Is One Responsible for His or Her Emotions - Essay Example

Emotion and reason Whether One is Responsible for His or Her Emotions Philosophers have employed several arguments to determine whether an individual is responsible for his or her emotions. Most philosophers have linked the definition of emotions to the master-slave metaphor. Currently, the metaphor exhibits two features that verify the philosophical perspectives of emotions. Aristotle and other Athenians assert that emotions play an inferior role (Solomon, 1999). They base their assertion on the fact that emotion is primitive, less intelligent, inhuman, unreliable, and more risky than reason. I agree with the philosophers because when people fail to control their emotions, problems always come up. The individuals who manage to control their emotions always have a reason for doing so. This implies that individuals should be responsible for their emotions. Emotions also play a role of reason. The philosophers argue that reason is very vital in emotions since it plays a superior role. The philosophers are right when they affirm that passion must be a slave of reason. This is because it will enable the individuals to control their emotions. I agree with Solomon Robert when he asserts that sometimes people are not careful with their emotions and regard them as mere feelings of physiology. Sometimes people refer to emotions as stupidity and being inhuman (Solomon, 1999). When an individual expresses his or her feelings through anger and jealousy, for instance, he or she is regarded as inhuman. It is right to say that emotional reactions are associated with virtues of true wisdom whenever an individual has a reason for experiencing a particular feeling. When an individual offers a reason for his or her feeling, it proves that he or she is responsible for his or her emotions. It is correct to say that the philosophers who come up with the theories are human beings, who use their personal feelings to justify the theories of emotion. This is because all individuals have had an inner experience of passion. There has been a dispute between the philosophers and the psychologists in addressing the issue of emotions. According to Solomon Robert, an individual is able to experience inner emotions and passions that are usually revealed through his or her feelings, desires, sentiments, moods, and attitude (Solomon, 1999). Outward forces can also make an individual express a particular emotional reaction. This aspect is dependent on the social, ethical, cultural, and psychological factors. People display certain emotions based on the prevailing conditions; thus, they are responsible for their emotions (Solomon, 1999). Aristotle is right when he asserts that emotions engage reason. In order to express his ideas, he gave the definition of an emotion as something that causes a person to change his or her situation basing on his or her judgment and is accomplished through happiness and pain (Solomon, 1999). This is applicable to all types of emotions. In his discussion, Aristotle defined anger as anguish to take revenge on a friend or any other person due to the unfair treatment. Aristotle is right when he asserts that anger always targets a specific individual. According to Aristotle’s analysis, anger results from minor issues that might lead to ridicule, malice, or disrespect. In such incidences, it is upon the individual to ignore the issues or to seek revenge. Aristotle also gave provisions for probable minors and emphasized the ability of an individual having the desire for revenge. This enabled him to introduce the behavioral aspect in determination of emotional reactions, which is the justification of the fact that an individual is responsible for his or her emotional reactions. In his analysis of anger, he incorporates a typical cognitive element, a precise social situation, behavioral trend, and acknowledges physical stimulation. Aristotle makes a strong point when he asserts that physical or psychological anxiety such as illness, poverty, love, war, disappointment, or ingratitude might lead to anger. Solomon Robert is right when he affirms that Aristotle’s perceptions on emotions were right. The analysis is reasonable in terms of ethics. It is true that anger is a natural and proper force that people display when they are offended, which can be cultivated and aggravated by reason and expression (Solomon, 1999). 2. Martha Nussbaum approach to emotions vs. stoic approach Nussbaum considers her philosophy as being neo-stoic. According to traditional stoics, emotions are a part of the cognitive world, and there is no difference between these two. Nussbaum states that emotions are nothing more than thoughts. To prove this statement, Nussbaum defines thoughts as flexible, inclusive, dynamic, urgent and eruptive. This description of thoughts depicts the “e-motional” nature of emotions, which is the experience of being driven by something: for example, by attraction, captivation and a pull in opposing directions (Solomon, 1998). In addition, both Nussbaum and the Stoics consider appetite to be at the base of emotions, which also involves cognition. Stoics state that the same part of the soul that is responsible for rational thinking is also responsible for the irrational things that people tend to do and that are caused by appetite (Solomon, 1998). These actions tend to override reason. Nussbaum attributes this to thought and thought conflicts. What feels like a conflict between appetite and thought in real sense is a conflict between two thoughts with varying degree of specificity and generality, occurring at different levels of consciousness and with varying intensity (Solomon, 1998). Nussbaum approaches emotions as judgments about things that are of value to people. By judging the value of objects, people admit their need and incompleteness without them and their lack of control over other forces such as death. Since emotions are judgments, it means they also comprise thoughts. This is because emotions are not mysterious or directionless; they have an object. Grief, for example, could be due to the loss of a loved one. Secondly, the object of an emotion is an intentional object, meaning it has an intrinsic value to the bearer of this emotion (Solomon, 1998). Thirdly, emotions also embody beliefs about the object. In the case of death of a loved one, the grieving party believes the loss is permanent and terrible. Beliefs are important because they help distinguish different emotions. One may feel loss and sadness after the