Philosophy, Morality, and Emotion
Discusses an article which says philosophy is dead
since psychologists have determined that emotion, not
reason, determines how we act morally. Links this to
an ill-formed understanding of the human person.
Check this out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07Brooks.html?th&emc=th
The author of the editorial draws the conclusion that philosophy has seen its end because psychologists have discovered that we don't actually reason out principles for moral action and then act on them but that we act from our emotions. Well, he's only speaking about one kind of ethics -- the kind prevalent in modernity and in our world. But he isn't saying anything new. Emotivists -- people who believe that ethics is a matter of how one feels about something -- have been around for a long time and were prevalent at the beginning of the twentieth century in anglo-speaking worlds.
But there is indeed an alternative to this approach. It is an ancient approach which says that morality is about FORMING ourselves so that (a) the right emotion accompanies the right event and (b) we can use our reason to control our emotions. This is the approach of virtue ethics -- associated with such figures as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and Thomas Aquinas. Yes, we act from emotion, which is why it is important to develop our emotional intelligence. This position went out of favor because it depends on a particular view of human beings as beings who can think about what they want to do and decide whether that is right or wrong. With the rise of modern science, philosophers mistakenly threw out the baby with the proverbial bathwater.
Consider that when we have a mechanistic understanding of human beings, we lose any notion of free will or of immortality or of morality. This was the problem that caused Descartes such problems and one which we, as a culture, still struggle with. If science if right, then how can I be in control of my desires or of my future or of myself? The answer lies, not in throwing out notions of free will, but in trying to understand what free will amounts to within a physical understanding of the human person.
Thus, the notion of the soul. Since Descartes, maybe since the rise of Christianity, the soul is seen as something separate from our bodies. But it simply isn't! The soul and the body cannot exist without each other. Thus, the Gospels speak of a resurrection of the BODY. Why? Because otherwise, the soul would exist in a distorted fashion.
We can choose to accept science and say there is nothing else or ti invent a realm completely separate from science, and THUS, completely separate from our experience OR we can choose to look at how the body is an integral part of our decision making, including how emotions guide our decision and how our reason can restrain our emotions.
The author of the editorial draws the conclusion that philosophy has seen its end because psychologists have discovered that we don't actually reason out principles for moral action and then act on them but that we act from our emotions. Well, he's only speaking about one kind of ethics -- the kind prevalent in modernity and in our world. But he isn't saying anything new. Emotivists -- people who believe that ethics is a matter of how one feels about something -- have been around for a long time and were prevalent at the beginning of the twentieth century in anglo-speaking worlds.
But there is indeed an alternative to this approach. It is an ancient approach which says that morality is about FORMING ourselves so that (a) the right emotion accompanies the right event and (b) we can use our reason to control our emotions. This is the approach of virtue ethics -- associated with such figures as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and Thomas Aquinas. Yes, we act from emotion, which is why it is important to develop our emotional intelligence. This position went out of favor because it depends on a particular view of human beings as beings who can think about what they want to do and decide whether that is right or wrong. With the rise of modern science, philosophers mistakenly threw out the baby with the proverbial bathwater.
Consider that when we have a mechanistic understanding of human beings, we lose any notion of free will or of immortality or of morality. This was the problem that caused Descartes such problems and one which we, as a culture, still struggle with. If science if right, then how can I be in control of my desires or of my future or of myself? The answer lies, not in throwing out notions of free will, but in trying to understand what free will amounts to within a physical understanding of the human person.
Thus, the notion of the soul. Since Descartes, maybe since the rise of Christianity, the soul is seen as something separate from our bodies. But it simply isn't! The soul and the body cannot exist without each other. Thus, the Gospels speak of a resurrection of the BODY. Why? Because otherwise, the soul would exist in a distorted fashion.
We can choose to accept science and say there is nothing else or ti invent a realm completely separate from science, and THUS, completely separate from our experience OR we can choose to look at how the body is an integral part of our decision making, including how emotions guide our decision and how our reason can restrain our emotions.