Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By:
Sharon Barbour
Advisor:
Dennis Des Chene
In this paper I endeavor to prove false the belief held by many that emotions are the
enemy of reason and should therefore play no role in moral deliberation. Emotions are
an inextricable part of our decisional capacity, and deserve a role in moral delibera-
tion. I argue that rather than attempt to act solely from duty, we should take account of
our emotions in order to determine whether the emotion we feel is worthy to be acted
upon. For many emotions, the context in which they are felt determines whether it
ought be acted upon; there exist, however, morally deficient emotions which are not
permissible in any context, and should never be acted upon. Envy, for example, should
never be serve as a moral motivator, not because it is an emotino, but because is mor-
ally deficient. Other emotinos, however, may and should serve as moral motivators,
which may lead to moral behavior more reliably than acting from duty alone. Thus, by
acknowledging the role of emotions in moral deliberation, we are can more reliably
act in accordance with morality.
Mary Poppins, preparing to depart Number Seventeen, Cherry Tree
Lane, watches the Banks children flying kites with their parents.
duction, I hope to motivate the discussion by laying out some of the history of what people have
thought about emotion and its relationship to reason, and to illustrate the problems that arise when
ethical systems deny the role of emotions in moral deliberation. To reach the problem of denying
emotion its place in moral deliberation, it is necessary to examine why its role is denied in the first
place.
When it comes to moral deliberation, reason is often favored over emotion to determine
what one ought to do, as though the two are mutually exclusive. David Hume observes, “nothing is
more usual in philosophy, and even in common life, than to talk of the combat of passion and rea-
son, to give the preference to reason, and to assert that men are only so far virtuous as they conform
themselves to its dictates,” (Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature 2.3.3, p. 265). Indeed, throughout
history, emotion and reason have often been viewed as diametric opposites. They have been pitted
against each other as foes: emotion is nothing more than primal vestiges of our prehistoric past;
reason is the defining characteristic of civilized man, the loyal guardian of duty. At the root of this
contrast is a philosophical error: the belief that actions motivated by emotion will be capricious
unless stabilized by reason, and the emotions themselves, even if acknowledged and controlled by
reason, can be nothing other than an obstacle. The conception of emotion as an opponent of reason
thus arose. This conception has been propagated in various forms, perpetuating the philosophical
Emotions have been closely associated with weakness of mind and character. A penchant
for sentiment is often viewed as proper to the weaker sex. Arguments about women’s predisposi-
1
The Role of Emotions in Moral Deliberation
tion to excessive emotion illustrate the belief that emotion, when present, is in the place of reason,
as though it is a zero-sum relationship. Emotion, considered irrational, womanish, and weak, came
to be viewed as a flaw, contrasted with an ideal of pure reason. It is as though emotion, if it plays
any role at all in a person’s mental life – let alone in moral deliberation, serves only to obscure
reason 1.
This conception has become entrenched in Western society. The association of emotion
with weakness and femininity can be found in ancient Greece. Aristotle held that
“woman is more compassionate than man, more easily moved to tears, at the
same time is more jealous, more querulous, more apt to scold and to strike. She
is, furthermore, more prone to despondency and less hopeful than the man, more
void of shame or self-respect, more false of speech, more deceptive, and of more
retentive memory.” (Aristotle, The History of Animals, Book IX, Part 1).
Such ideas about a woman’s predisposition to be emotional are echoed in later philosophical trea-
tises2. These arguments have been used to justify the exclusion women from public life in 18th-
and 19th-century France and England3. Claims that emotion and reason are incompatible were
1 This tradition has been echoed over centuries through literature and art. It is expressed in the condemnation of
the vengeful Clytemnaestra in Aeschylus’ Oresteia, and in the exile of the pitiable Agave of Euripides’ Bacchae.
Representations of a dichotomy between reason and emotion have endured, and the characterization of emotions as
incompatible with reason and duty is a recurring motif. It appears in Corneille’s Suréna (1674), Goethe’s Sorrows
of Young Werther (1787), Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility (1811), Michael Curtiz’ film Casablanca (1942), and
countless other tales that involve a protagonist torn between being faithful to the emotions and doing what reason
dictates. In each of these cases, emotion stands in binary opposition to reason; they cannot be employed simultane-
ously or harmoniously. While many examples of literature and film offer different views of the relationship between
emotion and reason, the recurrence of this theme over generations indicates that it represents an idea that resonates
with many.
