Lesson 3: Feeling as Modifier for Decision-Making

Explain the role of feelings in moral decision making

Feelings in Decision-making

Feeling, in general, is an emotional state or reaction, an experience of physical sensation, like a feeling of joy, affection, warmth, love, affection tenderness, etc. How do they affect moral decision-making? "Several studies conclude that up to 90 percent of the decisions we made are based on emotion. We use logic to justify our actions to ourselves and to others. Researches also show that "actual emotional states can influence the process of moral reasoning and determine moral judgment."

Feelings are instinctive and trained responses to moral dilemmas. They can be obstacles to making the right decisions but can also help make the right decisions.

 Are there advantages of emotional decision-making? According to recent research, feelings or emotions have positive effects on decision-making. Some are identified as follows:

• A totally emotional decision is very fast in comparison to a rational decision. This is reactive (and largely subconscious) and can be useful when faced with immediate danger, or in decisions of minimal significance.

• Emotions may provide a way for coding and compacting experience, enabling fast response selection. This may point to why expert's "gut" level decisions have high accuracy rates.

•  Decisions that start with logic may need emotions to enable the final selection, particularly when confronted with near equal options. Emotions often drive us in directions conflicting with self-interest.

Emotional decision-making can also come with a number of negatives.

• We make quick decisions without knowing why and then create rational reasons to justify a poor emotional decision.

• Intensity of emotions can override rational decision-making in cases

• Immediate and unrelated emotions can create mistakes by distorting and creating bias in judgments. In some cases, this can lead to unexpected and reckless action.

• Projected emotions can lead to errors because people are to systemic inaccuracy subject about how they will feel in the futu " (Source: DecisionInnovation (file://Users/macos/Downl Emotional20Decsion20Mak1ng.htmlaccessed, 2-3-201R

Moral statements as expressions of feelings 

Are moral statements or values mere expressions of feelings or emotions as claimed by the linguistic philosophers? According to some linguistic philosophers, called (emotivists) the statement "stealing is wrong is not a statement of fact, it is an expression of a desire or emotion. The rule or maxim "Stealing is wrong" means "I desire that you do not steal." An emotional statement is not verifiable like factual statement. "Pedro stole my cat" is verifiable, can be established by evidence. But "Pedro's act of stealing my cat is morally wrong" which is equivalent to *"I desire that Pedro should not steal" is not verifiable. The following explains this ethical theory:

Emotivism,.. is the view that moral judgments do not function as statements of fact but rather as expressions of the speaker s or writer's feelings. According to the emotivist, when we say "You acted wrongly in stealing that money, we are not expressing any fact beyond that stated by "You stole that money." It is, however, as if we had stated this fact with a special tone of abhorrence, for in saying that something is wrong, we are expressing our feelings of disapproval toward it. Emotivism was expounded by A J Aver in Language Truth and Logic (1936) and developed by Charles Stevenson in Ethics and Language (1945). The emotivist thus goes further by saying that ethical statements being emotional expressions are not verifiable. Emotional expressions are not assertions of what is true or false. They are like expressions of. taste. There is no dispute or there can be no dispute on matters of taste. "De gustibus non disputandum est." One cannot argue with ones taste, emotion.

It may be said that an analogy between legal and moral statements may be made to show that moral statements may be treated like factual statements. In criminal law, the allegation that "Juan's act of stealing is wrong" may be established by evaluating the act in light of the elements of the crime of stealing under the law. For instance, the law provides that stealing is taking the property of another without the latter's consent. So if there is a piece of evidence that Juan has taken a property, that the property belongs to someone else, and that the taking IS Without consent, then it can be decided that a crime of theft is committed, in other words, the statement has been verified.

What then would prevent one in applying the same procedure in establishing the truth or falsehood of a moral statement. For instance, the moral principle or rule is "stealing Is wrong" that it is explained by moral or ethics teachers that the statement is meant to be referring to an act of taking someone else property without the owner's consent. May not someone's act of stealing be verified by finding out if the actor has indeed taken someone's property with the latter's consent? And that, therefore, his act may be judged as wrong?

 The emotivist will still argue that such an argument only proves that a certain individual act has characteristics that can be described as stealing. It does not make the statement 'stealing is wrong" as a factual statement, which is correct, since all maxims or rules are non-factual and only the particular instances evaluated on the basis of these rules would be considered as factual.

Managing Feelings

Aristotle wrote:

Anyone can get angry---that is easy---but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy. (Book II, Nicomachean Ethics). In other words your anger should not be displaced. The moral person manages his/her feelings well.