Are Emotion and Reason Equally Necessary in Justifying Moral Decisions Essay

In analyzing human behavior and human thought processes it can be said that reason and emotions are always present in each major decision. There is no human being, even the most morally upright or the most unbiased observer can make crucial moral decisions without having to have felt the power of reason and the equally powerful emotions in his mind and body. If Emotion and Reason are taken together and if the proponent of this paper will not be given the freedom to choose one from the other then the answer to the query is no. There is no need to have the combined benefit of emotion and reason to justify a moral decision. But if allowed a free hand one should insist that Reason is necessary in justifying moral decisions. This paper will look into the implications of using Emotion and Reason in matters regarding moral decisions. This will be done by finding out what is the meaning of emotions and reason in the world of epistemology. But even before that there is a need to have a review of epistemology the theories on how human beings acquire knowledge. Background Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that deals with how man attains knowledge. For many the getting of knowledge from reading, observing the external environment and by doing experiments can be taken for granted. But for philosophers it is not simply about getting data and then having the ability to describe what was observed and inferred afterwards. Philosophers are persistent that man knows the exact process and if there is none then one should suspect if there is actual learning that occurred after all. With this in mind it is time to introduce two diverging schools of thought when it comes to epistemology and how man exactly acquires knowledge. The first group of philosophers believes that human beings can get knowledge using pure reason. It is the use of the rationale mind, to think using logic to deduce and infer from what can be observed. It is easy to say â€Å"reason† but it is difficult to explain the actual processes of how man looks at the different pieces of the puzzle and then be able to see the whole picture and finds a pattern or connection. Reason is the man’s secret weapon and allows him to reign supreme in this planet. There is no other creature that can use the harness the awesome power of reason in the same way as a human being. A good example is on how man can deduce that certain plants are edible while others are lethal. It is common knowledge that man learns to distinguish between a tasty snack and a vine of poison by observing animals around him. This is probably the same technique used to discover that the seeds hidden behind the coffee pod are not only edible but also a source of one heavenly drink. Without the ability to reason it would have been impossible for man to realize that there is something in that coffee pod after observing the goat or maybe birds taking a liking for the sweet fruit. Another example of reason is in finding a pattern and consistency in natural occurrences such as typhoons, fruiting seasons, gestation period etc. Using reason man was able to build a system where he can begin to tame nature and enjoy her benefits. He can plant and expect harvest. He can build shelter and expect to be protected by an upcoming storm. Man can also reproduce his kind and even multiply his flocks knowing pretty well that there are certain laws in nature that he can rely upon and all these are possible by unleashing the power of reason. Diverging Stream Another school of thought when it comes to the acquirement of knowledge is called empiricism. The empiricists believe that it gaining knowledge through reason alone is suspect. They argue that reason can be influenced by many factors and they conclude that biases and prejudices can interfere in the process. This is understandable because for thousands of years man has postulated about something and made predictions about the future only to be made a fool at the end. This is because reason has its limits. It is at this point that that man is advised not to jump to conclusions. Empiricists will assert that accurate knowledge is only possible if man avails of his senses. The eyes to use to see and measure; the hands used to grasp and determine shape; the ears to hear and determine sound; the nose for determining smells; and the tongue for taste. Emotions are feelings and better yet it is a reaction that a person can observe after the body and the mind – or the heart – is exposed to certain external factors. For example, a mother sees her baby crying because she had not eaten the whole day. The mother has no money to buy milk and she too begins to cry. Her emotion – can be labeled as sadness – tells her that her mind and body does not agree to the image that she saw which is her poor baby experiencing acute hunger. There is another view of emotions which can be very helpful in this study. There are those who assert that emotions are not only act as messengers that tell a person whether something good or bad has occurred but they can be feelings that propels a person to do what is right even when faced with great odds. Jaggar remarked that, â€Å"†¦it is appropriate to feel joy when we are developing or exercising our creative powers, and it is appropriate to feel anger and perhaps disgust in those situations where humans are denied their full creativity or freedom† (1996, p. 82). A good example of such an occurrence was again given by Jaggar who wrote, â€Å"Certain emotions may be both morally appropriate and epistemologically advantageous in approaching nonhuman and even the inanimate world Jane Goodall’s scientific contribution to our understanding of chimpanzee behavior seems to have been made possible only by her amazing empathy with or even love for these animals† (1996, p. 182). To those who are familiar with Goodall’s case will admire her courage and determination considering that she had to travel to Africa and be removed from the comforts and security of Western society and be immersed in a hostile environment, not with humans but with wild animals. It is a good instance of how emotions guided someone to do something heroic. It is easy to understand what emotions can do to lift ordinary humans to strive for things that exceed his grasp. Emotions can fire-up a person and allow him to go where no one has gone before. The history of the United States is replete with examples where tough moral decisions were justified with the cry for freedom and equality. But there is also a counter-argument that emotions are not needed to do justify moral decisions. Reason alone should be enough to move a person to do what is right. This is because emotions can be subjective. And there is no need to furnish volumes of scientific material to prove that point. Emotions can even be counter-productive when used to analyze tough moral decisions as evidenced from the results of a new study published in Newsweek. According to Wray Herbert – writing for Newsweek (2008): A large and growing number of psychologists now argue that a welter of prejudices are simmering just below the surface of society: prejudices against many ethnic groups, against women, gays, the elderly, and outsiders like the homeless and drug addicts. The big question is whether these unconscious animosities are potent enough to actually shape our actions, to make us do things we ourselves find shameful. A new study suggests that, unhappily, the answer is yes. Conclusion The question whether emotion and reason are equally necessary to justify moral decisions is a double-headed query that should have been simplified by separating emotion and reason; rephrasing it in two separate questions: 1) Is emotion necessary to justify moral decisions and 2) Is reason necessary to justify moral decisions. If this is possible then the proponent of this study will say no to the first and then say yes to the second question. But since the main topic used the phrase equally necessary then the answer is no meaning there is no need to bring both emotion and reason to the process of analysis of the problem and ultimately giving the justification for a moral decision. To clarify what is meant by using emotion in the decision process, one has to revisit the example of Jane Goodall and his work with endangered species, it was her strong feelings of emotions, specifically empathy that allowed her to do so much. Using this understanding of emotion the proponent still cannot endorse the use of emotion to judge a moral case because even with strong emotions one can still be mistaken. An excellent example would be the events that transpired in Germany in World War II. The residents of this nation enthusiastically embraced the idea given by Hitler that Jews deserve nothing but death and suffering. The majority agreed or at least the Nazis agreed that this is fact, even truth and they are responsible for the death of 6 million Jews. If one will go to Germany today and present the same ideas to present day Germans they will surely not react with the same fervor as they did in the time of Hitler but they will recoil in horror. This is a clear example of the subjectivity of emotions and therefore not needed to analyze tough moral issues.