2 In Book V of Emile, Rousseau’s treatise on the education of women is founded on the principle than men and women
are balanced opposites, and where man is rational woman is emotional. He calls women capricious and changeable,
even when it comes to religious faith: “women cannot confine [the rule of their faith] within the boundaries of evi-
dence and reason, but, allowing themselves to be carried away by a thousand extraneous impulses, they are always on
this side or that of hte truth... The source of the evil is ... in the tendency to extremes which characterizes their sex,”
(p. 276).
3 In correspondence with French revolutionary politician le Comte de Mirabeau regarding the public education in
France, Charles Maurice Talleyrand asserts, “Sans doute la femme doit régner dans l’intérierieur de sa maison; mais
elle ne doit régner que là : partout ailleurs elle est comme déplacée…” (translated: Undoubtedly, woman must rule in
the home; but she must not rule anywhere else : everywhere else she is out of place…)
2
Introduction
maintained even in the 20th century: in 1926, psychologist James Henry Leuba describes how the
supposed correlation between emotion and femininity is proof that the rational capacities of wom-
en are inferior to those of men because they are, unlike men, susceptible to emotion and therefore
resistant to reason. His argument4 reflects the belief that emotion somehow replaces reason in one’s
mental life. The appearance of Leuba’s argument in a popular, mainstream publication indicates
that people were still arguing on supposedly scientific and philosophical grounds that emotion
Today, the belief that emotions indicate mental weakness and suppress the intellect is
considered by many to be archaic. Our understanding of neurology and psychology has deepened
and reflects a greater understanding of the various functions of emotion in one’s mental life (I dis-
cuss this in detail in Section 1). Men are admitted to have feelings, and women are known to be
as equally intellectually capable as men5. There remains, however, a tendency to reject any role of
As recently as the days of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s Senate Committee
Hearing, a contentious issue was her ability to render decisions free from her personal feelings.
Having stated clearly that she does not believe a judge can be completely impartial6, many took
4 “The anterior pituitary is connected, not only with the male sex-functions, but also in an intimate way with the
higher nervous system. It is therefore one of the sources of the energy of the intellectual functions. And the posterior
pituitary regulates, not only the reproductive female organs, but also the maternal promptings and their emotional
correlates. ‘A great deal of evidence,’ writes [psychologist Louis Berman in The Glands Regulating Personality],
with reference to the posterior pituitary, ‘is in our possession concerning the disturbances of emotion accompanying
disturbances of this gland, and controllable by its control. It might be said to energize deeply the tender emotions, and
instead of saying “soft-hearted” we should say “much-pituitarized.”’ (Leuba, “The Weaker Sex: A Scientific Ramble”
in The Atlantic Monthly, 1926).
5 That is to say, the equal intellectual capabilities of men and women are widely known to be true – I recognize that
these facts are not universally recognized.
6 In her speech, “A Latina Judge’s Voice,” Sotomayor said, “The aspiration to impartiality is just that – it’s an aspira-
tion because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.”
3
The Role of Emotions in Moral Deliberation
this to mean that she would consult her feelings, rather than strict legal reason, to make judgments.
Senator Lindsey Graham asked pointedly if she felt “kind of touchy-feely stuff” had a role in
legal reasoning. Her acceptance of the role of emotions in her judgments was met with derision.
Though jurisprudence was the issue at hand, the line of questioning to which Justice Sotomayor
was subjected reveals entrenched notions that emotion replaces reason, and that emotion should
have no part in such decision-making. Justice Sotomayor astutely recognized that emotions, which
are a significant part of our mental lives, cannot be completely removed from our decision-making
Although we understand that emotion does not necessarily diminish a person’s rational or
intellectual capacity, the role of emotions in moral deliberation continues to be met with skepti-
cism and mistrust. This is especially the case in ethical systems in which reason and morality are
aligned, particularly deontological ethics. It is argued that emotions are too inconstant and capri-
cious to be suitable moral motivators, so it is best to leave them out of the process altogether. It is
a mistake to believe that should this line of thought be debunked it would become permissible to
act upon any emotion at any time and justice and order will subsequently be dismantled. There is a
reasonable, and reachable, middle ground: it is that emotion and reason are not mutually exclusive.
