to judge a person that is going through something similar, he is likely to take the side of the person (Berthoz, 2002). The reason for this is that he is able to fully understand the position that the second person is in, and thus understands why he makes the decisions she does. If the same person is found in an exactly opposite situation to that of the second person, there is a high chance that he may fail to reason in the same way. In order to further prove this point, another group of researchers carried out a different experiment.

In this case, they were told about a man who found a dead dog at his front yard. The dog had been killed at that point by a speeding car. He then decided to slaughter the dead do and have it for dinner. Two different groups of people were asked to tell whether the decision of the home owner was right or wrong.

Read More