Reason Vs Instinct Research Paper

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

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.

For example, you have an inner problem in your household and want to resolve it; do you ponder that leaving your house may help you answer it? No, it isn’t likely; therefore he was a fool. This isn’t the simple reason that convinced me that he was irrational; disregarding his faithful family and a great degree is another element.

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.

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

Reason also known as (logic or logos) refers to any attempt to appeal an argument using only valid facts. Some individual’s actions are based on reasons, as they are managed by rationality and they think very cautiously about all the decision they make. Conversely, passion also known as (emotion or pathos) refers to being able to persuade a situation

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.

Why? Because the instincts that are warring in man are not, as the law claims, constant forces in a state of equilibrium.” Albert Camus.

There are many examples of hard-wired human instincts that help keep us alive. Perhaps the most obvious case is the fight-or-flight response. When humans are faced with danger or stress, a biological trigger helps us decide whether to stay and fight or quickly flee the situation-- flight. In Elie Wiesel’s memoir Night, we see how closely linked human nature and survival are. Elie Wiesel suggests that some people are morally better than others and circumstances greatly affect people’s behavior.

“Ways of knowing are a check on our instinctive judgments.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? Often times, when people can’t form a logical reason for certain things they did, their justification is “because I had a gut feeling”. Indeed, people sometimes make judgments based on their gut feelings, or intuition. It is a very subjective and interesting way to gain knowledge. Our intuition can trick us into traps in which we never thought we would fall; it can also lead us to bold, unconventional decisions which bring us truth and knowledge. Our instinctive judgments often become more justifiable when they are “checked”, or verified, by other ways of knowing. Before I answer the

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.

he greatest plea for reason is its fairmindedness (Obejective views) but at the same time shows its lapse in weakness. With morals we associate the importance and consequences of our decisions along with morals so it is for this reason that ethics can not be purely objective. Without, the belief in an absolute moral code ethics regarding reason has to always associate with context therefore certain uses of reasoning can be better than others when talking about context. Through our previous example we use emotion to judge the severity of the crisis. In the U.S protestors of all sorts took the internet and the streets to protest the idleness of America. These protestors showed a ‘motivation’ for what they believed is right in a democracy where

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

David Hume's most famous quote is “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” To understand the implications of this quote as a basis for an ethical theory you need to understand that every other ethical theory attempts to derive how things ought to be from how things are. The jumps from matters of fact and relations of ideas perceived by reason, to value judgments perceived by emotions, are made in Hume’s opinion with no logical reason. There is nothing contradictory in the statement the sun will not rise in the morning, it is not unreasonable. We only feel that it “ought to” continue rising in the morning. The scientific method uses inductive reasoning to construct a hypothesis and Hume does not contend that it should not be used. It has been useful thus far in making predictions and it is the only tool that we have for understanding the world around us.

Over the last 2 decades it has been understood that collaboration of different areas play a huge role understanding human behavior. In the other hand, being rational, according to the Oxford definition, is “being able to think sensibly or logically. Using reason and logic”. If emotions did not affect our rationality, how can we possibly have so much crime and at the same time, so much success from others? The same answer is applied to this part of the question; emotions alone do not affect our rationality. It is a complex system of interconnected networks including emotions, cognitions, physiology, psychology and more.