Are Reason and Emotion Equally Neccessary in Justifying Moral Decisions?

However, it is suggested that emotion may triumph over reason as reason may triumph over emotion in justifying a moral decision in a Biblical passage from Kings iii,16-28, ‘The judgement of Solomon’. In this story, two women come to King Solomon with a baby boy. As both women fight over the custody of the child, Solomon declares that the child should be cut in two so that the women may have half each. One woman agrees with the verdict, reasoning that – should the boy be split in half – none should fight over him any longer. However, the other woman (also the real mother of the child) reacts out of love for her child and pleads that he might be handed over to the other woman if it means saving his life. The mother’s moral decision is justified by reasoning that the child would live if he is given to the other woman. It can be argued that the mother’s inward-looking emotion of fear causes her to ‘draw into herself’ and reason this. This argument would cohere with scientist Edward O. Wilson’s definition of emotion ‘the modification of neural activity that animates and focuses mental activity’. On the other hand, it can also be argued that her emotional experience (feelings corresponding to physiological changes such as increased heartbeat, the release of adrenaline etc) is in fact provoked by this reasoning. Either way, the woman would have undoubtedly not made the decision to save the child’s life had she not been subjected to certain emotions. The decision being justified by emotions, Solomon realises that she is mother of the child and grants her the baby. In retrospect, the other woman’s lack of impulsive emotions allows her to remain indifferent to the consequences for the child in the situation. Solomon’s decision is however purely based on his logical opinion of who appears to be the real mother. Therefore reason is valued over emotion in his moral judgement. Having interpreted this story, it would appear that emotion is part of the human psyche which initiates instinctive reaction. Meanwhile, reason first composes of analytical thought to bring understanding to the situation. This idea proves similar to the account offered by Plato (in the Republic) in the form of his ‘tri-partite’ conception of the soul: what is emotional is irrational and that what is rational is not emotional.

The importance of reason and emotion in justifying moral decisions is clearly depicted in the play Le Cid by Pierre Corneille. The tragicomedy set in medieval Spain tells the story of Rodrigue Diaz de Vivar, a military figure who is torn between his love for Chimène and his duty to avenge his fathers honour. Although emotion plays a great role throughout the decision making, Don Rodrigue eventually succumbs to reason and kills Chimène's father to preserve his family’s reputation. In this case, reason justifies a decision considered moral despite emotion. Rodrigue’s reason for assassinating Chimène’s father lies in the moral act of avenging his father (this act considered moral at the time – man being in position in which less better off dead than dishonoured). Rodrigue’s emotions (his love for Chimène) however, render the assassination of her father an immoral decision in the play – shedding the blood of the person which his beloved holds dear. In this case, reason plays a greater part in justifying a moral decision. Meanwhile, Rodrigue’s emotions appear to make him susceptible by delaying his in retrieving the honour of his name and preventing him from feeling any pride once the act is committed. In other words, his instinctive emotions of love and anger are oppressed by social emotions of guilt and shame. This concept once again coincides with Plato’s view of the emotions, regarding them as agents of tyranny which enslave the true and rational part of our nature.Rodrigue determines that reason is of greater importance than emotion when justifying a moral decision. However, he remains haunted by his emotions after having chosen to suppress them in giving into reason, implying that emotion is of greater importance than reason in making a moral decision.

When evaluating judgements made collectively in a social environment, it would appear that reason holds a greater significance over emotion when coming to a moral decision. For instance, A BBC News headline last updated in 2003 reports that ‘The jury in the trial of a mother accused of killing her three babies has been told not to let emotion rule reason when coming to a decision.’  This suggests that when moral decisions lie in the hands of the court, it is preferred that the verdict be based upon reason rather than emotion. In other words, the jury is expected to suppress their emotions towards the case in order to have a clearer analytical perspective of the facts or evidence presented before them. This acknowledges the idea that emotions are in power of undermining diagnostic thought and therefore influencing the making of erroneous decisions. It is therefore possible to conclude that emotions are more dominant than reason in justifying a moral decision. However, reason may be judged more relevant than emotion when making judgement.  

Word Count : 1,274