Curse

death fuzzy · Oct 24, 2006, 03:49 AM // 03:49

As the title says: Are reason and emotion equally necessary in justifying moral decisions?"

What do you think of this?
Me personally, I feel that reason and emotion are equally necessary.
This is for an essay I have to write, and I would be grateful of you people out there could share some ideas.

Lady Alizybetra · Oct 24, 2006, 07:43 AM // 07:43

I've been bouncing this question in my head for a while since I had read this post. IMO...

Emotion has nothing to do with reason in justifying a moral decision.

I will explain...

Emotions can put you in a mental state that doesn't allow for a logical decision on demand...Your mind feels that it could possibly be a moral decision when the height of the emotion is at it's peak.

Reason is needed to make a logical decision. Have you ever tried to make a logical decision when you were upset? For me it doesn't work very well.

I believe that once you start mixing emotion with reason...the outcome is bad...in my experience.

Once I have calmed down and start processing the information being given to me, I am more stable to give a more 'correct' response.

Look at attorneys (depending on your views of lawyers...this may/may not be a good example =/). Emotions are never used in the court system. Do you ever really see a judge 'let someone go' because they feel bad for that person? No, you commit a crime you pay for it....the lawyers don't use emotion when they are defending or prosecuting. They use ethics and logic. I don't particularly like defense attorneys.....

I don't know if this helps...but I like this topic...opened up my mind a little more.... thanks

Windjammer · Oct 24, 2006, 09:06 PM // 21:06

Logic and reason are not pure. they do not exist in a vacuum and cannot develop independently of other behavioral and social factors. You must therefore synthesize logic with emotion when you approach a moral decision. By doing this you recognize that both logic and emotion play a part in everything and put yourself in a postion to configure them into a more robust moral decision then if you were to use either one alone.

Mars Dragonblade · Oct 24, 2006, 11:30 PM // 23:30

A tip for your essay: grammar checks will earn you a better grade on it. It's "write", not "right"

.
As for the answer, it's been pretty much summed up perfectly above by Lady Alizybetra, because from personal experience I can also say I agree with her.

death fuzzy · Oct 25, 2006, 12:06 AM // 00:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars Dragonblade

A tip for your essay: grammar checks will earn you a better grade on it. It's "write", not "right"

.
As for the answer, it's been pretty much summed up perfectly above by Lady Alizybetra, because from personal experience I can also say I agree with her.

I dont need you to tell me to do a grammar check on my essay. Everyone makes mistakes, and its not like my forum post is being marked.

As for your opinion, it would have been better if you gave some example as to why you agree with her, and not just actually say it.

Redfeather1975 · Oct 25, 2006, 03:41 AM // 03:41

I believe that only an altruistic mindset can justify an actions morality, regardless of whether the action was driven through emotion or reason.
It's possible to feel what is the right thing to do without knowing why. If those feelings are for the 'welfare of others' and not egocentric in nature, they can't be ignored when questioning the morality of a decision.
Not all emotional responses are instinctual in nature. Many are intuitive, they are developed through the accumulation of experience throughout our lives. All that experience is not easily studied in the blink of an eye when an action is to be weighed. That's why our brains use shortcuts to create an intuitive sense to help guide us. If that intuition is truly altruisitc in nature, it should still be considered a proper justification.
Boy, that sounded corny near the end.

Malice Black · Oct 25, 2006, 01:34 PM // 13:34

Emotions are the downfall of proper reasoning. Further detail? nooo do your homework yourself

Redfeather1975 · Oct 26, 2006, 04:46 AM // 04:46

I can't help but think that's not very practical to assume that emotion is not necessary.
The world doesn't stop and let you take your time in deciding whether something should be done this way or that. It's not uncommon for someone to act purely on emotion, when the moment demands it.

The topic is not about what is ideal, it's about what is necessary.
As with just about everything, it's all situational. We can't generalize.

Lasareth · Oct 26, 2006, 05:26 AM // 05:26

Keep in mind that this is in reference to moral judgement. If killing 5 people saved 6 people with equal abilities, you'd be forced to conclude through reason that killing those 5 people is the proper course of action. That doesn't mean it's morally right, though.

death fuzzy · Oct 26, 2006, 05:43 AM // 05:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasareth

Keep in mind that this is in reference to moral judgement. If killing 5 people saved 6 people with equal abilities, you'd be forced to conclude through reason that killing those 5 people is the proper course of action. That doesn't mean it's morally right, though.

and this brings in the theory of utilitarianism.
in other words. "the end justifies the means"

of course, a person with a normal frame of mind way view killing in general to be immoral.
It all depends on the belief of the person.

