LECTURE HANDOUT 9- FEELINGS AND MORAL

DECISION-MAKING
 OBJECTIVES:

OBJECTIVES

At the end of lecture handout 8, the student will be able to:

 instill the knowledge that extreme emotion can be an obstruction in making the right decision.

 acknowledge that emotions can also help in making the right decision at times.

 develop maturity in learners as they go through the experience of decision-making.

 understand how to make moral judgments about highly controversial ethical issues.

 
 
INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW

 There are at least two theories in ethics that give focus on the role of feelings.

 Abstract inference and emotional intuitions or instincts are seen as having relative

roles in ethical thinking.

 Ethical judgments are highly emotional as people emotionally express their strong

approval or disapproval of different acts.

•  Ethical subjectivism basically runs contrary to the principle that there is

objectivity in morality.
 Ethical subjectivism holds that truth or falsity of ethical propositions is dependent on
feelings, attitudes, or standards of a person or group of persons.
 Emotivism claims that ethical sentences do not convey authentic propositions.
 Emotivism teaches that moral judgments are not statements of facts but are mere
expressions of the emotions of the speaker especially since they are usually feelings-
based.
 Logical positivism claims that any legitimate truth claim must be empirically
verifiable.
 Feelings or emotions involved in moral thinking should be anchored on careful
consideration of a full range of right goals, including altruistic ones.
Feelings as Instinctive Response to Moral Dilemmas

Some ethicist believe that ethics is also a matter of emotion. They hold that moral

judgment at their best should also be emotional. Feelings are seen as also necessary in

ethical judgment as they are even deemed by some as instinctive and trained response to

moral dilemmas.
 Some hold that reason and emotion are not really opposites. Both abstract

inference and emotional intuitions or instincts are seen as having relative roles in ethical

thinking. For one thing, feelings or emotions are said to be judgments about the

accomplishment of one’s goals. Emotions, it is thus concluded, can be rational in being

based at least sometimes on good judgments about how well a circumstance or agent

accomplishes appropriate objectives. Feelings are also visceral or instinctual by

providing motivations to act morally.

 In this lesson, we will tackle how feelings as instinctive responses

to moral dilemmas can serve as obstacles to making right decisions. And

to balance our treatment on feelings, we will also discuss how feelings

and emotions are trained responses to situations may help in taking ethical

decisions.
Feelings as Obstacles in Making the Right Decision

Feelings and emotions, however can become obstacles to becoming ethical. This is
the case especially when feelings’ roles in ethics are misinterpreted or exaggerated. So
as a way of providing this, let us discuss the two famous (but erroneous) feeling-
based theories in Ethics.

1. Ethical Subjectivism
It is not about what things are good and what things are bad. It also does not tell
how we should live or what moral norms we should practice. Instead, it is a theory
about the nature of moral judgments.
 Although it admits that moral judgments are ‘truth bearers’, Ethical
Subjectivism holds that the truth and falsity of ethical propositions is dependent on
the feelings, attitudes, or standards of a person or group of persons. Contrary to the
belief that morality is about objective facts, this theory states that moral judgments
simply describe our personal feelings.

For every controversial topic, say homosexuality or abortion, we usually hear

at least two opposing views concerning the matter. One camp which declares that

the action as immoral may express its stand by saying that God hates it, or that is

unethical, or that the doers of the action must be punished by the government.
 On the other hand, the rival group may claim that the action is

perfectly normal and practitioners must be tolerated, if not respected. But

there is a third stance- another group might say that people in the first two

groups are expressing their respective opinion, but where morality is

concerned, there are no objective facts and no position is objectively right.

This third stance represents Ethical Subjectivism. It submits that our moral

opinions are based on our feelings, and nothing more.

 In Ethical Subjectivism, it is a fact that some people are homosexual

and some are heterosexual, but it is not a fact that one is really good and the

other, bad. So when someone says that homosexuality is wrong, he is,

according to the theory, not stating fact about homosexuality but merely

saying something about his feelings toward it. Subjectivists hold that there

is no such thing as objective right or real wrong.

