• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Are Reason and Emotion Equally Necessary in Justifying Moral Decisions?

Extracts from this document...


Are Reason and Emotion Equally Necessary in Justifying Moral Decisions? As human beings, we possess a conscience that distinguishes us from all other animal species. It is because of this conscience that humans are able to make 'moral decisions'. How do we know right from wrong? And, equipped with this knowledge, how do we justify the moral decisions we make? The ethical principles that we carry allow us to make the distinction and justify our moral decisions. Many such sets of principles have been developed by philosophers and theologians over time. There are four major theories of conduct: religious, self-interest, universal-law, and utilitarian.1 This paper will analyze the roles that reason and emotion play in justifying moral decisions in the context of each of the aforementioned ethical theories in an attempt to respond to the prescribed title. The question, of course, is whether emotion and reason are equally necessary. The focus of this essay will be on whether reason or emotion is sufficient unto itself or mutually dependent on each other when justifying moral decisions. Justification in this case involves providing explanations or proof for why a decision is ethically right. This wording suggests that reason is an essential part of the process as reason determines how we apply moral principles to the justification process by providing a rationale. ...read more.


Nevertheless, both reason and emotion are necessary to justify moral decisions in this case. Thirdly, the self-interest theory claims that the ethical goal of each individual is to promote personal interests and achieve maximum contentment. Aristotle believed that conscience is inherent in human rationality; what is considered to be ethically right is striving to further one's own interests and success in a virtuous manner. However, the self-interest theory is only plausible when assuming that everyone is capable of preserving their self-interests and that all people strive for common fulfillment.7 It claims that one can only value others if one values oneself. Justification, in this case, is based on self-interest as directed by conscience. Humans may have an intrinsic rationality; but their desires to seek fulfillment depends on the way they value, or feel about, themselves. Additionally, due to the limits of language as a social construct, what is interpreted as "virtuous" will differ among individuals. The varying perspectives ultimately depend on personal conscience, as based on emotionally-tied values. Any attempt to justify a moral decision using reason will be based on emotional feelings related to the personal desire for happiness and fulfillment, and on a personal (contextualized) understanding of virtue. ...read more.


Perhaps I view myself as a moral being and it was in my self-interest to seek a feeling of contentment in my morality - a satisfaction of having done something 'right' - and an appearance of being responsible. In this case, my decision cannot only be justified by an intrinsic rationality but also my pride. Finally, my decision may be utilitarian in the sense that not only did I gain peace of mind but I was looking out for my brother's health and well-being while also raising my parents' awareness. We justify moral decisions with both reason and emotion. Emotion is integral to our beliefs because our beliefs are learned, internalized and reinforced with emotionally-charged memories. Our capability to reason allows us to deduce from our emotion-based values or beliefs, as well as to induce from our emotion-coded memories in order to justify something as right or wrong. Thus, a clearly delineated line, which is to say a meaningful distinction between the two ways of knowing, is impossible to achieve. Perhaps the fact that our values are very much contextualized makes emotion the weaker component in the justification process. Nevertheless, emotion remains very much present as it provides the foundation of our values which determine the way we rationalize and justify our moral decisions. Although everyone has and uses reason and emotion to different degrees, it seems that they are both necessary in justifying moral decisions. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge essays

  1. Free essay


    Thus reason and emotion are equally important to make a moral decision. As per an ancient Chinese saying , "When persons prevent their emotions from overtaking their rationality, it is called reason. When persons prevent their rationality from overtaking their emotions, it is called compassion.

  2. Evaluate the relative importance of emotion and reason in your response to art.`

    We undertook a short art field trip in the Picture Gallery of Christ Church to observe art from a closer look and to prove our theory in practice.It was interesting to see aesthetic appearance of the building, their form : made of limestone and sandstone, sunlight reflecting and making the

  1. Are reason and emotion equally necessary in justifying moral decisions?

    My emotion was loyal to her request and told me that I should not get her parents involved, however reason was telling me to speak up for her medical well being. I let my emotion take over reason and didn't say anything; a month later she collapsed and was hospitalized.

  2. Are Reason and Emotion Equally Neccessary in Justifying Moral Decisions?

    However, without the intervention of emotion, a greater population would agree that the child should be isolated in order to preserve the health of other lives. This would seem more logical as it would be putting down an individual and protecting many others as opposed to sparing a life and harming many.

  1. The Law of the Universe: Entropy

    world's most powerful supercomputers cannot model the interactions of the molecules in a cup of hot choclate) and by that fact that we are the ones using logic and we can never be completely logical/rational/empirical. Can I say then, that we are looking at a new era of rationalism based

  2. Are reason and emotion equally necessary in justifying moral decisions?

    If however, one examines the case of child labour, the right to education becomes a moral dilemma. A family in a developing nation has too many mouths to feed and not enough financial support so; they pull their oldest children out of school and send them off to work in horrendous conditions with negligible pay.

  1. Are reason and emotion equal in justifying moral decisions?

    For example, a Christian might question the reason why fornication is wrong and find no sensible justification. Reason would tell him that it is not wrong but his intuition would tell him it?s wrong and the Christian would trust his instinct because trust itself is an emotion.

  2. To what extent is language necessary for thought?

    Again, our world is divided into pieces so the human mind can understand it bit by bit. From seeing a car to measuring the temperature, language offers an explanation to our experiences and is a powerful tool to help us think.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work