Well, isn't this deeply disturbing?

[Chaerophon]

Pete (and, last paragraph, Artega),

First of all, I do agree with you, a decided detachment from the emotions is necessary in order to behave in a rational manner. However, that doesn't mean that they are unimportant. Decisions reached without emotion CAN be in danger of hurting more people than they help. Case in point? Look to Africa's present AIDS epidemic and the inability of the people to obtain cheap drugs because of the 'rational logic' behind American patent laws. If they could see the dead piling up for themselves, certain advocates of pharmaceutical protectionism (which is, no doubt about it, rationally justifiable) would, no doubt, find it quite difficult to continue to "step outside of their emotions". I know, I know, there's a whole mess of theory behind the whole patent issue, but the fact remains that millions die every year because of a lack of price regulation in the pharmaceutical field. I have a hard time believing that drug companies need charge what they charge, but... I digress.

By the same token, I understand the emotional duress that may have led soldiers to torture prisoners in Iraq; however, that doesn't make it right, by any stretch of the imagination. I believe that we had a similar discussion a couple of years ago regarding the bombing of Dresden, where you accused me of tainting my opinion that it was a morally reprehensible act with 'emotion'. At the time, I argued that there was nothing wrong with that fact. Since then, not only have I made a "hard charge to the center", but I believe myself to have proven that I am fully capable of acting 'rationally', and of stepping outside of my emotions. However, I feel the same way about Dresden today that I did back then, and no amount of 'rational' appeal can change my opinion that, given the circumstances, the torture in Iraq was morally wrong (and stupid, besides, from a rational perspective).

A simple shared tenet among humans is that "the end cannot always justify the means" (although the kind of torture that has taken place could, theoretically, be justified if the situation was right - I just don't think that that is the case here, see my post above to MEAT) and one primary reason that this is often the case is because our moral compass is centered in the emotions and not our rationality. Call morality what you want (and I don't think that you would go this far): a contrivance, a herd instinct, a sign of weakness or even of stupidity; it is our inability to detach entirely from our emotions, particularly when we are directly exposed to the subject at hand, that guides our compassionate instincts. I, for one, understand the point that you are making; however, Artega's example, I think, goes too far. Without emotion, we lose our ability to sympathize, and without sympathy, our common humanity goes flying out the window. If I cannot place myself in another's shoes and, at least in part, feel what they feel, then my decisions are worth about as much consideration as are those of the unreasoning bleeding-heart. To my mind, the key is to know when to shove emotional response to the back burner, and when to listen. I suppose that this, in itself, is a function of rationality; or not. Meh...