In this blog post, we explore why moral judgments originate from emotions rather than reason through various perspectives on bioethics and moral issues.
Humanity enjoys the benefits of various technologies in our ever-advancing civilization. Among these, biotechnology and genetic engineering contribute to prolonging human life and improving physical defects, greatly improving our quality of life. However, as technology advances, cases arise that raise ethical questions about whether research should continue. On a narrow scale, there are heated debates on whether human cloning and embryonic stem cell research should be allowed. On a broader scale, there are conflicting opinions on whether genetic engineering technology should be used to determine the genetic traits of unborn children or whether procedures aimed at enhancement rather than treatment should be allowed. It would be possible to write an essay taking a position for or against these cases, but instead, I considered the reasons why people have different judgments and opinions on these issues.
To conclude, I believe that it is because each person has different feelings about the issue. I believe that all moral and ethical judgments, including bioethical issues such as human cloning and embryonic stem cell research, are based on emotions. Simply put, when a person encounters a morally and ethically controversial issue, if they have negative feelings about it, they will judge that the issue is morally and ethically wrong. For example, people who do not consider embryos to be human beings may not feel particularly negative about using embryos for research purposes and therefore may not consider such research to be problematic. On the other hand, people who consider embryos to be human beings feel negative emotions about using humans for research purposes and therefore judge it to be ethically wrong.
I have concluded that emotions are the basis for moral and ethical judgments because of the advantages this conclusion offers. First, it allows for a thorough reflection of one’s own subjectivity, which explains the diversity of judgments. People have different feelings about issues, so their judgments vary. Second, it allows for flexible judgments without losing consistency. For example, there may be people who feel negative emotions about a certain issue but judge that it is not ethically wrong. Utilitarians are a good example. When asked to judge a situation in which “one person must be sacrificed to save many,” utilitarians may feel negative emotions such as sadness for the sacrifice of one person, but they may decide that it is ethically acceptable because it will result in the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. However, what if the situation changes and they themselves must be sacrificed? Or what if someone they care about must be sacrificed? Even if the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people is achieved, would they make the same decision in an extreme situation where the number of victims increases or the method of sacrifice changes? When presented with many situations, how many people would be able to consistently uphold the principle of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, even in extreme situations? Or is it even possible for such people to exist? Even if there are people who consistently apply this principle, the conclusions reached in extreme situations will not be accepted by the majority of people and will instead raise doubts about the principle itself. This is true not only for utilitarianism but also for other ethical theories. The use of the terms “moral” and “ethical” implies that no single opinion can be considered absolutely correct, which means that no theory can be applied consistently in extreme situations. However, if emotions are used as the basis for judgment, it is possible to maintain consistency in relying on emotions even when making different judgments depending on the situation.
Finally, it is possible to answer the question of when moral judgments are necessary. Is it really necessary to make moral judgments about all actions and issues? We make moral judgments about littering on the street, but should we also make moral judgments about eating when we are hungry? I believe that emotions can be used to answer this question. Most of us feel negative emotions such as disgust when we see trash thrown on the street, but we do not feel particularly negative about someone eating because they are hungry. In this way, I believe that whether or not “most” people have negative emotions distinguishes whether moral judgment is necessary. I use the word “most” because there are people who do not feel this way. Some people may feel negative emotions about eating when they are hungry. For example, when the president of a talent agency hears that a trainee ate because he was hungry, he may think, “How can someone who wants to be a celebrity not even be able to control his hunger and manage his weight?” and judge that the trainee is morally and ethically wrong. However, most people would disagree with this opinion and would not even attempt to judge its morality, so it does not become a moral issue. In summary, moral judgments are necessary when the majority of people feel negative emotions and attempt to make moral judgments.
For this reason, I believe that emotions are the basis of moral and ethical judgments. However, it is difficult to present them as evidence to support one’s own claims, as they are the basis of “judgment.” For example, in a debate on embryonic stem cell research, it would be impossible to argue against it by saying, “I feel uncomfortable with the use of embryos in research, so I don’t think the research should continue.” In order to persuade others, logical grounds must be added to judgments based on emotions.
In a narrow sense, when it comes to human cloning and embryonic stem cell research, and in a broader sense, when it comes to all ethical issues, rather than simply insisting on a position of agreement or disagreement, it is important to respect the moral and ethical judgments of individuals, just as we respect their feelings, and to take a stance of understanding others in order to reach a consensus that reflects the opinions of both sides, thereby taking a step forward toward a world where all of humanity can live well.