In this thesis, I argue that emotions are inextricable from moral deliberation, and that at-
tempts to disentangle the two are futile. In arguing for a form of virtue ethics in which character
and proper handling of the emotions are closely related, I refute the Kantian argument that duty is
the only admissible moral motivator. It is impossible to exclude our emotions from our decision-
making process due to the fact that emotion is a necessary component of decisional capacity (Sec-
4
Introduction
tion 1). For feeling agents like ourselves, emotion is central to our consciousness; on the most ba-
sic level, it aids us in fully appreciating our surroundings. Not only are we incapable of qualitative
reasoning apart from emotion, but we will make ethical decisions more reliably if we take account
of our emotions during moral deliberation. It is for this reason that we must take into consideration
our emotional responses so that we can control or allow for their influence in moral deliberation.
I will establish that emotions themselves have moral worth, and are moral or immoral depending
on the context in which they are felt, while some emotions are never moral in any context (Sec-
tion 2). These emotions are intrinsically morally deficient. By considering our emotions, we can
identify whether they are appropriate in the given context, and whether they are worthy of serving
as moral motivators. To illustrate this, I examine envy, a morally deficient emotion (Section 3). I
make the case against inappropriate and morally deficient emotions as acceptable moral motiva-
tors (Section 4), and demonstrate that there are emotions that we should give weight to in moral
decisions, such as compassion, empathy, and righteous indignation; these emotions may improve
our moral reasoning over duty alone (Section 5). I explore this idea by addressing the problem
posed by Kant’s claim that we have a duty never to tell lies, even for altruistic purposes. I seek to
establish that the emotions ought to have a positive role in our moral deliberation process, as they
5
6
Section 1: The Emotions are Inextricable from
Moral Deliberation
The Kantian position that emotions ought not influence our moral deliberation implies
that we, as feeling agents, are capable of making moral decisions wholly independently of emo-
tion. The emotions, however, are a central part of our consciousness; a person is not deemed to
have a full mental life unless sentience is accompanied by emotional capacity. Indeed, many psy-
chologists believe that “without emotions or affects to amplify physiological drives and infuse
cognitive processing with subjective meaning, human beings would not care enough to stay alive,
much less mate, nurture offspring, create kinship bonds, or pursue art, science, literature, or moral
philosophy” (Callahan, p. 10). We consider those who are incapable of emotions such as empathy
Nevertheless some philosophers have argued that ethical decisions should be made inde-
pendent of emotions. The argument goes something like this: to make a moral decision, a person
is required to have an understanding of the rules of morality, and, using powers of observation
which are supposed to be independent of the emotions, the person must assess the situation based
upon the relevant facts. The decision is then made by a procedure that will determine which action
will have results that conform most closely with the rules of morality. In this view, emotion is not
only not necessary to elicit a moral decision; if anything, it would serve to obscure the facts of the
situation and prevent an objective assessment. Two consequences of this view are that a person
with no emotional capacity would be able to perform moral deliberation entirely competently, and
that a person whose emotions are in conflict with the demands of duty can perform his duty just as
competently, and have equal moral standing, as a person whose emotions are not in conflict with
1.1 The False Ideal of Mr. Spock: Negative Arguments for the Role of Emotions in
Moral Deliberation
If emotion is not a criterion for making ethical decisions, it follows that a person who
cannot feel emotions is competent to make such decisions. However, we recognize that this is not
the case. We view the capacity for emotion as critical to our humanity; merely knowing the rules
of society is not sufficient to make moral judgments. As Sidney Callahan observes, “Persons may
have a high IQ and be able to articulate verbally the culture’s moral rules, but if they cannot feel
the emotional force of inner obligation, they can disregard all moral rules or arguments without a
qualm” (Callahan, p. 10). It is necessary to have some internal drive that moves one to follow the
rules of morality. This is why we consider sociopaths, individuals without a conscience or the abil-
Louis Charland examines Mr. Spock, a fictionalized ideal of reasoning. “His thought processes are
guided by logic alone, and almost completely free of the disruptive influences of emotions” (Char-
land p. 67). It would seem that he would be more competent in deciding than any feeling agent.
