Logic VS Emotion

The articles “Illinois Farmers Put Rare Pig Back On Dinner Table To Save It From Extinction” and “Should Eye Surgeons Fulfill A Dying Man's Wish To See His Family?” talk about different topics and are about ideas from completely different fields. However, the two debates between the two sides in each of the articles are built on the same question fundamentally. The question can be said to be-- should we assess the value of an individual’s action base on its societal consequence?

In the article about surgery, we ask if it is worth it to give a dying man the chance to see his family one last time. Many people would certainly answer yes, because why wouldn’t we want to give a man the priceless chance to see again? However, their responses could quickly change when they understand that there is a limited supply of medical equipment. This means the opportunity given to the dying man for his self-interest could have been given out to a young child in need of the surgery, who would certainly be more likely to success into a productive adulthood, contributing to the society. One side of the argument benefits the old man’s life, while the other side benefits the future society, which one is more important? This brought up the knowledge question stated above. The question asks if it was right for the doctors to refuse this surgery because they think the surgery could be performed on a more worthy individual. Judging from an emotion point of view, the doctor’s action is inhumane, but seeing it from the route of reasoning, we would not understand why the old man’s feelings even matter.

The other article, one about killing black pigs in order to save them from extinction, sounds ironic at first. One might not understand how killing a specie is protecting it. At first, I was skeptical, but I totally understood their tactic after reading the article. Selling the pig’s meat attracts attention for that animal, which in return raises awareness of this species so people continue to breed them. The same knowledge question applies here because how we assess the value of an action determines the righteousness of the action. If someone primarily uses emotion as a way of knowing, he/she would not want the pigs to be slaughtered since the pigs are already near extinction. But seeing from the logic side, it is reasonable that killing some black pigs can save many more. A person who refuses to kill the black pig would agree that we should not assess the value of an action base on its consequence because although killing the pigs protect more pigs, it is not acceptable to kill any pigs no matter what. The question sounds similar to “Does the end justify the means”, but differ because this question deals more with one’s selfish emotion vs the greater good for everyone.

There is no right or wrong to judge by any method. In my opinion, it was correct to kill the pigs and it was correct to give the sight opportunity to another kid. I can explain why I think this way with logic, but I would inevitably neglect the emotion part. Similarly, people who judge a situation base on their empathy would inevitably be blinded to the logistic side of the situation.