In an ideal world moral decisions would be justified through reason and reason alone. This has to do with the subjectivity of emotions. Emotions are one of the most unreasonable and subjective human traits. For that reason in the idle world they would not be necessary in justifying moral decisions. A common view that praises reason is the view that the ends justify the means. This view is the basic idea of the moral theory of consequentialism, which basically says that moral decisions should be made by looking at the results, while the actions leading to those results are inconsequential. This approach does seem very reasonable, because in the end what really matters is are the results. However this approach has one major flaw in it, this approach assumes that human beings can 100% reasonable and look at situation from a perspective that is completely objective. This is assumption is absolutely impossible. As long as emotions exist human beings will never be able to 100% reasonable or objective.
The moral theory of consequentialism has served as the base of an ethical theory which has been used as a justification for some of the biggest atrocities ever committed by human beings, this theory is known as utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism that says that the value of a moral action is determined by its utility to the masses. This theory which does seem very reasonable is a theory which has been used in order to justify some of the most immoral actions taken by human beings. Many massive killings over the history of men-kind have been justified by this idea of the greater good. The killing of innocent people is immoral and wrong by all means. Yet over history many attempts has been made to reasonably justify massive killings. A claim that was often made, which does seem reasonable, is that some people must die for the benefit of the majority. However this claim is not reasonable at all, it might seem reasonable but it is not. It is not reasonable because any claim such as this arises from some type of emotions. The idea of killing somebody first rises from a strong feeling of hate towards that person. Yet another proof that emotions influence every decision humans make. That being true all this moral decisions made by utilitarian people, which are justified through reason are in fact not reasonable, hence another prove that reason alone cannot be the only tool used in justifying moral decisions and emotions must be used as well.
There also exists the more emotional oriented type of people who will listen more to their emotions and justify their moral decisions mostly through their emotions rather than reason. An ethical theory, which praises emotions over reason, is the ethics of care theory. This is a theory which was developed by a psychologist named Caron Gilligan. This theory emphasizes the importance of relationships. It basically says that an individual's moral decisions should be made according to what is best for him and those closest to him, not for the majority of people. Since this theory puts emphasize on relationships it puts emphasize on emotions. Relationships are created through emotional connection, thus when a moral decision is decided according to what is best for one's friends and family that moral decision is being made by that person's feelings. Feelings are what connect one human being to another, and when humans base their moral decisions according to what is best for those who are close to them they are listening to their emotions much more than they are listening to reason.
A great example of a moral decision which was made and is still justified by emotions is something that occurred during the Football World Cup of Germany 2006. That World Cup featured one of the greatest players in the history of the game in their last professional tournament, his name, Zinedine Zidane. This World Cup was to be the departure of one of the greatest player ever seen. The stage was set, of what was to be the grand finale of a great player. Zidane led his French national team all the way to the finals of the World Cup where they faced the mighty national team of Italy. The game started great for Zidane as early on, he scored a goal to give his team a 1-0 lead. It did not take long for Italy to tie the game at 1-1. As the game was coming to its full 90 minutes it seemed to be adding towards over time. Than about 15 minutes before the ending the momentum shifted towards the French national team, and seemed as though they would be able to win without overtime. But than in a few second of irrational behavior from Zidane, he did something which quite possibly was the reason why the French team ended up loosing the game. Throughout Marco Matarazzi of the Italian team, who is a well known for causing other players to loose their temper, was on a mission to make Zidane loose his temper, until five minutes before the end of regulation time he succeeded. Matarazzi is claimed to have made some nasty remarks about Zidane's sister. Until finally it Zidane could not take it anymore, he turned around gave Matarazzi a big smile and head butted his chest with incredible force. Zidane, as a smart veteran player was well aware of the consequences of such action and decided to do so anyways. The consequence of this action was that Zidane was immediately sent off from the rest of the game leaving his team in a huge disadvantage against an already very good Italian team. By all means this was an unreasonable action, yet Zidane to the day keeps on justifying his decision as the right moral decision as the right moral decision. It was unreasonable firstly because as a member of a team he has a responsibility to his teammates, and by taking this action he did not only let himself down but his teammates as well. Furthermore this was the last game of his remarkable carrier, this action leaves Zidane's legacy with a huge mark, and from all rational perspectives this was not a rational action. Yet Zidane insists that his decision was morally correct, furthermore he says that if he was to go back in time he would not change a thing. According to Zidane the remarks made about his sister were too painful to just let go, he chose to listen to his emotions instead of his reason, and take an action which might seem unreasonable but to him was morally correct because of his hurt emotions. Zidane who was always known for his very reasonable behavior on the football pitch decided to follow his emotions instead, which serves as another proof that both emotions and reason are used in the making and justification of moral decisions.
Although in the ideal world moral decisions would only be justified by reason, this is not the ideal world and emotions do exist (which is probably a good thing), and thus both emotions and reason are necessary in justifying moral decisions. Since neither one of this traits can be ignored by humans, they are both necessary in justifying moral decisions and the degree of their necessity simply depends on the individual who is justifying the moral decision.
