but only if they are acceptable to the > rest of us. <<Manfraco Really, I have a hard time understanding this. I take it that if my emotions are not acceptable to you and yours then it is deemed unacceptable?
By what right does anyone or any society have to determine that someone's emotions are not acceptable. Of course I will reiterate my first reply. Morality has a broad scope considering much of it is defined by society/culture/religion. Emotional attachment to a moral dilemma would have to be based on the defined moral incident specific to a circumstance. I think we'd be better to work with a specific moral dilemma if we are going to establish the correctness of moral emotions and whether they should be kept in check or allowed to flow freely. Anyone have an example of a moral dilemma? Lee you started this so you should provide an example of what you were thinking about. On Mar 12, 4:57 pm, Manfraco Frank Elder <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Lee! > I believe that in a moral dilemma emotions must be kept in check by > reason, which is the base of acceptable human standard, therefore > emotions have a role in it; but only if they are acceptable to the > rest of us. > > On Mar 10, 1:46 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > So a though occoured to me yesterday. > > > Is it better to approach moraly dilemars in an emotionly unattached > > reasonable way, or do emotions have a role to play in moral questions? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
