In response to Cameron Hamlet's question, "If one human has a tendency to suffer more, say they cry everyday and are very emotional, do they have more moral value than a human who rarely cries and is stable minded?"...
This is a very intriguing question, but I believe my answer is simply "no". I understand some humans suffer more than others, both physically and emotionally. Some lead easy lives, while others are plagued by genocide, war, and poverty. Some are always dealing with diseases they contract, and others go throughout their entire lives, barely even catching a cold. As for me, I have a low pain tolerance. But, as for emotional suffering, all individuals have different ways of dealing with their pain. I have friends who will cry and cry for hours and eventually feel better. I tend to push things far back into my mind, "bottling up" my problems. There is really no right or wrong way to deal with our feelings.
However, what about moral value of such people one may ask? Well, it seems to me that moral value is more separate from emotions that Cameron is implying. There is a difference between morals and emotions. Consulting "dictionary.com", morals are defined as, "conforming to the rules of right conduct," and emotions are defined as, "any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc." So, basically morals can evoke emotional feelings within us, but morals are not emotions. This leads me to believe that someone who is deemed "emotional" does not have a higher moral value than anyone who is their opposite. I think this is because those who are "stable-minded" truly are still just as emotional as everyone else, they just do not show their feelings physically. Do you believe that it is "healthy" to cry? Are some ways of expressing our emotions better than others?
No comments:
Post a Comment