Unfortunately Mr. Spock, because he lacks the capacity for emotion, also lacks the ability to fully
comprehend his surroundings and the situations in which he may find himself. This is because
emotions are essential to our understanding of the world; their representational capacity provides
“an information processing system designed to keep us appraised of our own internal states and
conditions … [and] about events and situations in the outside world” (Charland p. 70). Without a
capacity for emotions, we could not fully grasp what might elicit an emotional response in others,
8
Section 1
nor could we easily or reliably recognize the actual emotional response. Charland illustrates this
point with the example of a man holding a glass above his head: “if you did not represent the man
holding a glass over his head in front of you as angry, you would have no reason to suspect he
might throw it at you, and, therefore, no reason to duck or hide” (Charland p. 71). Charland argues
that emotions are phenomena that cannot be fully understood or appreciated unless one has the
It is true that a rational agent could learn to interpret various facial expressions or other
indicators of emotional states, but as feeling agents, we can better appreciate the significance of
a rational agent could be a pure behaviorist and learn all of the physical responses that result from
emotions in a feeling agent, and could determine that a glass raised above the head combined with
a certain facial expression indicates that the glass is about to be thrown. Evaluating motivation
based exclusively on physical signals is, however, inefficient and quite likely to be unreliable.
Moreover, in humans, emotional responses are more expedient than rational assessments; if I see a
person raise his glass above his head and see a look on his face that I interpret as rage, I am more
likely to feel fear and duck, than if I see the same sequence of events but do not immediately inter-
pret or feel any emotion. Arguments that emotions are not necessary for moral deliberation fail to
take into account their crucial role in how we perceive and interact with the world.
Further, Charland points to Antonio Damasio’s work, which indicates that emotions are
necessary for practical reasoning. Damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the region of the
brain that regulates emotion, has been shown to diminish practical reasoning ability in everyday
9
The Role of Emotions in Moral Deliberation
life: “Outside of the hypothetical theoretical context of the clinical testing environment, Damasio’s
subjects turn out to be unable to plan effectively for the future, […] to behave in self-destructive
ways that violate their best interests, and to be unable to maintain healthy and steady social and
personal relationships” (Charland, p. 73). As a matter of biology, it seems, the emotions are central
not only to how we perceive the world, but to our ability to function in society1. Contrary to the
idea that emotion and reason are binary opposites, it appears that we cannot reason without emo-
tion.
Charland concludes: “insofar as practical reasoning is concerned, Mr. Spock is not, and
indeed could not possibly be, mentally competent,” because he lacks any capacity for emotion, and
therefore lacks the ability to fully perceive the world. “Indeed, in this case he is a psychological
impossibility – a fiction of misguided and incorrect intuitions about mental competence and emo-
tion” (Charland, p. 77). Clearly, the emotions are inextricable from decision-making capacity and
are fundamental to our mental lives. This indicates that a person must have a capacity for emotion
in order to make decisions and employ practical reasoning. Below, I argue further that the emo-
tions play a positive role in moral deliberation as indicators of our character, as well as their role
as motivators.
1.2 The Case Against the Moral Beneficent Misanthrope: Positive Arguments for the
Role of Emotions in Moral Deliberation
The capacity for emotion is necessary for moral deliberation, but it alone is not sufficient
to make correct moral decisions. It seems that a feeling agent must have emotions that are morally
1 See also: Antonio Damasio Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Avon
Books (1994).
10
Section 1
appropriate in order for the feeling agent to be considered right or moral. To illustrate this point,
If we take the Kantian position that virtue is determined solely by fulfillment of duty, then
a feeling agent whose cognitive faculties are not diminished by an absence of emotional capacity
can be virtuous no matter which emotions he feels.The example of a beneficent misanthrope indi-
cates a problem with this consequence of denying the positive role of emotions in moral delibera-
tion. Kant identifies the duty of beneficence as an obligation “to promote according to one’s means
the happiness of others in need, without hoping for something in return” (Kant, Metaphysics of
Morals, 6:453:30). The duty of beneficence thus extends even to a misanthrope, who feels intense
hatred for all humanwity and wishes all people ill. If the misanthrope fulfills his duty and helps his
neighbors even though he hates all people, we are reluctant to say that he is acting morally. Indeed,
his hatred for his neighbors and the internal conflict he would suffer from acting against his incli-
nation lead us to consider him immoral, and his beneficent actions, in a certain respect, perverse.
