are reason and emotion equally necessary in the justifying a moral decision

International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge

Are reason and emotion equally necessary in justifying a moral decision?

Ethics is defined as motivation based on the ideas of right and wrong. It is plausibly the only area of knowledge that clearly summarizes the moral decision of mankind.

Reason is the process of consciously using good sense and sound judgement while making a decision. Reasoning takes place when the pros and cons of a situation are weighed rationally and then a decision is taken with little or no room for error. While reasoning, emotion is the variable, which poses a great obstacle. Emotion is a mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling: the emotions of joy, sorrow, reverence, hate, and love. But emotion, being more chaotic than reason i.e. more unpredictable at times can cloud a person’s judgement whereby he or she loses emotional control and maybe not know all the facts so as to react appropriately whereas reason is more logical.

Justification is defined as a statement in explanation of some action or belief. It plays an important role in explaining our emotions and the probable reasons behind them.

“Morality speaks of a system of behavior in regards to standards of right or wrong behavior. The word carries the concepts of: (1) moral standards, with regard to behavior; (2) moral responsibility, referring to our conscience; and (3) a moral identity, or one who is capable of right or wrong action. Common synonyms include ethics, principles, virtue, and goodness.” Morality identifies the conventions that bring our behaviour into conformity.

Looking at the instance of Macbeth, he knew that killing King Duncan would make him king. But reasoning told him that murdering was a cruel, wrong and an immoral act. When Lady Macbeth threatens and questions his manhood, he is emotionally pressurized into committing this murder. In this scenario we see that emotion obscured his judgement. But this is just one form as to what emotion can do to our lives. Without emotion the arts and music would never have flourished. The world would not be what it is today without emotion. A woman walking down the road sees a poor child barely a few years old begging for money. She is touched by the pitiable sight of this child as it reminds her of her own son and so she gives the child some money. It was the maternal instinct in the woman which made her act this way. Emotion is truly something beautiful which can be brought out in many different ways. But then again reason and emotion go hand in hand. We cry because someone close to us has died. We express joy because we won that prize. Using emotion, we can justify the reason as to why we feel the way we do.

This is a preview of the whole essay

While making a decision reason is used so that the outcome can maximise the good it will bring to people and minimize the suffering people may have to endure. But sometimes reason alone doesn’t help us in making a moral decision. Suppose a woman has an abusive neighbour and wants to report him to the police. She is worried about the safety of her child and family. But she is also aware of the possibility of him retaliating and hurting her and her family. Yet she goes ahead and reports him. Why? The answer is emotion. It is her emotion of protecting her child and her family that makes her act this way. Taking this case, we see that the woman reports the man to the police even though she was daunted by the repercussions of her actions. But she does it anyway as she thought it to be the right thing to do. In this case her actions would be considered moral. In this example we see that the woman involved both emotion as well as rationality in her decision making. Her maternal instinct, making her fear for her child’s safety strengthened her conviction to report the man to the police. It was her rationality on the other hand which made her decide that the man’s behaviour was unacceptable and thus he had to be reported. Thus giving rise to the fact that emotion and reason at the same time can be crucial in making a decision.

Take the example of a panel member on the jury panel of a court. Their main purpose is to judge the case presented before them logically with reason. Then they weigh the different aspects of the case with the facts given to them and then deliberate a verdict, with reason given the highest regard during the entire process. The outcome: the defendant has been convicted and is justly given his due punishment. This is a clear cut case of reason being used to make a decision where a rational and correct decision has been taken. But let’s involve emotion into this situation. Suppose one of the jury members lost one of his close relatives because of a murderer, he would naturally be blood-thirsty for revenge. Thus, he would have his mind set on punishing the criminal, even if the defendant had the slightest chance of being innocent or being acquitted in the name of self defence, the emotion of that particular jury member would be enough to ruin all the hope for the defendant. This again proves the fact that at times emotion can distort our judgement.

Context is the most crucial element in defining reason and emotion Before justifying a moral decision it is essential that a person knows all the facts pertaining to that situation. Each culture has different belief systems and what may be morally right in one society may not be in another. ‘Honour killings’ in the Middle East and South Asian countries can be taken as an example. According the beliefs of these societies women should be hanged if they are seen talking to men outside of their family, commit adultery or have been molested. This is an accepted belief in this society since family honour is held in the highest regard. But when non-Muslim people hear about this, the first few words flashing through their minds are ‘ridiculous, ‘inhuman’, ‘unacceptable’ basically ‘it is wrong’. How can this statement be justified? By logical reasoning:

Honour killings are wrong.
Honour killings are considered as murder.
Murder is wrong.
Murder is the unnecessary taking of life.
The woman is alive.

These are a few reasons as to why it is wrong. More can be found with further analysis. According to these people killing for the sake of family honour is the right thing to do. This desire to do the right thing can be justified by the theory of utilitarianism, which says that the greatest good is one that benefits majority of the people. From this example we deduce that in order to do the right thing people can go to any extremes. If something is considered moral, as in this case family honour, then people do anything to enforce it.

Like all these theories stated above, a moral decision cannot be solely justified by emotion or reason. From an overall perspective it is not possible to choose a particular route. Taking a moral decision depends entirely on the context and this process can be difficult. In this situation we can conclude that reason and emotion will always be closely related to each other. Reason is what we can use to realise our mistakes and improve upon them. On the other hand it is emotion that makes us human. This is what makes us see how our choices affect other people. Due to this interrelatedness we can deduce that reason and emotion are necessary in justifying a moral decision but the level of necessity would depend entirely on the context.

“Taking an instance, there probably is no generally correct answer to questions like, "Which is more important, telling the truth or preventing harm?" A lot depends on context. In some cases, it is probably more important to tell the truth. In others, it is probably more important to prevent harm. A number of factors make up the context, including factors of time and place, the type and nature of the relationships involved, other people's reasonable expectations, and the relevant history of the situation. An example of a context in which it seems right to lie is this: you are a citizen of Nazi Germany, 1940. You are hiding a family of Jews in your attic. The German police come to your door and ask whether you know the whereabouts of that particular family of Jews. This seems a clear case in which preventing harm seems more important than telling the truth.

A contrary case might be the following: Imagine that an acquaintance of yours reveals that she has committed manslaughter and that she's very remorseful about it. You are called into court to testify. You know that if you tell the truth, she will go to jail (i.e. suffer a harm). The remorse she shows suggests that she will never commit another crime if she is not sent to jail. Our instincts probably tell us that you should nonetheless tell the truth in such a case, even if it seems likely to do more literal harm than good. This decision might be made on the grounds that truth telling is part of supporting a system of justice that we think overall fair and very valuable.”

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/emotion

www.wordreference.com/definition/justification

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/morality.htm

http://www.ethicsweb.ca/guide/moral-decision.html