Windjammer · Oct 26, 2006, 05:51 AM // 05:51

I agree with redfeather. further their is no reason to make a distinction between reason and emotion. They are both part of an indistinct, seamless web of consciousness. Treating the two concepts as discrete and seperate parts of the same consciousness is a common hueristic used to help us cope with everyday life. A simpler model is to think of any mental action/state, including what we label 'reasoning' and any number of 'emotions', as a certain networking of the.... ummmm... 'actors' within our consciousness (what actors are in our consciousness is a whole other can of worms). With this model the problem of pure reason or pure emotion is solved. We cannot have pure reason, no matter what some emotion will be a part of any reasoning we may do (according to sociologists and philosophers of knowledge, not even mathematical reasoning is safe from emotion). Similarly, no matter how 'emotional' someone may be, 'actors' with qualities we call reason will have some influence on their actions. And though within the context of a situation a persons actions may seem to contain no reason to others, to that person the reasoning may be crystal clear.

Umm. oh crap, I don't think I've answered your question at all. sorry.
Tell your teacher that reason and emotion are simple minded concepts used by people that watch Oprah Winfry and the slew of other daytime talk shows, so therefore to talk about the role of reason and emotion in the 'justification of moral decisions' is pointless. Mention to your teacher that the justification of a moral decision depends entirely on your philisophical.... umm... paradigm. A moral decision may be the 'correct' one according to a utilitarian philosophy (greatest good for the greatest number) while being a moral infringement to a Kantian philosophy (ones duty). Also, think about culture. A 'moral' decision in one culture may be an immoral one in another. But notice, im making distinctions here, between philosophies and between cultures, so I'm in the same danger that someone making a distinction between reason and emotion is in. The danger of falling into relativism. The solution? Hell I don't want to think about this anymore. So im going to wrap it up here, I promise. I'm no expert, but I think both Utilitarinism and Kantianism are rather dated, long since replaced with the smoother concepts of Exitentialism. And I think Exitentialism is a lot about the inseperatibility of reason and emotion; especially with philosophers like Nietzche who believed there was no escape from emotion. So in conclusion, your instructor probably likes to watch daytime television.

ta da!

Redfeather1975 · Oct 26, 2006, 07:04 AM // 07:04

I'm going off topic here, but I have to know something.
Windjammer, have you ever played Silent Hill:The Room?
I have a feeling you would enjoy that title quite a bit.

Windjammer · Oct 26, 2006, 03:36 PM // 15:36

never played silent hill. interactive fiction games just don't appeal to me.

Redfeather1975 · Oct 27, 2006, 02:09 AM // 02:09

I just got an impression that you were familiar with Jung's stuff.
I felt that you'd really enjoy a game like The Room as it's one of those stories where every element within takes on a whole new meaning if evaluated from outside the box.
It's one of my favourite single player game stories.

death fuzzy · Oct 27, 2006, 05:06 AM // 05:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redfeather1975

I just got an impression that you were familiar with Jung's stuff.
I felt that you'd really enjoy a game like The Room as it's one of those stories where every element within takes on a whole new meaning if evaluated from outside the box.
It's one of my favourite single player game stories.

keep this thread on topic...i didnt bother singling you out last time, but if you want to conversate with windjammer, do it over PMs, not on this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Windjammer

Umm. oh crap, I don't think I've answered your question at all. sorry.
Tell your teacher that reason and emotion are simple minded concepts used by people that watch Oprah Winfry and the slew of other daytime talk shows, so therefore to talk about the role of reason and emotion in the 'justification of moral decisions' is pointless. Mention to your teacher that the justification of a moral decision depends entirely on your philisophical.... umm... paradigm. A moral decision may be the 'correct' one according to a utilitarian philosophy (greatest good for the greatest number) while being a moral infringement to a Kantian philosophy (ones duty). Also, think about culture. A 'moral' decision in one culture may be an immoral one in another. But notice, im making distinctions here, between philosophies and between cultures, so I'm in the same danger that someone making a distinction between reason and emotion is in. The danger of falling into relativism. The solution? Hell I don't want to think about this anymore. So im going to wrap it up here, I promise. I'm no expert, but I think both Utilitarinism and Kantianism are rather dated, long since replaced with the smoother concepts of Exitentialism. And I think Exitentialism is a lot about the inseperatibility of reason and emotion; especially with philosophers like Nietzche who believed there was no escape from emotion. So in conclusion, your instructor probably likes to watch daytime television.

ta da!

I thank you for your opinion, I loved how you explained your opinion on the Utilitarianism, Kantianism and Existentialism theories.
I previously dug up some information up on Utilitarianism, and i plan to do a bit more research, this time on existentialism.
From what I have researched so far though, the way i perceive this theory is that emotion has a greater standing in their beliefs than reason. Which is pretty close to opposite from the beliefs of utilitarianism.

Care to disagree?

Sidra · Oct 28, 2006, 01:47 AM // 01:47

I think I shall point you to the writings of Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism, which I think is an interesting and unexpected viewpoint that could also possibly answer parts of your question. Not that I agree with her on every point, but she makes some very interesting observations and statements.

edit: grammar. i wrote "questin" for god's sake.

death fuzzy · Oct 28, 2006, 02:53 AM // 02:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidra

I think I shall point you to the writings of Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism, which I think is an interesting and unexpected viewpoint that could also possibly answer parts of your questin. Not that I agree with her on every point, but she makes some very interesting observations and statements.

thanks for the recommendation, im looking into her right now.