Are emotions “unreliable” in moral decisions?
- Kantian Rationalism: Emotions Are Unreliable
In his “Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morality” (1785) and “Critique of Practical Reason” (1788), Immanuel Kant, while not deeming emotions immoral, finds them insufficient for moral decisions:
The Problem of Heteronomy: Emotions (sympathy, hatred, fear) depend on external or internal stimuli; they impair the autonomous will.
Lack of Universality: Emotions vary depending on the person and the situation, whereas the moral law (categorical imperative) must be objective and universal.
Interference of Interest: Even “being happy while doing good” can make an action self-interested.
Example: Helping someone simply “out of pity” is immoral, according to Kant, because it is an emotional accident. However, the same action is moral if it is done out of “preserving human dignity.”
- Humean Emotionalism: Morality is Founded on Emotions
In his “Treatise on Morals” (1751), David Hume, in sharp contrast to Kant, argued that the basis of morality is sentiment:
“Reason is the slave of the passions”: According to Hume, moral judgments are formed not by logical inference but by emotional reactions such as sympathy and disgust.
The Principle of Utility: What determines whether an action is good or bad is social utility and emotional approval. For example, the concept of justice developed from people’s “indignation at injustice.”
Universality Must Be Seen in Emotion: Hume argued that universal morality can be grounded in common emotions in human nature (e.g., sympathy for suffering).
Example: Saving someone is moral “because you feel their pain”; As Kant put it, it doesn’t require a “cold principle.”
- Aristotle: The Balance of Emotions and Virtue
In his “Nicomachean Ethics” (4th century BC), Aristotle argues that emotions must be controlled:
“The Golden Mean”: Emotions such as anger, fear, and love become virtuous when used in moderation.
Practical Wisdom (Phronesis): Moral decisions are made by balancing reason and emotion. For example, courage is possible through the balance between cowardice and recklessness.
Example: Being just is not about suppressing anger, but rather channeling it with fairness.
- Modern Psychology and Neuroscience: Is Morality Possible Without Emotions?
Unlike Kant, contemporary psychology emphasizes the critical role of emotions in moral decisions:
Antonio Damasio (“Descartes’s Error,” 1994): Patients with emotional damage (e.g., a ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesion) can make rational decisions, but their moral judgments are impaired.
Jonathan Haidt (“The Righteous Mind,” 2012): Moral judgments are first formed intuitively/emotionally, then reasoning occurs.
Mirror Neurons: Empathy is directly linked to the ability to feel another’s pain.
Example: In “Trolley Dilemma” experiments, most people make decisions based on emotional reactions (e.g., disgust at pushing someone).
- Feminist Ethics: The Moral Value of Emotions
Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings defend the ethics of care against Kant’s “cold universalism”:
Relationality: Morality is shaped by interpersonal bonds (love, responsibility) rather than abstract principles.
Emotional Bonds Matter: A mother’s love for her child does not require a “universal law”; it is a natural and moral response.
Example: A patient’s relative might lie to “ease the suffering of their loved one.” According to Kant, this is wrong, but according to the ethics of care, it may be justified.