Emotion and Logic - Inseparable Halves Of Moral Decisions - Essay Example

 Emotion and Logic - Inseparable Halves Moral Decisions Introduction Many people hold that Man’s sense of morality is one of the features in which he is most distinctly different from his apish ancestors. However, ‘morality’ itself is subject to change and may differ according to the place, time period, religious, educational, and economical background of the person. Broadly speaking, the term may be explained as a set of codes or rules and regulations that stipulate the behavior and interpret actions of a person in a given social situation (MacDonald, 1). More importantly, morality defines what is to be lauded as virtue and what is to be rejected as vice. However, unanimous agreement is not possible in all cases or at all times. Herein one understands the significance of ‘moral decision-making’. Moral-decision making can be said as a rather complicated affair, that “involves sensitivity to the moral dimensions of everyday situations, and an awareness of the range of interests involved in specific decisions” (MacDonald, 1). Moral decisions, as can be understood from the above, essentially involve two things; namely, 1) emotional understanding and 2) sound reason or logical explanation, emotion and reason roughly correspond to the first and second half of the above stated process. Naturally, the question arises as to whether the two are equally important? This essay shall briefly explain the meanings of the terms ‘emotion’ and ‘reason,’ ‘moral-relativism’ and the ‘self-interest’ theory, the positives and the negatives of emotion and reason in their roles in moral decision-making. It shall argue that, both are necessary in equal proportions to arrive at morally right decisions. ‘Emotion’ and ‘Moral Relativism’ ‘Emotions’ can be described as underlying feelings that are spontaneous and subjective (Mencl, 4). However, there is a difference between emotions and mere sensations. Jon Elster observes the latter as “the hedonic satisfaction produced by the senses, such as the taste of sweetness on the tongue;” furthermore, they cannot be called emotions since ‘emotions’ require “prior cognition” to be produced (p. 1386). Given that emotions are ‘subjective,’ it is composed of two factors namely - the particular situation and the concerned individual’s view of the situation; and this can impact not only the individual’s life, but also the life of others (Mencl, 4). Some excessive emotions, like jealousy, anger, and so on, however, have “negative valence” (Elster, 1388). The negative emotions have the potential to wreck and ruin lives, just as positive emotions have the power to save, sustain and elevate human beings to unprecedented limits. The sudden greed of Macbeth and the vulture-like patience of Shylock explicate the destructive potential of emotion through literature. And as stated earlier, too much emotion tends to obliterate reason or logic, thereby leading to skewed moral values. For example, numerous instances from the Bible explain how the hatred for Jesus Christ by the Jewish priests prevented them from seeing His good deeds, like curing the ill, feeding the needy, and made them ultimately demand His Death on the Cross. There is yet another important point to consider in the role of ‘emotion’ in moral decision-making. It is called ‘moral relativism.’ According to some thinkers ‘moral relativism’ is “a type of subjectivism” (Greg Koukl, 1), that is very personal and subjective. Pertinently, “Moral relativism teaches that when it comes to morals, that which is ethically right or wrong, people do their own thing” since it depends entirely depends on the group that uphold these values. Since Moral Relativism does not insist on any set of universal codes of behavior for everyone, each one may decide on a different course of action, depending on his/her moral values, given a typical situation, and everyone of them would still be morally right, according to his/her values. Honor killing in the UK of Islamic, and Sikh girls who chose to marry out of their own religion, can be cited as good examples of this concept. Then, are emotions really worthy of becoming the basis of moral judgments? Yes, indeed; because, some emotions, like love, compassion, loyalty, and mercy are generally perceived positively. For example, it was the emotional speech of loyal Mark Antony, that made the mob arise against the brutal murder of Julius Caesar in the history of Rome. But for the brave and patriotic emotions of many a man in North America, freedom from the British may not have fructified. Though positive features of emotions have long been underestimated recent research in philosophy and neuroscience from Princeton has revealed some interesting new theories, very pertinent to this analysis. With the aid of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), researchers at Princeton discovered the mechanisms of the human brain and what is called ‘mind’ to differentiate between individual cases, by mapping the brain activity in individuals when they are asked to think about issues involving moral decisions and dilemmas (Schultz, 1). Research studies done on persons with damaged ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC) - a small part of the brain that controls emotions - at the University of Southern California, Harvard University, Caltech and the University of Iowa, have demonstrated that if “certain emotions are blocked, we make decisions that -- right or wrong -- seem unnaturally cold” (Science Daily, 1). It has been proved that emotions facilitate reasoning, and it acts on human beings to affect “biological, cognitive, social, physiological, neurological, psychological, cultural perspectives” (Mencl, 5) as we take in information and work on it unconsciously. ‘Rationality’ and ‘Self-Interest’ Theory The term ‘Rationalism’ means 'reason' - is a concept that has ‘reason’ or ‘logic’ as the principle basis “of understanding the world and obtaining knowledge” (Southwell, 2). It is especially associated Renaissance philosopher René Descartes. Some important features of rationalist thinking are that, 1) “there are certain principles or ideas that form the basis of our understanding of the world. We do not create them; they already exist” (Southwell, 1); 2) Innate ideas are “ideas are present from birth” and they “can theoretically be discovered”; 3) Logical Necessity or those things that “cannot be conceived of as otherwise” (Southwell, 3). Furthermore, logic is explained as “a set of propositions (in particular, axioms) is said to be consistent if there is some totality of circumstances ("a possible world") with respect to which every member of the set of propositions is true” (Karavaev, 