The beneficent misanthrope cannot be considered morally good. I reject the Kantian po-
sition, which holds that the misanthrope’s hatred of his neighbors is irrelevant to the question of
whether he is morally good because his good consists only in having a will governed by duty. This
view does not take into account that hatred of those who do not deserve one’s hatred is intrinsically
bad (I discuss the moral worth of certain emotions in greater detail in Section 2). Furthermore,
when the misanthrope helps those whom he hates, the act is not morally good because his actions
are in conflict with his inclinations, which is psychologically awkward and morally perverse. By
this I mean, it is a perversion to hate all people, as the misanthrope does, and yet to perform benefi-
11
The Role of Emotions in Moral Deliberation
cent acts for no reason other than duty; such an event seems akin to psychological flagellation. To
deny the importance of an agent’s mental states when considering his moral state, as strict deon-
tologists and strict consequentialists often do, is to ignore a substantial part of the life of the agent,
Acting in accordance with morality but contrary to our emotions seems to preclude being
considered moral. Acting in accordance with morality in concert with our emotional dispositions
seems more moral because it is better to wish to do good than to not wish to do good, but to do it
anyway out of duty. We presume that a person is better morally if their motives to act are in concert
rather than being at odds with one another. Justin Oakley offers an explanation for why it is better,
when we act morally, that this should be in harmony with our emotions:
“First, in many cases we may be more reliable in successfully carrying out what
we value if we care about it. … Second, and perhaps more importantly here, to
have our values and our emotions in harmony is to have a certain moral integrity
or wholeness, which is itself a morally good trait. … [Third], a person who values
the right things and is emotionally moved to act on them seems morally better
than someone who has and acts on these values in the face of conflicting inclina-
tions, because the former person’s emotions are an indication that these values
are really his” (Oakley, p. 54).
The first claim is supported by the intuition that we are more apt to complete a task to the best of
our ability if it is something in which we feel emotionally invested. A possible objection is that
a misanthrope could have the duty to help others to the best of his ability, making the utilitarian
value of his efforts the same as that of someone whose empathy and compassion move him to help
others. Oakley’s second claim makes the point that the misanthrope would still be deficient in
this case because of his conflicting desires; he echoes Aristotle’s claim that it is inherently better
to perform a good action because “to act under compulsion and against one’s will is painful, but
12
Section 1
to act for a pleasurable or admirable object is pleasant” (Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 1110b12-
13). Even though the misanthrope is performing a good act by helping others, it brings him pain
because he hates those he helps. It is certainly worse for him to suffer internal conflict than not; in
addition, that he should be pained merely by helping those in need indicates a flaw in his character.
This is keeping with Oakley’s third claim, which indicates that we consider a person who must be
obligated by duty to act in a morally good way to be deficient in comparison to a person who can
act morally good because his emotions incline him to do so. It seems better to sincerely want to
help a person than to help a person merely because you have an obligation to do so. A child who
shares his toys because he wants his friends to be able to experience the same fun that he feels
seems to have done something better than a child who shares his toys out of a duty of beneficence.
Indeed, the fact of being obliged to perform an action you don’t want to seems to diminish the
From a Kantian perspective, action in accordance with duty has greater moral worth if it
goes against the emotions. Of a philanthropic man who turns misanthropic, but fulfills his duty
of beneficence nonetheless, Kant says: “He tears himself out of this deadly insensibility and does
the action without any inclination, solely from duty; only then does it for the first time have its au-
thentic moral worth” (Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, 4:398). We can imagine
cases in which this is true, or at least not as one-sided as the example of children sharing toys. A
soldier who doesn’t want to go to battle, not out of cowardice, but out of concern for his family,
is considered nobler if he goes to battle anyway than a soldier who has nothing to lose. Likewise,
an attorney who spends her spare time working for Legal Aid, rather than at home with her friends
13
The Role of Emotions in Moral Deliberation
and family is considered more morally admirable because of the personal sacrifice she makes. In
cases such as this, it is fortitude of character that is admired more than the action. Kant seems to
conflate strength of character with morality in such a way that ignores the moral worth of emotions
themselves. Consider again the soldier: his friend who is also in the military doesn’t want to go to
battle because he hates his country and is loath to defend it, but he goes anyway because it is his
duty. Both fulfill their duty to their country, and both act against their emotional inclinations, but
This is because, in addition to the epistemic value of emotions, the emotions themselves
have moral worth depending upon context. Love and concern for your family have moral worth.
Hating one’s country is, in general, morally deficient.While it is better not to act in accordance with
morally deficient emotions, it is still of lower moral value than acting in harmony with morally
worthy emotions.
