PHL 106. Ethics. Paper 2 Topics.- Choose one of the following  topics and write a 4 to 5 pages paper. Make sure you answer each question asked in the topic.

QUESTION

Choose one of the following  topics and write a 4 to 5 pages paper. Make sure you answer each question asked in the topic. Give reasons and/or examples to support your answers and, if controversial, defend them against possible objections. Be clear and precise (avoid ambiguity and vagueness). Also give the paper a clear structure with paragraphs, transitions and continuity. Remember that if you take words, information or ideas from someone else, even short sentences, you need quotation marks and references, otherwise it is plagiarism.

1. In what ways does Jonathan Haidt in the Righteous Mind agree with Hume’s  and Glaucon’s positions and in what ways does he disagree with them? For each case, explain some of the main research he uses to support his views. Are these positions convincing? Or could his research or findings be challenged? If so, how?

1. In the Righteous Mind Jonathan Haidt argues against the idea that rationality is the main attribute we use when we make moral judgements. This is part of what he calls the rationalist delusion. However, the fact that the first impulse for making a moral judgement comes from the emotions does not mean the judgement is correct. (In other words, the fact that the elephant immediately leans to one side (or another) of a moral dilemma does not mean that side is correct. Haidt recognizes the importance of exploratory over confirmatory thought and of some individuals challenging the reasoning of others to arrive at truths (or to produce good public policy). Could this mean that reason still is what must justify what is moral? What could Kantians say to support the view that morality comes from reason and what could they say to Haidt claims that Hume is correct?

ANSWER

The Role of Reason and Emotion in Moral Judgments: A Critique of Haidt’s Perspective

Introduction

In his book “The Righteous Mind,” Jonathan Haidt challenges the prevailing notion that moral judgments are primarily driven by rationality. He argues against the “rationalist delusion” and emphasizes the crucial role of emotions in shaping our moral perceptions. While Haidt agrees with certain aspects of Hume’s and Glaucon’s positions, he also presents contrasting viewpoints. This essay will analyze Haidt’s agreements and disagreements with Hume and Glaucon, evaluate the research he employs to support his arguments, and examine potential challenges to his claims.

Agreements with Hume and Glaucon

Haidt aligns with Hume’s position that moral judgments stem from emotions rather than reason alone. He argues that our initial moral intuitions are primarily driven by gut feelings or what he metaphorically refers to as the “elephant.” This aligns with Hume’s belief that reason is the “slave of the passions.” Haidt’s emphasis on the role of emotions echoes Glaucon’s assertion that humans are naturally inclined towards self-interest.

Haidt’s Research to Support Emotional Influence

To support his stance, Haidt presents research findings from various domains. For example, he explores the moral foundations theory, which proposes that moral judgments are shaped by innate psychological modules. Haidt’s research demonstrates that moral judgments are not solely based on rational thought processes but are deeply influenced by emotions such as empathy, disgust, and loyalty. He cites studies that reveal how individuals make moral decisions based on intuitive emotional responses, even when faced with conflicting rational arguments.

Disagreements with Hume and Glaucon

While Haidt acknowledges the significance of emotions in moral judgments, he does not discount the role of reason altogether. Haidt emphasizes the importance of exploratory thought and the process of individuals challenging each other’s reasoning to arrive at objective truths or formulate effective public policies. This suggests that Haidt does not entirely dismiss reason as a justifying factor in determining morality.

Kantian Perspective on Reason and Morality

Kantians argue that morality is derived from reason rather than emotions. They propose that moral judgments should be based on a universalizable principle, such as the categorical imperative. According to Kant, individuals possess a rational capacity that enables them to recognize and act in accordance with moral duties. Kantians might counter Haidt’s claims by asserting that reason provides the necessary framework for evaluating the morality of our actions and decisions.

Challenges to Haidt’s Claims

Haidt’s position may face challenges regarding the potential subjectivity and cultural variability of emotions. Critics could argue that relying solely on emotions for moral judgments might lead to a lack of moral objectivity and consistency. Additionally, the research supporting Haidt’s perspective is not immune to criticism. Skeptics may question the generalizability of findings across diverse populations and contexts, raising concerns about the reliability and validity of the studies he references.

Conclusion

Jonathan Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind” presents a compelling argument against the notion that rationality is the sole driver of moral judgments. While he aligns with Hume’s and Glaucon’s emphasis on the influence of emotions, Haidt acknowledges the role of reason in shaping moral perceptions. By highlighting the importance of exploratory thought and reasoned discourse, Haidt recognizes that reason still plays a crucial role in justifying what is moral. Kantians might challenge Haidt’s claims by asserting that reason is fundamental to determining morality. However, it is essential to critically evaluate the research presented by Haidt and address potential challenges to his arguments to fully comprehend the complex interplay between reason and emotion in moral  judgments.