Why do moral and ethical judgments differ from person to person, and can emotions be the basis for them?

This article explains why moral and ethical judgments differ from person to person by differences in emotions, and discusses whether emotions can be the basis for moral judgments. It also explores whether these judgments can be consistent while remaining diverse and flexible.

 

Humanity has benefited from a variety of technologies in our increasingly advanced civilization. Among them, biotechnology and genetic engineering have contributed to extending human life and correcting physical defects, greatly improving the quality of life. However, as technology advances, there are cases that raise ethical questions about whether research should continue. The debate ranges from the narrow question of whether human cloning and embryonic stem cell research should be allowed to the broader question of whether genetic engineering techniques should be allowed to determine the genotype of a child born, or whether procedures aimed at enhancement rather than cure should be allowed. I could have written an article arguing for or against each of these cases, but instead, I thought about why different people have different judgments and opinions on these issues.
At the end of the day, I think it’s because different people have different “feelings” about the issues. I believe that all moral and ethical judgments, including bioethics, such as human cloning and embryonic stem cell issues, are based on emotions. In other words, when a person is faced with a moral and ethical controversy, if they have negative emotions, they are more likely to judge the issue as morally and ethically wrong. For example, in the case of embryonic stem cell research, people who don’t view embryos as human may not have strong negative feelings about using embryos for research purposes and therefore don’t see the research as problematic. On the other hand, people who view embryos as human beings may have negative feelings about the use of human beings for research purposes, and therefore find it ethically problematic.
The reason I concluded that emotions are the basis of morality and ethics is because of the advantages of this conclusion. First, it explains the diversity of judgments because it allows for a thorough reflection of one’s own subjectivity. Different people feel differently about an issue, which explains the diversity of judgments. Second, it allows for flexibility in judgment without losing consistency. For example, someone might have negative feelings about an issue, but decide that it’s not ethically wrong. A utilitarian is an example of this. If a utilitarian is asked to make a judgment about a situation where “one person’s sacrifice can save many people,” the utilitarian might feel a negative emotion, such as sadness at the sacrifice of one person, but decide that it’s ethically okay because it maximizes happiness by saving many people. But what if the situation changed and the person had to sacrifice themselves, or someone they cared about? Would they make the same judgment in an extreme situation where the maximal happiness of the greatest number of people is the same, but the number of victims is increased or the method of sacrifice is different? Given a large number of situations, how many people would be able to consistently defend the principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number, even under extreme circumstances? Even if one were to apply this principle consistently, the conclusions reached in extreme situations would not be agreed upon by the majority of people, but would rather raise doubts about whether the principle itself is wrong. This is true not only of utilitarianism, but also of other ethical theories. The use of the term moral and ethical “issues” implies that no one opinion is absolutely correct, which I believe means that no theory has absolute principles that can be consistently applied to extreme situations. However, by using emotions as the “basis” for judgment, we can be consistent in relying on them, even if we are flexible and make different judgments depending on the situation.
Finally, it allows us to answer the question of when moral judgment is necessary. Is a moral judgment necessary for every behavior or issue? If we make a moral judgment about the act of throwing trash on the side of the road, should we also make a moral judgment about the act of eating a meal because we are hungry? Using emotions to explain this, we can answer this question. Most of us feel negative emotions, such as displeasure, when we see someone throwing trash on the side of the road, but we don’t feel much negative emotion when we see someone eating because they are hungry. In this way, whether or not “most” people have negative emotions is a distinction between whether or not an issue requires a moral judgment. I use the word “most” because there are some people who do not. Some people may have negative feelings about the act of eating because they are hungry. For example, if the owner of an entertainment agency hears that a trainee ate because they were hungry, they might think, “How can someone who wants to be an entertainer try to manage their weight by not being hungry?” and decide that the trainee is morally and ethically wrong. However, the vast majority of people would disagree with this opinion and wouldn’t even try to determine if it’s moral, so it’s not a moral issue. In summary, where moral judgment is required is where the majority of people feel negative emotions and attempt to make moral judgments.
For this reason, I believe that emotions are the basis for moral and ethical judgments. However, they are the basis for judgment, not evidence that can be used to convince others to support your argument. For example, in a debate for or against embryonic stem cell research, the opposing side would not be able to say, “I feel bad about the use of embryos in research, so I don’t think it should be done.” In order to persuade others, emotionally based judgments need to be backed up by logical arguments.
Rather than simply adopting a position of support or opposition to human cloning and embryonic stem cell research in particular, and to all ethical issues in general, it is important to respect individual moral and ethical judgments just as we respect individual feelings, and to make decisions that reflect both sides of the debate through consensus with an attitude of understanding, so that we can move closer to a world where all humans can live well.