Table of ContentsRole of Emotions in the Context of Moral JustificationExamining Ethics Using LogicWorks Cited“The rules and criteria of ethical judgment are all fine, but when conflicts are finely balanced, we simply express our preferences. »Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay The concept of moral justification in ethics examples has been a topic of discussion for centuries, dating back to the time of Plato and Aristotle. Ethics, which serves as a code of values ​​to guide our choices and decisions, determines the course and purpose of our lives. As human beings, we are constantly faced with moral dilemmas that require us to discern right from wrong. Although our instincts and emotions may initially inform our actions, the vast majority of ethicists have historically relied on reason to develop and justify their moral structures. We must strive to apply moral reasoning in our decision-making process to ensure that our actions align with our values ​​and beliefs, ultimately leading to a more fulfilling life. It doesn't take much intellectual prodding to see that pure, cold logic will hardly do. to resolve all our ethical dilemmas. If we were to look at our current global overpopulation crisis through a purely logical eye, for example, we might well conclude that removing a few billion people from the planet would be the simplest and most effective solution to the problem. Very few human beings, and certainly not me, would agree, however, that this massive massacre is somehow a moral approach to the problem at hand – it is clearly not the right thing to do. This is because our emotional response – particularly the feeling of sadness or empathy for those who were killed – outweighs the practicality of such a massacre. Role of Emotions in the Context of Moral Justification We can therefore see that emotion is necessary to some extent to justify our moral decisions; even Aristotle, who determined his ethics on a rational basis, considered happiness to be the ultimate goal of morality and pleasure the crowning glory of the good. Modern psychologists have taken the emotional approach to its maximum, arguing that morality is nothing more than a combination of emotions. However, it seems to me that this approach takes us down too dangerous a path; Certainly, these emotions are necessary for us to be moral, but they are not the heart of morality, and such an emotion-oriented way of thinking can easily lead us into an over-reliance on emotion , a slippery slope for many reasons. Emotions are different for everyone and are very subject to the influence of external factors which may include specific events or deep-rooted psychological conditions. They can be violent and turbulent; sometimes they challenge our very nature and push us to do things we wouldn't normally do. If, for example, one is overcome with grief after a friend has been killed by a drunk driver, it may seem right to avenge said friend by murdering the irresponsible driver; one might even feel satisfied that one has acted in such a way that it is moral to kill the driver. Although we are capable of feeling the “moral emotions” in most cases, stronger opposing emotions can overwhelm them and lead us to commit immoral acts at other times. For example, in Shakespeare's Macbeth, where greedof Macbeth overrides his morals and leads him to kill for power. Even in everyday scenarios, we find that our emotions often contradict our morals. For example, I once met a group of teenagers in London who were generally friendly and shared many of my interests. While they were showing me around the city, one of them threw a lump of mud at an Arab couple for some naughty fun. As shocked and disgusted as I was by this blatantly racist act, I never openly condemned the boy responsible; my moral indignation was clouded alienated and dismissed, and I kept my ethical grumblings to myself. We face similar situations, although less dramatic, much more often than we admit, especially during adolescence; “Peer pressure, based on our innate fear of alienation, dictates how we act in many scenarios, in a much more subtle way than drug awareness advertisements would have us believe. Emotions like fear then act as a real obstacle to moral correction. action, and it is clear that the subjective emotions of each individual cannot serve as the basis for moral decisions. Instead, we need a fixed reference point on which we can base such choices. For many years the Bible has been cited as such a source, but because it is based on blind faith in a God whose existence is highly questionable, it does not represent, for me, a valid guide. So let me add that we need a more objective reference point, and this can only be achieved through the use of reason. Reason has long been accepted as the most objective way of knowing and has been, for most philosophers, the path to truth. moral choices, resulting in systems that included Aristotle's virtue ethics. Perhaps it is ultimately impossible to create a completely fixed objective moral reference point; we must satisfy ourselves by examining different ethical theories and using our logic to formulate our own basic moral principles. Once this is done, we can then rely on our moral emotions – our “intuitions” – to help us resolve practical ethical problems. Consider, for example, the rational moral principle that it is never right to kill – justifiable according to the moral principle. The Platonic view that it is never right to do harm and that killing is harmful. Even this, although one of the most basic and widely accepted, sometimes needs to be supplemented by our emotions. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay In the United States, where gun violence is so prevalent, we often hear about cases where police officers shoot and kill dangerous criminals. Just minutes before I started writing this, a news report struck me that one in three murderers had been shot dead at the crime scene by a security guard. This guard was praised for, in all likelihood, saving the lives of many people, but I view his actions as fundamentally wrong, based on the basic moral principle we started with. However, if the situation ultimately comes down to the death of the guard or killer, as it can, then it becomes much trickier. This is where our knee-jerk instinct of “moral outrage,” as Richard Beck calls it, comes into play. In a kill-or-be-killed situation, where the adversary is a dangerous criminal, our instinctive emotional response may rightly.