1). The negatives of rational thinking, according to some people is that, the decisions taken on the basis of rationality tend to be made on cold calculations to give the maximum possible benefit, which may not necessarily be for the common good. The concept or logic or reason merely takes into consideration all the possibilities and probabilities and arrives at the best possible option in a given situation; while such solutions may work well in the realm of mathematics and commerce, the same cannot be said when it comes to realm of human resource and relations. This is because human resources involve dealing with human beings their individual beliefs and potential, which includes their emotional aspirations and well-being. Because of this, some thinkers have proposed that pure logical truth in the fields “such as understanding the nature of justice and of morality, it has been greatly misleading” (Hampshire 1). For example, a healthy person is a strong person; ill-health denotes a weak person; by eliminating weak people, ill-health can be eliminated. Even though good health is a worthy goal, and it is arguably done for the good of the society, it is still morally unacceptable, since this solution does not take into consideration the value of human life itself. The rampant disrespect and devaluation of human life in Nazi Germany under Hitler is a striking example of what logical experimentation devoid of human value, emotion or empathy can do to the world. Decisions taken on the basis of pure rationality, especially in the realm of commerce and economics, is sometimes perceived as selfish; the underlying idea is the ‘self-interest’ theory disputed by Michael Brennan (cited in Jensen pp 1-15); it can be understood as that theory which holds that natural logical reasoning expects human beings make self interest their most important rational concern. Furthermore, according to the self-interest theory, it is imperative that man ensures that the passage of human life proceeds smoothly. And therefore, every individual should make his/her own well-being the foremost priority. Brennan refutes this theory, stating that it is “mistaken notion that rationality is identical with self-interest” (p.39) since there are many examples indicate that human beings indeed had the potential to rise “above our own narrow self-interest, and we are more likely to do so the greater is our responsibility for the welfare of others” (p.37). This is pertinent because, it highlights the positive side of rationality in moral decision making. By applying rational thinking within the broad framework of emotions, balancing both to attain the, to arrive at moral decisions one can maximize the emotional well-being individually, and meet the general collective aspirations of the society. Positive examples of rational thinking abound in the field of science; Isaac Newton’s rationalizing the fall of an apple to the ground, led to the discovery of the Laws of Gravitation. It is the logical analysis of Copernicus that led him to propose that Sun was at the center of the Solar System with the heavenly bodies circling it (Southwell in Philosophyonline, 1). Conclusion Having studied the positives and the negatives of both emotion and reason in the process of moral decision-making, it seems vividly clear that is important to balance both, equally and proportionately, in order to arrive at a widely acceptable solution, that at least in part, fulfills both the aspirations of the individual and achieve the collective moral goals of the human society. For example, it may be deemed righteous to allow genetic engineering to overcome diseases like hemophilia and parents who wish to prevent their future child from suffering with the possibility of such diseases should be given all encouragement; however, ordering ‘tail-made’ babies that suit the height, sex, skin-color, hair and eye-color, texture and intellectual prowess, fanciful demands of people appears immoral, though perfectly rational, since it is not dissimilar to the Nazi experimentation with eugenics. In summation, it is imperative to note that morality is essentially social in nature and both emotion and reason should be explored with due consideration of fulfilling the society’s common good, and the individual’s aspirations, without harm to the other. List of works cited. Brennan, Michael. “Incentives, Rationality, and Society.” Journal of Applied Corporate Finance (September, 1994). Elster, Jon (1996), “Rationality and the Emotions” in The Economic Journal, 106 (438): 1386- 1397. http://www.geocities.com/hmelberg/elster/AR96RATE.HTM Hampshire, Stuart. Justice Is Conflict. Princeton University Press 1999. Online version retrieved November 15, 2007. http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s6721.html Jensen, C. Michael. “SELF-INTEREST, ALTRUISM, INCENTIVES, & AGENCY THEORY” Harvard Business School. Online article retrieved November 15, 2007. http://www.business.uiuc.edu/~shelley1/Readings/Self-Interest.pdf Karavaev, E. F. “Logic and Moral Dilemmas” in Logic and Philosophy of Logic Online article retrieved November 15, 2007. http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Logi/LogiKara.htm Koukl, Greg. “What Is Moral Relativism?” Online article retrieved November 15, 2007. http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=229 MacDonald, Chris. “Moral Decision Making -- An Analysis” Online article, Webpage Revised June 6, 2002. Retrieved November 15, 2007. http://www.ethicsweb.ca/guide/moral-decision.html Mencl, Jennifer. “Moral Emotions & Ethical Decision-Making: A Socio-Cultural Approach” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University March 10, 2007. Online article retrieved November 15, 2007. http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/business/conference/2007/presentations/ JenniferMencl.pdf Schultz. Steven. “What drives moral decision-making?” in Princeton Weekly Bulletin dated October 22, 2001, Vol. 91, No 7. Online article retrieved November 15, 2007. http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/1022/ ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2007/03/070321181940.htm Southwell, Gareth. “Rationalism- Theory of Knowledge” in Philosophy Online Retrieved November 15, 2007. http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/tok/rationalism1.htm http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/tok/tokhome.htm http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/tok/rationalism1.htm http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/tok/rationalism2.htm http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/tok/rationalism3.htm http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/tok/rationalism4.htm Read More