Further, we can imagine a third soldier who fulfills his duty in accordance with his emo-
tions: he is happy to go to war because he loves to kill people. Even though this soldier is fulfilling
his duty by acting from his emotions, it is immoral to love to kill people. His emotions are immor-
al, and so diminish the moral worth of his actions. It is morally better to will that one should go to
war because of love of country than merely out of an obligation to do so, and morally better to will
that one should go to war merely out of an obligation to do so, than to will it for a love of killing. I
revisit the moral worth of emotions in Section 2. For the moment, it seems clear that emotions are
necessary to make moral decisions, and that they can contribute to the moral worth of our actions.
14
Section 1
Because the emotions are essential to moral deliberation, it is imprudent to attempt to ig-
nore them altogether to perform one’s duty. Emotions serve as powerful motivators, and have the
capacity to influence our actions more extensively than we may be aware if we overlook them. It
appears that the moral worth of an action that is morally good by virtue of being beneficial to an
is therefore important to account for our emotions so that we have a greater understanding of our
moral state when carrying out an action. To do so, we must consider whether the emotions we feel
are appropriate, and if they are found to be inappropriate, they must be dispensed with (this point
is discussed in Section 2). If the emotions are found to be appropriate, they ought to be acted upon,
as actions motivated by appropriate emotion may enhance the effectiveness of the action we take,
15
Section 2: The Morality of
Emotions
Emotions can serve as moral motivators, and so should be considered relative to their ca-
pacity to move us to act, but they also have moral value of their own; for many emotions, that value
is determined by their appropriateness in a given context. Emotions that are not appropriate should
not motivate the feeling agent: they will lead to immoral behavior; moreover, it is morally bad for
a person to feel or at least to maintain inappropriate emotions. This is because inappropriate emo-
tions generally stem from defects, either of character or of perception, that are aggravated by the
continued presence of the emotion. If I witness a person fall and I delight in her pain, my emotional
response is indicative of a defect of character: a person should not be happy on perceiving the pain
of a fellow person. This is not, or not wholly, a matter of how one’s feeling inclines one to act; my
delight in my friend’s misfortune might move me to laugh and thereby to add embarrassment to
her troubles; but whether I act on my feeling or not, the feeling itself is morally wrong. It is mor-
ally wrong in this context because it expresses a defect of character. It reflects a sort of emotional
languor, because it is easier for me and more pleasant than imagining myself to be the person in
pain, and, through empathy, recognizing that her situation is painful rather than pleasant.
terms have the following significance: “appropriate” will denote permissible emotional responses,
those that one ought to feel in a given situation, and “inappropriate” will denote those emotions
Most emotions are intrinsically neither morally good nor bad. To say that pleasant emo-
16
Section 2
tions, those that are associated with pleasure and happiness, are good, and negative emotions, those
that are associated with pain and sadness, are bad, is a vast oversimplification. There are cases in
which negative emotions like anger would be moral, such as righteous indignation, and cases in
which positive emotions like joy are immoral, such as Schadenfreude. Aristotle argues that it is
difficult to be virtuous, as it requires one “to feel or act towards the right person to the right extent
at the right time for the right reason in the right way.” (Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, 1109a27).
He requires in other works that emotions be appropriate to the context in which they arise. It may
well be the case that requiring feeling agents to have appropriate emotions makes virtue more dif-
ficult to attain. However, this form of virtue ethics presents a fuller picture of a person’s moral life
than those which fail to consider whether an emotion is misplaced or aberrant in a certain situation.
Two people, Nero and Agrippina, are unacquainted but standing near each other. Sud-
denly, Nero collapses, and starts writhing in pain, clutching his chest. If Agrippina felt happy in
is wrong to take pleasure in another person’s suffering; we should take an interest in furthering
the success of our fellow humans, and should be troubled by their pain. As people, we ought to
embrace a feeling of community and emotional connection with others. It is a defect of character
to derive pleasure from another person’s suffering. If Agrippina became angry with Nero because
of his apparent suffering, that would be similarly inappropriate; it seems aberrant that a stranger’s
suffering would cause Agrippina to respond with anger. The appropriate response to the sudden
suffering of a stranger is concern, which reflects an interest in the well-being of another, and would
17
The Role of Emotions in Moral Deliberation
likely result in an attempt to ameliorate the situation. This concern for the well-being of a stranger
might motivate Agrippina to call an ambulance and wait until it arrives to ensure that Nero receives
medical attention.