Analyzing Ethical Subjectivism

Ethical subjectivism suggests that we are to identify our moral

principles by simply following our feelings. On a positive note, it allows

us to think for ourselves because it implies that we need to agree with

culture and society. Ethically, it makes sense for a theory not to ultimately

base morality on what society feels or dictates.

 But subjectivism has plenty of problems. It indicates, unbelievably,

that the mere fact that we like something would make it good. So just

imagine how the theory would assess acts like taking prohibited drugs,

getting intoxicated, and bullying others if some persons do like them.

Moreover, the theory provides a weak foundation for dealing with topics

like slavery, racism, and discrimination. In subjectivism, these things would

be good only if we like them.

 Notice too, Ethical Subjectivism also implies that each of us is infallible so long
as we are honestly expressing our respective feelings about moral issues. On the
contrary though, it is a fact that we are sometimes wrong in our moral evaluation, so
much so that we do want to change our judgments upon discovering that we are
mistaken. So, against subjectivism, we may submit this argument:” If Ethical
Subjectivism is correct, then each of us is infallible in our moral judgments as long as
we are speaking sincerely. But we are not infallible- we may be mistaken, even when we
are speaking sincerely. Therefore, Ethical Subjectivism cannot be correct.
 Furthermore, Subjectivism cannot account for the fact of disagreement in Ethics.
Suppose John believes that hazing is wrong while Peter maintains that it is good.
Certainly, they have disagreement. In Subjectivism, however, there is no disagreement
between them- both of them are correct provided that they are sincere in their feeling
and beliefs. That is, John could not disagree that “Peter believes that hazing is good”.
Conversely, Peter could not disagree that “John believes that hazing is wrong”.
Subjectivism entails that each should acknowledge the truth of what the other is saying.
 Finally, the theory could also have dangerous implications in moral

education. When the theory faithfully subscribed to, children would be

taught to simply follow their likes and dislikes. Deficient in providing us

any guide on how to develop sensible and proper feelings, the theory, in

effect, tells us to simply follow our personal feelings and emotions.

 
2. Emotivism
One way to look at Emotivism is to view it as an improved version
of Subjectivism, considered by its proponents as far more subtle and
sophisticated than subjectivism. Emotivism is deemed invulnerable to
many objections. This theory that was developed chiefly by the
American philosopher Charles L. Stevenson has been one of the most
influential theories of Ethics in the 20th century.
 The theory basically states that moral judgments express positive or negative
feelings. “X is right” merely means “Hooray for X!”—and “X is immoral” just means
“Boo on X!” Since ethical judgments are essentially commands and exclamations, they
are not true or false; so there cannot be moral truths and moral knowledge.

Emotivism is actually the most popular form of non-cognitivism, the meta-ethical

theory that claims that ethical sentences do not convey authentic propositions. Moral
judgments according to Emotivism, are not statements of fact but are expressions of the
emotions of the speaker, especially since they are usually feeling- based.
 To understand how the theory views moral judgments, it would help to note that
language is used in a variety of ways. Principally, language is used to state facts or what
we believe to be facts. Thus, we may say, “Marcos was president of the Philippines,”
“Gasoline costs Php 50 per liter,” and “Jose Rizal is the author of Noli Me Tangere.” In
each case, we are saying something that is either true or false, and the purpose of our
utterance is, typically, to convey information to the listener.

But there are other purposes for which language may be used. Suppose one says,
“Close the door!” This utterance is neither true nor false. It is not a statement of any kind
but a command. Its purpose is not to convey information but to get one to do something.
In giving you a command, I am not trying to alter your beliefs; instead I’m trying to
influence your conduct.
 Aside from commands, the following utterances are also not statements of fact:
“Hurrah for Aquino”; ”Boo on the price of gasoline!”; and “Alright Pepe!” None of
these can be true or false- it would make no sense to say that, It is true to say that
“hurrah for Aquino” or It is false that “boo on the price of gasoline.” Note that these
sentences are not used to state facts. Instead, they are used to express the speaker’s
attitudes.
 With these points in mind, let us turn our attention to ethical sentences.
According to Emotivism, utterances in ethics are not fact-stating sentences, that is,
they are not used to convey information. Emotivism claims that they have two
entirely different purposes.
 First, they are used as a means of influencing other’s behavior. If
someone says “Stealing is immoral,” Emotivism interprets it as an attempt
to stop you from doing the act. Thus, the utterance is more like a command-
it is equivalent to saying, “Don’t do that!”

