Gap between reason and emotion
Are reason and emotion equally necessary in justifying moral decision? Moral decision is the principle of concerning right and wrong or good or bad behavior. “Morality is one of those basic aspects of humanity, like sexuality and easting, that cant fit into one or two academic fields” (Jonathan Haidt) How do we justify moral decisions? There are many forms of justifying moral decisions such through the epistemologies of reasons and emotions. However, even though both reasons and emotions are important, they are not equally necessary in justifying moral decision. Reason is a cause or an explanation for something that has happened or that somebody has done. It is also a fact that validates a particular action. Moreover, through reasons, it is also the power of the mind to think in a logical way, and to understand and have opinions. On the other hand, emotion is a strong feeling such as love, fear, or anger that is the part of a person’s character that consists of feelings, magnifying certainty on a personal stance. As a result, in this essay, I shall explain how reason is more necessary in justifying moral decisions rather than through emotion, even though emotions are added with reason that will result in a strong justification of moral decision. Reason is a strong way of justifying moral decision as it is supported through logical rationale that deduces uncertainty of truth. Thus as this falls into logical thinking, it will form a judgment about moral situation by considering the facts, resulting in a more important way to justify moral decision. As the explanation of truth is true in accordance
with fact and reality, by using reason which includes facts, it will lead us closer to truth. One example is from an ethical issue of moral relativism in the “Tragedy in Santa Monica” which underlies the debate of cultural imperialism- the invasion of a certain culture on another. Fumiko Kimura implemented the traditional Japanese practice of oyako-shinju – parent-child suicide- in American grounds when she “walked slowly across the beach in Santa Monica, [while clutching] her two young children to her” (A Tragedy in Santa Monica) and drowned them in an attempt of the parent-child suicide. Federal laws are puzzled ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
with fact and reality, by using reason which includes facts, it will lead us closer to truth. One example is from an ethical issue of moral relativism in the “Tragedy in Santa Monica” which underlies the debate of cultural imperialism- the invasion of a certain culture on another. Fumiko Kimura implemented the traditional Japanese practice of oyako-shinju – parent-child suicide- in American grounds when she “walked slowly across the beach in Santa Monica, [while clutching] her two young children to her” (A Tragedy in Santa Monica) and drowned them in an attempt of the parent-child suicide. Federal laws are puzzled to response to which legal system to uphold as she killed both of her children in her attempt while she herself was saved. This conflict builds the objectivity of a perception, as America is classifying the act as immoral. But why shouldn’t America do it? Maybe cultural imperialism is an element of American culture. Under the reasoning basis, written laws and legal system within American boundaries requires immigrants or expatriates to fall and obey. Moreover, the fact that Fumika has lived in the US for twelve years is also another reason why she should be able to integrate the American laws in her life. Thus according to “The universal Law Theory” of “do as you would be done by,” (Woolman, Michael) I don’t think she herself would want to be drowned in the middle of the ocean because her mother is frustrated in life and thus the act is immoral as it is considered as a murder through the reasoning of the American Law. However, through this, it neglects the Japanese mother’s reasoning as well as emotion on why she is condoning on such a brutal act. Through this we are able to see that reason magnifies only upon the affected party, while emotion focuses upon the implementing party. However, according to “the utilitarian theory” of “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” (Woolman, Michael) as this case study’s conflict is mainly between Fumika and people in the US, only with the decision of punishment in jail for example, would focus on the well-being of everybody because it wouldn’t be an excuse for other coming crimes. Nevertheless, the interrelation between the two epistemologies fills the gap of ambiguity in justifying the Japanese’s mother’s psychology and America’s response to the act. However, through her own reasoning of Japanese Culture, leaving her children alone after her death will even cause them more harm because no one will take care of them and the high shame culture of Japan will make her children be prejudiced on. Moreover, in Japanese Culture, a mother makes choices until her child reaches age ten, whereas according to the American Law, when a child is born, even when they are still in the womb, he/she is already one body alone that should make decisions on his/her own. In addition, emotion is another important factor in justifying moral decisions. Even though these emotions are personal feelings and people usually act emotionally because of reasons and facts related to the problem or decision and is mainly based on “the self-interest theory” (Woolman, Michael) where “the ethical goal of each of us should be the promotion of our own self-interests” (Woolman, Michael). Nevertheless it can at the same time be a way to justifying a moral decision. As shown from this case study, emotion aroused by the Japanese mother must be filled with desperation and loss. In addition she also is “simply succumbed to universal feelings of isolation and despair” (A Tragedy in Santa Monica) because she “suffered the humiliation of a previous failed marriage” (A Tragedy in Santa Monica) As a result, emotion is just another step after reasoning to justify moral decision and with Fumika’s strong reasoning added with her strong emotion, the US law only gave her counseling without any jail punishment. Another example is in the “An Inconvenient Truth” video; Al Gore stated facts and reasons to justify the moral decision of how we should be concerned with other problems than terrorists, such as environmental problems. Al Gore showed lots of reasons that support this message and moral decision. First, he reasoned his moral decision by showing the viewers about global warming and the effects resulting from this environmental issue. The melting of ice caps, the projected carbon dioxide through the years, hurricanes, floods were some of the facts and the reasons of why we should think in the moral decision that he justifies. With these reasons, there were many facts concerning the effects of global warming on victims of people and other living things in this world. Similarly, there were lots of emotions from Al Gore concerning the effects of Global Warming and misusing resources of nature to the people around the world in the present and the future. This personal emotion was also caused by the reason of the millions of animals, such as polar bears, that are endangered because of global warming. Moreover, emotions are also showed in this video by showing the little babies and children that are affected by the flood in the different places in the world. These sympathy and sad emotions are another step in justifying the moral decision because these emotions are only caused by the result of the reasons and the facts that come before in this logical thinking process. As a result, with both of these aspects, reasons and emotions, as they are put in a logical way like premises, it will create a strong justification and conclusion of moral decisions that he has spread to the viewers in this world. As a result, I think reason is a stronger factor and is more necessary to justifying moral decision than motions, however when we act emotionally to reasons and when both of these factors are combined, it will come up to a stronger justification of moral decision. Like in “A Tragedy in Santa Monica” by using both reason and emotion, Fumika gets the punishment she deserves which is counseling without a jail time punishment. Moreover, in “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore used both reasons and emotions to justify his message of the ethical and moral decision for environmental aspects that will influence millions of people and other living things in this world. Thus, even though both reason and emotion is not equally necessary to justify moral decision, it is a stronger argument of moral decision if one uses both reason and emotion. With this combination of reason and emotion in a logical way, people’s mind will be more influenced to support one’s moral decision. BIBLIOGRAPHY A Tragedy in Santa Monica. 2001. 1-2. An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Perf. Al Gore. Videocassette. Paramount, 2006. Haidt, Jonathan. "Moral Psychology and the Misunderstanding of Religion." 1-6. <http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.html>. Woolman, Michael. 2000. Ways of Knowing-An Introduction to TOK. Ibid Press, Victoria