1. How much should we rely on reason and how much on emotion when making decisions about our personal lives? Setting law? Other decisions?
Used correctly, emotion and logic are not at odds. We should listen to both fully when making decisions on a personal level.
Legal decisions are best made on a basis that is generalisable. Emotional decisions are seldom generalisable; thus, evidence and logic form the best basis for law.
This seldom happens in practise.
2. Are there circumstances where purely reason should be used to make decisions? Only emotion?
On a personal level, no. There is never basis for completely ignoring your emotional reaction to a situation- doing so can be quite dangerous (http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Fear-Gavin-Becker/dp/0440226198)- or for refusing to consider logical consideration.
There may well be reason to defer a logical discussion with a particular person, but that's another issue.
3. How much of our laws are based on morality? How much should be?
All of our laws should be founded in morality. The catch is this: law should be founded in moral consensus- no smarmy minorities trying to sneak in laws that are against other people's beliefs. If you want me to buy in to your morality, persuade me politely.
Further, I believe that law should focus on that subset of immorality that (a) is enforceable, and (b) constitutes significant public threat.
no subject
Legal decisions are best made on a basis that is generalisable. Emotional decisions are seldom generalisable; thus, evidence and logic form the best basis for law.
This seldom happens in practise.On a personal level, no. There is never basis for completely ignoring your emotional reaction to a situation- doing so can be quite dangerous (http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Fear-Gavin-Becker/dp/0440226198)- or for refusing to consider logical consideration.
There may well be reason to defer a logical discussion with a particular person, but that's another issue.
All of our laws should be founded in morality. The catch is this: law should be founded in moral consensus- no smarmy minorities trying to sneak in laws that are against other people's beliefs. If you want me to buy in to your morality, persuade me politely.
Further, I believe that law should focus on that subset of immorality that (a) is enforceable, and (b) constitutes significant public threat.
Am I making sense?