What role, if any, do you believe that emotions should play in moral reasoning? Why?

Answer 1

Morals come from emotions. Without having emotions for others, we would not be able to conceive whether something was moral. Now, if you mean should emotions play a part in legal reasoning, no, they should not. Legal reasoning is, and should be based solely on the facts in evidence.

Answer 2

I believe that emotions, when left unchecked, undiciplined and out of control, can produce irresponsible decisions which can lead to inappropriate actions. We are often not taught to value or understand the levels of our emotions and therefore, undisciplined can lead to wild displays of sadness, depression, anger, and upwards into fighting. No moral reasoning can come from anyone who is in this position. Rational thinking and judgment are impossible. Therefore, I am of the persuasion that ones emotions would need to be in some level of control and stability in order to participate in the scope of moral reasoning. Personal responsibility is always subject to moral reasoning in mature and clear-thinking adults. This is what we should 'strive' to be and our world would perhaps not be in the shape it is in - emotions would not rule - and we know that emotions are the strings upon which the typical handlers of life, love to play. Most of the time - we spend 'dancing to the music' -twisting this way and that - floating in the wind - wherever it goes.

Answer 3

None.

When moral panic sets in, especially in matters that involve children, people rush to judgment and believe the worst without proper (and often no) evidence.

Answer 4

anger and passion look identical...... i have wondered the same thing,,,,,,, but a lib and a con arguing seem to both be coming from similair places,,,,, i think passion for truth comes from libs and anger for making them change comes from cons,,,