The importance of emotion has likely been discussed many times. While there are defensible arguments for both the benefits of emotions as well as their destructive nature, I don’t think that they can be defined as either completely positive or negative.
I agree with Hannah Arendt in that emotion does cause a large portion of the world’s evil. For example, many of the violent crimes committed are done so because people are unable to control their frustration, anger, resentment or or jealousy. That being said, I also think that without emotion, evil would have a much greater role in society. An emotionless person would be one without empathy or understanding, one who feels no need to help others. This is a dangerous attribute for a society that already has the potential for acts of evil. For example, without compassion, many soldiers might not have enlisted in the military to join the Second World War. Without these soldiers, a number of occupied countries might not have been liberated and many more people in concentration camps might have died. Although it was hateful, strong emotions that started this war, emotions likely played a part in ending it. Emotions therefore play a large part in ethics because without them, one has no reason to be ethical. It is not logical to risk one’s life to save another’s, but it might be ethical.
As well as this, as thinkers of the 21st century, we are capable of assessing historical evidence as well as historical choices through the use and perception of emotions. To go back to the Second World War example, if we read a copy of ‘Mein Kampf’ without determining the reliability of the evidence, we would have a skewed perception of the people in the 1930’s. Since we feel emotions, we are able to detect emotions in others; therefore we can perceive the obsessive nature of Hitler’s hatred towards non-Aryans. We can assess that his words are strongly biased and likely unreliable in terms of how non-Aryan lived. This task can be done without the use of emotions; by analysing the language used in ‘Mein Kampf’ we could come to a similar conclusion as through the use of emotion. That being said, perhaps without any insight into Hitler’s feelings, we would be less perceptive of the extremism found in his writings. Also, this insight would likely be less widespread, as anyone who reads ‘Mein Kampf’ can feel the hatred in Hitler’s words but perhaps only people trained in language analysis could come to this conclusion without the use of emotion.
In the same way, we can assess and make judgements on historical events. If we examine slavery through a purely logical lens, there is little reason to critique it. Slavery provided a stable economy, and the ‘mudsill’ theory suggests that without low class workers, there can be no upper class. These arguments are perfectly sound until we look at them using emotions. The exploitation of people to the extent that their ancestors will be affected by it hundreds of years in the future is emotionally unthinkable. Using emotion, we can rank this as a historical fault never to be repeated. In this way, emotion can be used to assess ethics as well as historical knowledge. According to Utilitarianism, an action is morally right if it promotes happiness. We can clearly see that there were few, if any, happy slaves and Utilitarianism logically tells us that slavery is ethically wrong. However, the economical and societal benefits are at odds with the Utilitarianism-established wrongness. Logically, this debate reaches a stalemate. Emotionally, there are no reasons to applaud slavery. For that reason, I don’t think logic is as effective as emotions when dealing with ethical questions.
Many aspects of society would become worthless without emotions. Theatre, music, paintings, sculptures and films cannot be enjoyed without emotions. Culture as a whole becomes obsolete without people to cherish and appreciate it. Indigenous knowledge, religious knowledge and the arts have no purpose in a society where people can’t feel, be inspired or believe. I would argue that in a society without emotions, lives would become bleak and uninspired.
Emotions are necessary for an ethical, critical and worthwhile life.
I agree with Hannah Arendt in that emotion does cause a large portion of the world’s evil. For example, many of the violent crimes committed are done so because people are unable to control their frustration, anger, resentment or or jealousy. That being said, I also think that without emotion, evil would have a much greater role in society. An emotionless person would be one without empathy or understanding, one who feels no need to help others. This is a dangerous attribute for a society that already has the potential for acts of evil. For example, without compassion, many soldiers might not have enlisted in the military to join the Second World War. Without these soldiers, a number of occupied countries might not have been liberated and many more people in concentration camps might have died. Although it was hateful, strong emotions that started this war, emotions likely played a part in ending it. Emotions therefore play a large part in ethics because without them, one has no reason to be ethical. It is not logical to risk one’s life to save another’s, but it might be ethical.
As well as this, as thinkers of the 21st century, we are capable of assessing historical evidence as well as historical choices through the use and perception of emotions. To go back to the Second World War example, if we read a copy of ‘Mein Kampf’ without determining the reliability of the evidence, we would have a skewed perception of the people in the 1930’s. Since we feel emotions, we are able to detect emotions in others; therefore we can perceive the obsessive nature of Hitler’s hatred towards non-Aryans. We can assess that his words are strongly biased and likely unreliable in terms of how non-Aryan lived. This task can be done without the use of emotions; by analysing the language used in ‘Mein Kampf’ we could come to a similar conclusion as through the use of emotion. That being said, perhaps without any insight into Hitler’s feelings, we would be less perceptive of the extremism found in his writings. Also, this insight would likely be less widespread, as anyone who reads ‘Mein Kampf’ can feel the hatred in Hitler’s words but perhaps only people trained in language analysis could come to this conclusion without the use of emotion.
In the same way, we can assess and make judgements on historical events. If we examine slavery through a purely logical lens, there is little reason to critique it. Slavery provided a stable economy, and the ‘mudsill’ theory suggests that without low class workers, there can be no upper class. These arguments are perfectly sound until we look at them using emotions. The exploitation of people to the extent that their ancestors will be affected by it hundreds of years in the future is emotionally unthinkable. Using emotion, we can rank this as a historical fault never to be repeated. In this way, emotion can be used to assess ethics as well as historical knowledge. According to Utilitarianism, an action is morally right if it promotes happiness. We can clearly see that there were few, if any, happy slaves and Utilitarianism logically tells us that slavery is ethically wrong. However, the economical and societal benefits are at odds with the Utilitarianism-established wrongness. Logically, this debate reaches a stalemate. Emotionally, there are no reasons to applaud slavery. For that reason, I don’t think logic is as effective as emotions when dealing with ethical questions.
Many aspects of society would become worthless without emotions. Theatre, music, paintings, sculptures and films cannot be enjoyed without emotions. Culture as a whole becomes obsolete without people to cherish and appreciate it. Indigenous knowledge, religious knowledge and the arts have no purpose in a society where people can’t feel, be inspired or believe. I would argue that in a society without emotions, lives would become bleak and uninspired.
Emotions are necessary for an ethical, critical and worthwhile life.