Aristotle mentions that it is not enough to feel the right emotion at the right time; it must
be felt to the right degree, as well. Suppose that Nero and Agrippina are not strangers, but Agrip-
pina is Nero’s mother. Given the relationship of Nero and Agrippina, it would be inappropriate for
Agrippina to have equal concern for Nero, the stranger, and Nero, her child, because of the strong
emotional bond that is presumed to exist between parents and their children, but is not present
between strangers. In the first scenario, it would be acceptable for Agrippina to move on with her
day after being sure that Nero receives proper medical attention; it might even seem excessive for
Agrippina to continue to be concerned for Nero after he receives medical attention. In the second
scenario, Agrippina would be callous if she did not have greater concern for her child, and accom-
Aristotle’s Principle of the Mean expresses his understanding that there is a spectrum of
emotional responses in a given context, and that within the spectrum there are appropriate and
should want success, rather than suffering, for all people because it will augment the status of
is not the case that sympathy is good, antipathy bad, and apathy neutral; sympathy is good, and
antipathy and apathy are both bad, but antipathy is worse because it leads to more suffering and
18
Section 2
indicates internal defects within the feeling agent. We ought to take an interest in the success of
fellow people. From this, we can derive a method of evaluating the appropriateness of emotions.
It seems that the emotions that, if acted upon, are most likely to improve the situation or benefit
society, and reflect a reasonable degree of interest in others, can be considered appropriate. The
emotions that, if acted upon, would worsen the situation or harm society, as well as emotions that
not merely instrumentally, but because of what they reveal about a feeling agent’s inner state, I
turn now to emotions that are never appropriate; these are intrinsically morally deficient emotions.
Morally deficient emotions are distinct from inappropriate emotions because their moral deficien-
cy is intrinsic and independent of context. Among these are envy, malice, spite, and other emotions
that are necessarily invidious and never productive. These emotions indicate defects in the feeling
agent, such as the desire that harm befall an innocent person. Such emotions ought to be eschewed
by feeling agents, not only because, if acted upon, they will always result in immoral behavior, but
also because their presence in the feeling agent’s consciousness signifies defectiveness of the feel-
ing agent. Harboring such emotions is sufficient to be considered immoral. I illustrate this point
19
Section 3: Envy
A Study of a Morally Deficient Emotion
Envy is an emotion that is morally deficient. It is always inappropriate, and should never
enter into moral deliberation. In this discussion, envy will refer broadly to a painful feeling that
accompanies the desire of the feeling agent that another person unfairly lose possession an object,
tangible or intangible, that he or she has fairly come to possess. With this definition, envy is neces-
sarily invidious; envy is different from emotions that move the feeling agent to strive or emulate
It is necessary here to clarify the difference between envy and emulation, a distinction
drawn by Aristotle and currently upheld by many philosophers. Aristotle notes in Book II of the
Rhetoric: “Emulation makes us take steps to secure the good things in question, envy makes us
take steps to stop our neighbour having them” (1388a34-36), distinguishing emulation from envy.
Likewise, John Rawls states in A Theory of Justice that “we may think of envy as the propensity to
view with hostility the greater good of others even though their being more fortunate than we does
not detract from our advantages,” (Rawls, p. 466), and compares proper envy to “cases of benign
envy,” in which “there is no ill will intended or expressed... By these conventional expressions
we are affirming the value of certain things that others have” (Rawls, p. 467). In my discussion of
20
Section 3
envy, I follow this tradition of treating envy as a distinct emotion from emulation, or, as Rawls
calls it, benign envy. The emotion that I consider in this discussion is invidious envy.
Traditionally, envy has been eschewed and discouraged. It is forbidden by the tenth Com-
mandment in the Judeo-Christian Bible: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not
covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything
that belongs to your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:2-17). The word “covet” here signifies envying a per-
son his uniquely possessible object, and desiring to obtain that object at the expense of its current
possessor. In the Catholic tradition, envy is the second of the seven deadly sins. Dante’s Divine
Comedy shows the envious languishing in Purgatory, punished by having their eyelids “threaded
and sewn up / By an iron wire,” so they may never again gaze enviously upon another object
(Dante, Purgatorio, Canto XIII, 73). Shakespeare’s Iago warns Othello, “oh beware my lord, of
jealousy / it is the green-eyed monster, which doth mock / the meat it feeds on,” (Othello Act 3,
Scene III, 193), and jealousy, a species of envy, is the ultimate cause of Othello’s demise. The use
of monstrous imagery to depict envy predates Shakespeare; Ovid describes the goddess Envy as
gruesome: “Pale, skinny, squint-eyed, mean, her teeth are red / with rust, her breast is green with
gall, her tongue / suffused with poison.” (Ovid, Metamorphoses, 2:771-805). These and many
other examples make it clear that in Westerb culture envy has almost uniformly been regarded with
suspicion and disdain. It is regarded as resulting in harm for both the person who is envied and the
feeling agent.
