IndexRole of emotions in the context of moral justificationExamining ethics with the help of logicWorks Cited"The rules and criteria for ethical judgment are all very well, 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The concept of moral justification in ethics examples has been a topic of discussion for centuries, dating back to the times of Plato and Aristotle. Ethics, which serve as a code of values ​​to guide our choices and decisions, determine 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. While 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 frameworks. We must strive to apply moral reasoning in our decision making to ensure that our actions align with our values ​​and beliefs, ultimately leading to a more fulfilling life. It doesn't take much intellectual stimulation to understand that pure, cold logic is hardly sufficient to resolve all our ethical dilemmas. If we were to examine the current global overpopulation crisis with a purely logical eye, for example, we might well be able to deduce that wiping out a few billion people from the earth would be the simplest and most effective solution to the problem. Very few human beings, me certainly not among them, would agree, however, that this mass slaughter is in any way a default approach to the problem at hand – clearly not the right thing to do. This is because our emotional reaction – especially the feeling of sadness or empathy for those killed – overwhelms the practicality of such massacre. Role of emotions in the context of moral justification We can see, then, that emotion is necessary to some extent in the justification of our moral decisions; even Aristotle, who determined his ethics on rational bases, believed that happiness was the ultimate goal of morality and pleasure the crowning of good. Modern psychologists have adopted the emotional approach to its fullest extent, arguing that morality is nothing more than a combination of emotions. It seems to me, however, that this approach leads us down too dangerous a path; certainly, these emotions are necessary for us to be moral, but they are not the crux of morality, and such an emotionally oriented way of thinking can easily lead us to over-rely on emotions, a slippery slope for many reasons. Emotions are different for everyone and very subject to the influence of external factors which could include anything from specific events to deeply rooted psychological conditions. They can be violent and rowdy; sometimes they challenge our very nature and make us do things we wouldn't normally do. If, for example, one is overcome with grief after a friend is killed by a drunk driver, it might seem right to avenge said friend by killing the irresponsible driver; one might even feel satisfied with having done so, believing that it is moral to kill the driver. Although we are capable of experiencing “moral emotions” in most cases, stronger opposing emotions can override them and cause us to commit immoral acts at other times. For example, in Shakespeare's Macbeth, where Macbeth's greed overrides his morals and causes him tokill 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. As they took me around the city, one of them threw a lump of mud in the direction of an Arab couple out of spite. As shocked and disgusted as I was by this blatantly racist act, I never outright condemned the boy responsible; my moral indignation was dulled, alienated and rejected, and I kept my ethical complaints to myself. We face similar, albeit less drastic, situations much more often than we would admit, especially as teenagers; “Peer pressure, based on our innate fear of alienation, determines how we act in many scenarios, in a much more subtle way than drug awareness commercials would have us believe. Emotions like fear, then , act as a real obstacle to correct morality." action, and it is clear that the subjective emotions of each individual cannot be relied upon as the basis for moral decisions. Instead, we need a fixed reference point on which to base these 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 is not a valid guide for me. I then add that we need a more objective point of reference, 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. Examining ethics with the help of logic Many thinkers have attempted to construct a logically valid ethical system from which we can base our moral choices, resulting in systems that have included Aristotle's virtue ethics. Perhaps, after all, it is impossible to create a completely fixed objective moral reference point; we must satisfy ourselves by examining different ethical theories and using our own logic to formulate our fundamental moral principles. Once this is done, we can rely on our moral emotions – our “gut feelings” – to solve practical ethical problems. Let us examine, for example, the rational moral premise that it is never right to kill – morally justifiable. Platonic vision according to which it is never right to 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. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay In the United States , where gun violence is so widespread, we often hear of cases in which police officers shoot and kill dangerous criminals. Just a few minutes before I started writing this, a news story hit me that a killer of three people had been shot dead at the crime scene by a security guard. This guard has been praised for having, in all likelihood, saved the lives of many, but I believe his actions are fundamentally wrong, based on the basic moral principle with which we began. However, if the situation ultimately comes down to the death of the guard or the assassin, as it could be, then it becomes much more complicated. This is where our instinctive feeling of “moral indignation,” as Richard Beck calls it, finds its place. In a kill or be killed situation, where the adversary is a dangerous criminal, our instinctive emotional reaction may rightly override our initial rational premise. This shows.