Our emotions are visceral reactions which occur outside reasoned deliberation. Is it therefore not possible or reasonable to evaluate emotional reactions against standards of reason? No - emotions can be evaluated because they are conditioned by our assumptions, beliefs, and culture. Emotional reactions may not be planned in advance, but they aren't inevitable or unavoidable.

In Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law, Martha C. Nussbaum writes:

Is the death of a loved one the sort of thing about which it is reasonable to be upset? Is the view that this loss is a terrible and significant loss a reasonable view to have? Most of us will unhesitatingly answer, “Yes, of course.” The ancient Greek Stoics would have answered, “No, it is not right to be upset at anything that lies outside of our control.” In short, our appraisal of her grief must depend on what we think in general about the norms and values that it seems right to hold. Most of us think that it is right to attach great importance to loved ones, and to think such a death terrible. The Stoics differed because they had a different set of norms, according to which any attachment to people and events outside our control is a weakness and a defect. [...]

For centuries, adultery has been regarded as a provocation adequate to mitigate the killing of either the paramour or the unfaithful spouse to voluntary manslaughter; for centuries, men convicted of this offense have been sentenced leniently. ... Even if marital infidelity continues to be viewed as a serious moral wrong, something it is right to get angry about, few today would assert what was typically asserted in defense of the traditional doctrine, namely, that adultery is “the highest invasion of a man’s property.” (Notice that this shift may be closely connected to a shift in view about whether adultery is properly judged a criminal offense.) Presumably the current view is that it is reasonable to care about one’s spouse and her fidelity, but not in the way that the homicidal husband does. Anger is reasonable, but not the sort of anger that leads to homicide. He is treating his wife as a piece of property that is his to control, rather than a person who has made a free choice, however unfortunate from his point of view.

Here are two excellent examples of vastly different judgments about the appropriateness of a particular emotional reaction: one difference between different cultures and one difference within a culture but over the course of time. This demonstrates, I think, that particular emotional reactions to particular situations are not absolutely necessary and inevitable. We might regard our own reactions in the above situations as perfectly natural and reasonable, something that anyone would experience, but the evidence proves that what is “natural” to us won’t be “natural” to someone else.

There are serious legal and political ramifications to all this. I remember a case where an immigrant from Asia was charged with arson and murder because his reaction to the burning of his house was very stoic and calm. It was assumed by the police that this wasn’t “natural,” not realizing that the man was simply adhering to the expectations of his culture. It’s not unusual for juries and judges to evaluate whether a person’s reaction is “natural” or not and allow this to influence their decision making — but this really isn’t appropriate.

In the political realm, people allow their emotional reactions to things like homosexuality influence the decisions about how others should be treated. These reactions may be regarded as “natural,” but once again what is “natural” to one person won’t be “natural” to someone else. One person may react to homosexuality with shock and disgust, but another may be apathetic. The first isn’t more “natural” but may be evaluated and deemed unreasonable.

 

Read More Book Notes from the Book Reviews on this site.