I was reading the Room for Debate article "Does Empathy Guide or Hinder Moral Action", ping-ponged by Jamil Zaki and Paul Bloom, and was challenged onto my beliefs I have formed from countless experiences: should decisions be influenced by emotions? Although to some it may be blatantly up in one's face, however to others it is indeed troublesome to think and argue against/for.
To put into context, lets talk about a fast food employee and an emaciated homeless man who looks as though he may crumble in a whim. He takes the homeless man's order of...a single order of small fries. Surely this meager order can not fill the aching stomach of this man, and the employee is hurt knowing he can not do anything about it: or can he. Secretly the worker could slide in some more food but that would potentially result in the firing of the worker's precious job.
Cases like these happen too often to every person at least a few times in their lives. Knowing fully well the potential risks and harm taking the opportunity can enact, the correct rational choice is to do not do anything and mind one's own business. However, the worker empathizes with the starving man and is allured to the idea of saving a human from starvation one less day. This fully recognizes the powerful tool of empathy on moral decision making and how it can be very persuasive to many.
Thus, my point raises the question: so what is deemed 'correct' in this scene? Would it be better to take no action or to feed the man?
-Ian Jo
Some decisions in life require the use of emotions. In the homeless man scenario, the correct action would be to feed the homeless man. Moral actions far surpass the possibility of getting fired. If you were to somehow be stuck in the same situation that the homeless man is in, you would hope that someone would show that level of compassion to you. This however is not always the case. In the touch subject of abusive relationships, people may feel as though they are in which compels them to stay. In a case such as this, no emotions should be used because it will only make things worse.
ReplyDeleteEmotions are a big part of life. they decide who we like, who we hate, and who we love. They are a necessity but also a curse.
I also agree completely that the correct action morally would be to feed the man. But let's say you did not. Many people would feel that they did wrong and would carry this feeling with them. However, these people also pose a good argument, what if you lose your job? In this hypothetical scenario which has been created, what if that man needed that job to support his family at home which was just getting by. Would you be willing to put your entire family in danger in order to feed a homeless man some extra food? I wouldn't. This shows that sometimes your emotions or feelings towards a situation may dictate you take a certain action, but the most reasonable or logical choice would be another. Therefore, I think that you shouldn't let your emotions get ahold of you and let them decide what you do.
ReplyDeleteAs Jeremy stated, emotions are a big part of your life. You are going to inescapably be faced with decisions that might require your emotion or your logic and reason. The key is to be able to know when either is required. In the case of feeding the homeless, that is an emotion driven action that is morally correct. If I am in a position to help someone, I am going to help. On the contrary, if I was making a choice between going to college with my current significant other which I love or the college that has the best program for what I’m majoring in, I’d use logic and choose the college best suited for my major. If I personally let emotions drive all my decisions, I’d probably be in avoidable situations had I applied reason.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I would feed the homeless man with my own money. In doing so, I won't jeopardize my job and my mind can settle knowing that I have made one man's day. This should always be the way to think as I won't receive negative consequences and the man got more food. Your ethics are always priority. Let's take an example in which this was not a case. Nazi Germany and the mass killings of the unwanted people done by people who did it for their job. This is what society would be if society were to put ethics and morals second in priority.
ReplyDelete