Moral decisions are presented to us every single day and we are challenged to choose between what our heart tells us is right and what reason is beckoning us to do. Generally, it is reason that makes the better judgment because it has been more thoroughly thought over. But although reason might make the better judgment, it does not mean that it is used more often nor is it a necessary component of moral decision-making.
Emotion, on the other hand seems to be the way of knowing that compels us to make hot-headed decisions; meaning that emotion overwhelms us when making spur of the moment decisions that at first do not seem to have any consequences. Nevertheless, which one is the one begging and screaming to be exercised when we are faced with a moral decision? Is it reason or emotion or both? Reason and emotion both play a considerable role in justifying moral decisions in prosaic controversies, but emotion in more situations than others tilts the balance of moral decisions.
On the wall in my English class, I noticed an interesting, anonymous quote that became the inspiration for my argument that reason and emotion are not equally necessary in justifying moral decisions: “Logic and reason are ineffective weapons against minds controlled by emotion and prejudice. ” Emotion is defined primarily as “a mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort”1. “Spontaneously” is the keyword here. This definition provokes the fact that emotion is rarely under our apprised control.
Therefore, we cannot decide when we want to use emotion to justify moral decisions and when it is better to let reason do the work. Consider a man of authority whom everyone looks up to for moral support. He is told to be strong and not show his emotions at a loved one’s funeral, but to act as a “pillar of strength” for the relatives and friends around him. Reason will tell him that he should hide his deep anguish to make it easier for those around him. However, it is possible that emotion can easily overwhelm that reason and leave him sobbing in the front row of the chapel.
This common situation implies that it is perhaps not true that reason and emotion are equally necessary. In fact, it suggests that we can make decisions one without the other. Emotion is sometimes held as the antithesis of reason, yet emotion seems to be the root from which all reason stems from. Emotion displays the truth of what a person feels and it is the reality of their thoughts which contradicts with reason. Reason may not always be the truth; reason is only what we perceive to be true because we all interpret reason differently.
Limitations of knowledge also pose as a threat to rightfully justifying moral decisions because our understanding is insufficient. The human mind has not yet reached nor is it even close to reaching a level of infinite knowledge where reason is capable of defining all things, so when a moral decision is thrown at us, emotion holds the remote control to our actions. Yet between all the definitions that differentiate emotion and reason, these two ways of knowing are interrelated. One could argue that reason and emotion are indeed equally necessary when it comes to justifying moral decisions.
When we ponder both slants of a moral decision, we do exercise both reason and emotion, though perhaps not at the same time and probably not both to the same extent. But there is one important factor that determines when emotion or reason plays a larger, more dominant role. It depends on the kind of decision that is in question and the time allowed to make that decision. Is it a moral decision that involves long-term development? Or is it a spur of the moment decision which does not unveil identified consequences? The use of reason and emotion relies upon that factor.