Reason Vs Instinct Research Paper

Some might say, our sense perception does lead us to justifiable instinctive judgments, because the knowledge we gain through it about others’ appearances does reflect their personality. This is only true to a certain extent. If our instinctive judgments can really be checked by sense perception or intuition, then why did some couples who claim to have experienced a “love at first sight” end up falling apart? Because their relationships lack to be “checked” by the most important factor – reason. How long would a relationship last really depends on knowledge gained by reasoning, such as how well the couple’s would view and value match each other’s; how their personalities are complementary, etc. A couple knows their first instinct is right when they decide they are indeed the right ones for each other by logically reasoning out their compatibility. Therefore, reason is ultimately the “check” on our instinctive judgments. To what extent can we rely on our emotion to make good choices at crisis instinctively? Ethical decisions are often to be made in situations where we don’t have enough time nor a clear, conscious mind to make the best judgments, and these decisions made without logical reasoning are intuitive judgments. The man who paid a heavy price for making an irresponsible ethical decision was the captain of the capsized South Korea ferry. He abandoned his passengers and prioritized his own life at the

One of the best defences put forth by Solomon to explain that emotions are rational is that emotions changes in regard to new information, and as a persons opinions change regarding a situation8, which are often fluid and unfixed. Therefore, according to Solomon, because emotions can be changed by an individual, they are rational. Furthermore, Solomon points out that one cannot experience the feeling of anger without choosing to be angry. (He does however, make a concession to being able to pretend to experience a feeling). To further explain how emotions are rational, Solomon argues that we can have incorrect emotions, just like we can have incorrect actions. Solomon writes “it is possible and not unusual to misidentify what one is angry about.”9 Like choosing an incorrect social action (a faux pas at social gathering), one can choose the incorrect emotion for the situation, such as feeling angry towards someone in a setting due to an inconvenience, when politeness would work better, or misinterpreting friendliness for attraction.

Reason and emotion how does it affect our critical thinking? When you are dealing with conflict or debate, it is important to use reason and emotion. If you feel strongly about a subject or conflict you will work harder to prove or disprove the subject. The problem is if you only use emotion your thoughts can get cloudy, emotions can take over. If

Another example of Instinct theory in the movie “27 Hours” is when Aron snaps his arm. This is the second attempt he intends to break off the arm. Aron is near death, but he has visions off a future son that he still does not have. He had visions off having a son, which he later had three years after the arm incident. If it weren’t for the image he had of having a kid, Aron probably wouldn’t have had the instinct and motivation to break his arm off.

Firstly, Hume effectively tackles the commonly held assertion that humans are purely rational creatures that successfully implement reason in every situation. Hume concedes

This is a belief supplemented by the work of Jonathan Haidt in his 2001 publication in the Psych Journal entitled “The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment.” Haidt, through explaining the Social Intuitionist model of moral judgment seeks to end the dominance the rational school of thought has exerted over the world. Increasing the popularity of the social intuitionist model, which takes more variables, such as culture, into account, will affect how people feel about issues, help them to acquire new beliefs, and to help fight one’s ingrained, societal ethics. He enforced the belief that we, as human beings, need both rational, logical thought, and emotional intuition. We are not simply made of one or the other, nor can we separate the two. Haidt likens the relationship between logic and morality to a dog wagging its tail. He believes that “reasoning may be the tail wagged by the dog” (insert cite later), while emotions and moral intuitions, both positive and negative, comprise the dog itself. This allusion illustrates how Haidt feels on the subject; he thinks that logic is a necessary part of people, but it is not the only part, nor is it even the main part. A proponent of the psychological school of thought that emphasizes emotions and intuitions, the social intuitionist model has begun to make great strides; scientists believe “that nearly all complex thought relies on metaphors, drawn mostly from our experience as physical

The ability for one to make rational decisions is vital, and this is especially true for decisions that can have enormous consequences. The process for making rational decisions is tedious, it requires one to have the opportunity to deeply process, evaluate, and re-evaluate available options. This suggests that rational decisions must be made in the absence of external parties because external influences are capable of preventing individuals from processing information for themselves. Otherwise, this would likely result in the individual coming to rash conclusions that cater to the external parties. Unfortunately, under most circumstances, it is a challenge to make rational decisions, because as social animals, we constantly expose

In Ethics it is more of personal and shared knowledge while the human sciences mainly deal with theoretical knowledge. The mindset that has followed the sciences over time has grown to think that reason is all that is used in the Sciences. It is correct to make the assumption that reason does indeed play a dominant role. THe thought of only accepting knowledge through the way of knowing of sense perception in human science leads to a positivistic view. Which in essence explains that all knowledge that derives from sense perception is a form of authoritative

With this perspective, people are considered rational thinkers, and when a person commits a crime, the person is making a rational choice to engage in criminal behavior. If a person steals a purse, they have chosen to do so because of rational thought. The person could be envious, stealing a purse just for fun, or many other reasons. The real issue is that the person rationally decides to take the purse under the wrongful thinking that it will bring them some benefit, and this benefit is important to their own purposes. Crime occurs because people rationally weigh whether they will obtain a reward for committing a criminal act instead of being punished for the criminal act. It is ultimately decided by which one has the strongest pull on the individual.

When humans make a decision, it often turns out to be “predictably irrational” (Ariely, 2009). They always deviate systematically from expected decision rather show an inclination towards a certain way of thinking. This consistency of behavioral or decision bias can be very helpful to identify consequences or outcomes in a different

action would be moral. If reason drove actions, then moral behavior would prevail and there would be no

During the Enlightenment, the topics of rational thinking, logic, and how those ideas affected individuals' actions were widely debated, and they are still controversial today. Although humans believe that decisions are based on rational thinking, recent studies have found that the opposite is true. Humans are more influenced by their emotions than logic due to the overpowering characteristic of feelings, and the inability to make decisions without them.

Have you ever made a decision and later completely wonder why it is you made that decision? “Sway The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior” by Ori Brafman and Rom Brafman examine moments of our lives where we could easily be swayed. The Brafmans discuss topics like commitment and value attribution. With examples of what attracts us into making a bad decision. The brilliant authors make it easy to understand the analyzations of the situations. Where there is a possibility of being swayed. With proper analyzation we can prevent these situations from taking place again. Almost everyone has made a decision we misunderstand and behind that decision is an irresistible pull of irrational behavior. No one is perfect, and no one can avoid being swayed into an irrational situation, not even me.

The human brain relies on the senses to aid in moral decision making. One can only make the best decisions if the brain has conscious awareness. Kevin Carely leads us through this article discussing the important of evolution