death, but it is the belief that he or she will never see his or her loved one again that helps identify the emotions as grief. Finally, the intentional perceptions and beliefs associated with emotions help judge the value of an object. The value placed on an object helps explain the varying degrees of emotions experienced by human beings (Solomon, 1998). Nussbaum explains a judgment as a response to how things appear. Individuals can judge something based on how it appears to them. Furthermore, individuals can decide to postpone their judgments. Nussbaum attributes this to reason, which determines how people will respond to the appearance and beliefs attached to the situation (Solomon, 1998). Nussbaum’s approach to emotions differs from that of Stoics. Stoics view emotions as too distractive in their quest for higher meaning. Stoics strive to suppress their emotions regardless of whether they are of hate, disgust and anger or those of generosity, love and infatuation. According to Stoics, generosity demeans both the recipients and the givers because it means they have lost their focus on attaining the higher purpose (Solomon, 1998). Nussbaum, on the other hand, is interested in the good life for both the individual and the community. To her, emotions can lead to compassion and love or away from shame and disgust. Nussbaum notes that emotional development starts from infancy. Wrong upbringing leads to feelings of disgust, shame and need to control everything in one’s environment. On the other hand, children brought up well with support and encouragements are likely to show compassion and love. Compassion to Nussbaum is a key ingredient for community life. To her, emotions should be expressed as they benefit both the individual and the community (Solomon, 1998). 4 Social intuitionist and the similarities and differences between this model and David Hume’s view on moral judgment Current research has revealed that moral judgment relies on emotions and efficient intuition more than on conscious reasoning (Greene & Haidt, 2002). Neuroanatomy of morality is very vital in judgement. In the current social intuition model, the researchers have merged their results in the automaticity and neuroscience together with the evolutionary psychology theory. The social intuition model links moral judgment to aesthetics judgment. This is displayed in the manner in which people react when they hear a particular story. The model affirms that people normally offer instant judgment to approve or disapprove a particular issue (Greene & Haidt, 2002). The feelings that people display usually affect intuition, since judgments are always fast and do not engage the consciousness of an individual. People always judge an incidence as bad or good without analyzing and carrying out appropriate research that will enable them to compare the evidence. Natural selection and cultural forces are the best approaches that can shape intuition in the matters of reciprocity, devotion, purity, and anguish. It is true that people take part in moral reasoning, but research on informal reasoning reveals that the procedure employed in support of the predetermined conclusions does not base the judgment on all the involved parties. In social issues, moral reasoning is very important because it provides a platform on which people can discuss a particular issue and come up with better conclusions (Greene & Haidt, 2002). Recent research in social psychology reveals that individuals should be able to offer fast, involuntarily valuable reactions about a particular issue. People should be able to examine others and automatically employ morally acceptable stereotypes. Individuals are encouraged to uphold good relationships and avoid coming up with hostile judgments. This boosts logical reasoning about the matter; thus, individuals can offer relevant reasons to justify actions and judgments that boost social welfare (Greene & Haidt, 2002). Social intuition model and Hume’s view on moral judgment are similar in that they are firmly against the anti-rationalist camp that proposes that moral judgment is based on reasoning. Hume argues that reasoning or logic functions to ascertain facts and the facts do not label an action as morally right or wrong. It is the feelings the action stirs in an individual that label that action as morally right or wrong. Social intuition observes that moral judgments are not based on rationalization or reflection, so it does not rely on reasoning to determine whether an action is morally right or wrong. Both Haidt and Hume state that factual data is not enough to tell individuals what they ought or ought not to do (Greene & Haidt, 2002). The two models, however, differ with regard to determinants of what is considered morally right or wrong. According to Hume, moral judgment is based on impressions. These are inputs from the five senses or emotional experiences, which help to differentiate between virtues and vices. Individuals experience their surrounding through their five senses, which in turn arouse passions or feelings inside them. These feelings in turn help to determine whether certain human traits and actions should be approved or disapproved. In Hume’s opinion, it is these passions or feelings that compel an individual to act or avoid action. In contrast, Haidt attributes moral judgment to moral intuition. Moral intuition is a sudden appearance of a moral judgment in the consciousness of an individual without any knowledge of having gone through the whole process of searching, weighing of evidence and arriving to a conclusion. A person experiences a flash of repulsion or approval in relation to an action and immediately knows that it is a good or bad thing. Haidt concludes that people have intuition that guides reactions in morally charged situations. Reasoning comes later, after the individual has understood how he or she feels in relation to the situation (Haidt, 2001). References Greene, Joshua, & Haidt, Jonathan. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 6(12), 517-523. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail:A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814-834. Retrieved from http://www.motherjones.com/files/emotional_dog_and_rational_tail.pdf Solomon, R. (1999). The Pholosophy of Emotions. In M. Lewis, J.M. Haviland-Jones, &L. Feldman Barret (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions (pp. 3-15). New York: Guilford Press. Solomon, R. C. (1998). The passions: Emotions and the meaning of life. Indianapolis [u.a.]: Hackett. Read More