According to Nussbaum, ethics are objective, but they stem from such things as emotion and personal world-view. I think that this is not in fact possible. Emotions, by their very nature, are subjective. They may, in some situations, be objectively appropriate, or objectively understandable, or objectively justified, but they themselves are still subjective, because they differ from person to person. In many (if not all) situations, there is not one single appropriate emotion - many different emotional responses are equally appropriate (and sometimes equally rational). Even though certain emotions may be inappropriate, there is still an array of appropriate emotions.
As such, emotions are both subjective, variable, and frequently irrational. While they may have a place in moral philosophy, using them as a basis for an ethical system is, I think, very ill-advised. For example, basing one's justification for the moral necessity of vegetarianism or veganism on the idea that non-human animals are adorable (and as such, eating them is undesirable) will not help to convince many people of this moral necessity, because many people may think that certain animals are not adorable. They can justify their continued meat consumption easily - "I think cows are ugly and smelly, so I shall continue to eat them." An ethical system based on rationality is far less easy to dispute successfully.
No comments:
Post a Comment