Are reason & emotion equally necessary in justifying moral decision?

[oneone]

A moral decision involves the distinction between right and wrong.

Are reason & emotion equally necessary in justifying moral decision?

Senses and mind work together. Senses make us aware while reason determines how we conceptualize what we perceive. Although senses and reason coexist in one’s being, emotions tend to transcend reason when it is not controlled. It is likely that self-interest will overpower rationalism in justifying a moral decision because of the nature of humans.

That is why I think that only reason is necessary in justifying moral decisions because emotions put limits on knowledge and society becomes corrupt if everyone practices self-interest.

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.

[Theebomb1080]

Yes. I think that it is necessary.

[anth(t)ony]

emotions can change the way you think moraly they can turn you towards the side where you make the wrong choices but they can also make you choose the good choices

[Fwoosh]

But emotions are what makes us human.



...Like we all havent heard that one already ):


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.

[oneone]

Originally Posted by Fwoosh

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.

On the other hand, what if your anger overpowers your reasoning and you decide to murder? However, with reasoning alone, you will not make this mistake.

[Fewmitz]

Your title is contradicting in of itself.

The only thing that matters is rationale. Morals, ethics, and emotion are irrelevant. Logic does not justify moral decisions because morality is not logical.

[Sejiru]

Reasoning could dictate the death of one could save many or the it's only fair to have a death penalty because it alleviates the tax payers burden of paying for their prison sentence when their the ones who are prison and committed a sin. The fact of the matter is what's Morally right isn't always whats the most logical now is it? With cold reasoning it's a waste to send resources to Africa and third world countries in need of supplies because we may come upon hard times ourselves and best to prepare and fortify ourselves and let others die. Being a Moral Relativist I find it incomprehensible to use a system of Moral Absolutism because it downs good and evil down to a name and laws. Good and Evil is merely human words in my opinion for justifying the things they see around them but I believe there is no set moral code which we all universally know deep down and use to dictate our actions. Therefore in my humble opinion reason and emotion ARE the moral decision because your emotions dictate your sense of justice and reason dictates your course of action in a logical being. Humans not being logical leads to attroticities like the Holocaust still mind you however we all here can agree that it was a horrible act I do not think it was some universally evil deed I certainly find it an irreprehensible act and even Hitler was often disgusted with what he had set forth to do according to details and conjecture so it would seem natural though that others could feel he was in the right. Take the Nazi youth program to young to form their own vision of what is right and wrong they get tainted by influence and start to actually believe what they're told about others and formulate the "moral decision" that the world needs a purging.

Therefore I believe moral decision's are based on reason and emotion equally for there is no set moral code in my beliefs.

EDIT: I was waiting for someone to correct Few themselves but I'll do the honors. Few justifying a moral decision requires logic to see if it was a good decision or not if you judged a moral decision on only emotion then every decision you choose would be morally right meaning nothing you ever do contradicts your beliefs because nothing backs them up and they become superfluous to the extent that you may as well have never felt conviction in any action in the first place.

[oneone]

Originally Posted by Fewmitz

Your title is contradicting in of itself.

Isn't this what makes philosophy fun?

Originally Posted by Sejiru

Reasoning could dictate the death of one could save many or the it's only fair to have a death penalty because it alleviates the tax payers burden of paying for their prison sentence when their the ones who are prison and committed a sin.

Speaking of death penalty, it actually costs more to go through with the whole process than it is to have a life imprisonment. So rather than eliminating the burden it holds on the citizens, I think death penalty will actually increase it because of its cost. And this is a fact that I learnt although I don't have the sources at the moment.

[Sejiru]

That's why I don't believe in peaceful means, it'd be cheap just to gas them all at once. But no we let them sit in cells for fifteen years then we give them an extravagant last meal and then we shock them with electricity or give them a painless injection. It's disgusting really how leniant we are in the death penalty when you just gave a horrible being a way out of punishment.

[KaosKinesis]

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."

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.

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.