Second, moral sentences are used to express (not report) the speaker’s
attitude. Accordingly, saying “Fair play is good” is not like saying “I
approve of fair play”, but it is like saying “Hurrah for fair play!”
 So there lies the difference between Emotivism and Subjectivism. Subjectivism

interprets ethical sentences as statements of fact, particularly as reports of the speaker’s

attitude. In Subjectivism, when John says “Hazing is immoral,” this is the same as “I

(John) disapprove of hazing”. It is therefore seen as a statement of fact about John’s

attitude, which could be true or false.

Emotivism on the other hand, denies that John’s utterance states any fact at all,

even a fact about him. Instead, John’s utterance is viewed as equivalent to something

such as (1)” Hazing—yech!” and (2) “Do not participate in hazing.

Evaluating Emotivism

In effect, Emotivism suggests that in ethical disputes, we cannot appeal to reason

but only to emotion. Without doubt, this could bring about anarchy. The theory could

encourage propaganda wars in which all parties involved, not minding to resort to reason,

would simply to manipulate the feelings or emotions of the opponents. Emotivism is thus

against our basic knowledge that it is favorable if opposing groups would instead

judiciously deliberate about their ethical differences and resort to reasons to resolve them
 Emotivism fails to distinguish moral judgment from mere expressions of personal
preference. For an utterance to become a genuine moral or value judgment, it must be
supported by pertinent reasons. That is, if someone tells us that a certain action is
immoral, we may ask why it is so, and if there is no reasonable answer, we may discard
the proposition as absurd.

This spells the difference of moral judgments from mere expressions of personal
preference. If after eating someone says, “I like sweet cake”, he is not required to support
it with good reasons. For that is a statement about his personal taste and nothing more.
But in case of moral judgments, they require backing by reasons. In the absence of
sensible rationale, they are merely capricious and ignorable.
 Having logical positivist background, Emotivism discards moral truths.
Maintaining that moral claims are not testable by empirical observation and
experimentation, the theory reduced morality to mere matters of feelings.
Emotivism fails to notice that humans have not only feelings but also reason,
and reason plays a vital role in Ethics. In fact, moral truths are truths of
reason, that is, a moral judgment is true if it is espoused by better reasons
than the alternatives.
Feelings Can Help in Making the Right Decisions

Our discussion on Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism should not be construed,

however, as completely removing people’s feeling, taste, emotion, liking, and the like in

the sphere of morality. Admittedly, there are situations in which our feelings and likings

are relevant to the rightness of our decisions and actions. In selecting a course to take, a

job to assume, and especially a person to marry, we wonder how one’s decision can be

really right without at least considering our feeling, taste, and preference.
 Moreover, ethics-without-feeling also appears to go against Christian

philosophy’s emphasis on love, for love is basically a strong liking, desire,

or emotion. Applied religiously, excluding feelings in moral living seems to

go against the biblical decree to worship and serve God with a joyful heart

or feeling.
 Experientially, our moral compasses are also strongly influenced by

the fleeting forces of disgust fondness, or fear. Indeed, subjective feelings

sometimes matter when deciding right and wrong. Emotions, like our love

for our friends and family, are a crucial part of what gives life meaning, and

ought to play a guiding role in morality. Sometimes, cold, impartial, rational

thinking is not the only proper way to make an ethical decision.

 Nonetheless, the feelings or emotions involved in moral thinking

should be anchored on careful consideration of a full range of right goals,

including altruistic ones. This consideration ought to mesh with an

emotional instinctive reaction that provides a motivation to act ethically and

correct injustices.
Assignment (included in Assignment 1M)

Go to www.ourhappyschool.com look for the article “Same Sex Marriage: Good or Bad

for our Society?”. On a piece of paper, state your stand and a brief explanation why you

believe so.

 
End of Topic