Quote:
|
For example, the clash between Pearl Harbor andHiroshima and Nagasaki is a fitting example to illustrate this claim. After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the United States of America did not respond in a diplomatic manner. Rather, they officially entered World War II and launched the atomic bombings causing numerous injuries and loss of innocent lives. When emotions overpower reason, people generally react in an impulse without considering the consequences of the action beforehand. A rational explanation is obligatory instead of an emotional response in justifying a moral decision.
|
The U.S. government knew about the incoming attack on Pearl Harbor weeks before it even happened. There was no emotion overpowering the moral decision to slaughter millions. The emotion of the people was simply a tool used to go to war, just like Iraq.
Many times emotion can override a logical decision. That is why you have crimes that are "aggravated."
Quote:
|
But emotions are what makes us human.
|
That is not true. Animals feel emotions. They may feel a more primitive form, but it's the same fear/love concepts.
Quote:
|
Anyway. Looking at it at another angle, emotions are what helps us make morally right decisions. eg- You want to kill someone. But your concience says no its not right because you will make other people sad. or you would feel guilty, etcetc. entersobstoryhere.
|
Wrong. You're taking into account that everyone has a conscience, when they do not. You're assuming that everyone is a caring little individual. For some, guilt is only the fear of being caught/suffering the consequences. :P
What I do not understand is why you didn't include the subconscious' role in decision making and how it effects the person individually. Morals/emotions are products of the subconscious.
People do not share the same morals, nor do they share the same "right or wrong's." For example; while I believe that disabled, mentally unstable, handicapped, and any other sort of diseased human should not be allowed to breed, you probably would disagree with me and call me inhumane. I can use my beliefs about how it's right, and you could use yours against me about how it's wrong.
Morals are nothing more than opinions. There is no right or wrong, only perceptions.
There are two distinct types of people in this world when it concerns morals:
The first are the people who belief their morals, and live their life based upon them. The majority of the world are these people. They believe things simply because their pastor/priest said they're supposed to. They believe 9-11 was a terrorist attack simply because the media said so. The strongest rooted form of control is allowing a person to think that they are in control, when they're not. They are sheep; nothing more.
The second are the people who understand the concept of moralities, and their application in the modern world. They realize how much power can come from instilling "morals" upon people. These are normally your "leaders" and authority figures. Religious heads play into this category quite a bit. These are the ones whom initiated the crusades, and many other wars in history. "Why go to war? Because God wills it!" "It's wrong/evil if you think differently than us/question us!"
My point is that there is no such thing as real morals. They're chains that bind a person. They keep you subtle, suppressed, and content. Society outcasts the ones whom have different morals. "If you don't think this way, you're against the majority, you're wrong!" Yet in most cases, history has proven that the majority = ridiculously stupid. Morals are opinions, and justifications when there is no other real reason.
