Are Reason and Emotion Equally Necessary in Justifying Moral Decissions - Literature review Example

According to the history of philosophy, emotions have been given three different positions. Some philosophers like Stoics deny that emotions have anymoral worth while some others feel that emotions like compassion and sympathy are conducive to moral conscious and behavior. Aristotle belongs to their category of philosophers who believe that emotions are essential to the right degree at the right time (De Sousa, 1999). Good and bad emotions cannot be segregated as good or bad and every emotion has an intrinsic importance in human life. Thus, in justifying moral decisions, reason and emotions are equally necessary. According to philosopher David Hume, moral decisions involve emotions and not reason (Fieser, 2006). Any amount of reasoning cannot help in taking the moral decision. A distinctly emotional reaction is necessary to make a moral decision. Immanuel Kant argued that emotional factors influence human conduct which sharira be resisted. According to him, moral act should be based on reason alone and not be influenced by desires and emotions (Fieser, 2006). For instance, the decision of stealing someone’s car is proved to be wrong as it is justified through reason and emotion. It would upset the owner of the car and lead to feelings of guilt for the thief. Besides, as far as reasons are concerned, it violates the rights of the owner of the car, and also pose a risk for the thief as he is likely to be caught and punished. Thus, the emotion has been supported by reason before the decision not to steal takes place. Reasons might just highlight the relevant data but without emotions no decisions are justified. For instance, making a statement like “abortion is morally wrong” is an expression of one’s feelings and emotions but it has to be backed by reason to justify that abortion is wrong. Abortion is a personal, life-changing and traumatic decision that every woman has to make and depends on several factors since pregnancy can be voluntary or involuntary. Pichler (2002) quotes abortion is eleven times safer than carrying a pregnancy to term and nearly twice as safe as a penicillin injection (AGI, 2005; Rock & Jones, 2003; Paul et al., 1999; Gold, 1990). Parenthood has to be planned because unwanted childbearing affects the entire family. Mothers with unwanted births suffer from higher levels of depression and lower levels of happiness than mothers with wanted births. Emotions have an intimate connection with how we behave and we also have mixed emotions (Foulds, 2006). They keep changing and are inconsistent. It is then that reasoning helps to take the right moral decision. Under the circumstances, “abortion is morally wrong” is merely an emotional statement. When supported by reasoning, the moral decision can be reversed in favor of the people concerned. According to Mill (1863) Happiness is the sole end of human action. Happiness is also an emotion and anything that gives happiness has instrumental value. Happiness is supposed to be good and unhappiness evil. Hence the right thing is to promote happiness. A moral decision is one that produces positive results and makes the world a better place. Hence, unless the emotions are combined with reason, the right moral decision would not be taken. Emotions are valuable because they show that we care in not only in how people behave but also about how they feel (Foulds, 2006). Emotional experiences are pleasurable sensations and give satisfaction to human beings. Again, failure to impose capital punishment is considered morally wrong. The emotions that come up, when the issue of capital punishment arises are revenge and anger. Niven (2002) cites researchers who find that views on death penalty reflect on anger over declining morality and is therefore not a concrete response to a concrete problem. This amounts to revenge and revenge according to Byron (2002) is the activity of returning harm for harm and usually takes a particular person or a group as the object. Secondly, revenge is swift and motivated by anger or fury and people have an inclination to take law into their hands. Hence, emotions cannot be the only ground on which the punishment can or should be based. When the reasons for capital punishment are considered, the decision is justified. First of all there is evidence that death penalty leads to deterrence as it has been proved that each execution prevents eighteen murders on an average (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2005). Reasoning would lead one to believe that retribution would be the right punishment for crime. Only an emotional decision based on revenge would be more of a personal attack but retribution is for the good of the society and ideally proportional to the crime. Deterrence and concern for the feelings of the victims’ family are other reasons that support capital punishment which have to be given due consideration and without retribution, none of these is possible. Thus, reason and emotion are equally necessary in justifying moral decisions. Foulds (2006) further clarifies that emotions take into account various factors or settings like the subject or the person, the physical context, the cultural context. The object, the feeling and leads to psychological changes that take place. Thus emotions are experiences and future perceptions are based on these perceptions. Hence it is not pure feeling but decisions are backed by reason due to past experiences. Only emotional decisions can be wrong just as decisions based on reason alone would neglect the human factor or the psychological impact that decisions can have. Nevertheless, emotions can be irrational, unreasonable and inappropriate when people decide based on their objective experiences. At the same time, reason alone cannot compel us to take moral decisions. Reasons would always give importance to self-interest (Halliday, 2003). We have to be concerned about feelings and sufferings of others before reaching a decision. As in the case of debatable issues like abortion and capital punishment, decisions based on merely emotion or just reason would not be in the larger interest of the society. This is what makes both emotion and reason equally important in justifying moral decisions. References: Byron, M., (2000), Why my opinion shouldnt count: Revenge, Retribution, and the Death Penalty Debate, Journal of Social Philosophy, Vo. 31 No. 3 pp. 307-315 De Sousa, R., (1999), Moral Emotions, 18 Dec 2007 Fieser, J., (2006), Ethics, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 18 Dec 2007 Foulds, S., (2006), A PHILOSOPHY of the EMOTIONS, 18 Dec 2007 Halliday, R., (2003), Enforceable Rights A Libertarian Theory of Justice, Ch 2 Why should we care about justice? 18 Dec 2007 Mill J S (1863), UTILITARIANISM, What Utilitarianism Is Niven, D., (2002), Bolstering an Illusory majority: The effects of the medias portrayal of death Penalty support, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 83, No. 3 Pichler S (2002), edical and Social Health Benefits Since Abortion Was Made Legal in the U.S. < http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact- abortion-medical-social-benefits.xml> 18 Dec 2007 Sunstein, C. R., & Vermeule, A., (2005), Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life‐Life Tradeoffs, 18 Dec 2007 Read More