Envy is identified as conducive to the indulgence of our most monstrous impulses, and
therefore as deleterious to society. Such views of envy are rooted in the belief that envy has nega-
21
The Role of Emotions in Moral Deliberation
tive effects not only for the object of envy, but for the feeling agent as well. Descartes identi-
fies physiological effects of envy such as “leaden complexions” (Descartes, Passions of the Soul,
Art.184), indicating the damage it can cause to a feeling agent. Nietzsche describes ressentiment,
that it is a reflection of the feeling agent’s defective internal state. The belief that envy is a morally
deficient emotion can be attributed to what envy and its various species – jealousy, resentment,
schadenfreude – reveal about the feeling agent, and the effects they have on the feeling agent.
Envy is morally deficient not merely because it is instrumentally bad and likely to lead to immoral
character flaws such as a false view of the self and a propensity to spitefulness. Envy, as it is mor-
ally deficient and is never a permissible moral motivator, ought to be eschewed by feeling agents.
Envy arises when a feeling agent witnesses a person in possession of an object he or she
has fairly come to possess, and the feeling agent desires the person not to have the object. If the
person has not fairly come into possession of the object, then the feeling agent’s anger and pain at
the person’s possessing the object can be a sort of indignation, which, unlike envy, is not neces-
sarily invidious. We will see that the qualification of “fairly” is required so as to distinguish envy
It is necessary to distinguish between two types of envy: possessive envy and destructive
envy. Possessive envy is what is most commonly denoted by the term: it is the feeling agent’s de-
22
Section 3
sire to possess the object that inspires envy. Destructive envy is the feeling agent’s desire that the
person who is envied should cease to possess the object. Both are rooted in a perceived disruption
of the balance of superiority between the feeling agent and the person in possession of the object.
It is not the object itself, but the perceived superiority conferred by the object, that inspires envy1.
The balance of power, or superiority, can be pictured as a staircase (See figure 1): two
people, Caesar and Brutus, initially stand on the fourth step. Caesar fairly comes into possession
of an object and climbs to the fifth step. Brutus is left standing on the fourth step and does not
move lower on the staircase from his original position, but sees that he is lower on the staircase
relative to Caesar on the fifth step. Rather than believing his position to be just as high as it ever
was, Brutus envies Caesar because he feels as though he has been lowered. Although his position
has not been diminished, Brutus views his relative position not as a staircase, but as a set of scales
(See figure 2). Like in a zero-sum game, if Caesar’s weight increases, Brutus necessarily weighs
less, and is inferior not only to Caesar, but to his original position. It is this perceived demotion that
yields envy. Envy, then, can be understood as a special kind of hate that arises when a person, by
virtue of possession of a trait or an object, causes the feeling agent to feel inferior, an unpleasant
feeling. To overcome this feeling of inferiority, the feeling agent desires that the person should lose
possession of the object. Rather than be inspired by emulation, admiration, or the desire to fairly
come to possess the object in order to move up the staircase, Brutus wishes that Caesar should
be pulled back down so they are again even, and the scales are no longer in Caesar’s favor. It is
1 I accept Adam Smith’s view, in which he identifies envy as “that passion which views with malignant dis-
like the superiority of those who are really entitled to all the superiority they possess,” (Adam Smith, The Theory of
Moral Sentiments, p. 244), except that I take superiority to include perceived or real superiority, by virtue of material
or intangible goods.
23
The Role of Emotions in Moral Deliberation
necessarily destructive because the desire to restore the balance of superiority consists primarily in
Figure 1 Figure 2
C+
CB B
B
C B
C+
In this section, I offer an illustration of envy and what it indicates about the feeling agent.
This is followed by Character Flaws in the Feeling Agent Indicated by Envy, in which I discuss
in greater detail the defects of character revealed by envy that are mentioned below.
To illustrate different instances in which envy may arise, consider the following scenarios
involving two colleages, Horace and Virgil, who are given the opportunity for a promotion, and are
told that the one who works harder and is more productive will receive the promotion. In each case,
Virgil is given the promotion, and Horace becomes envious of Virgil and, rather than work harder
and become more productive so that he might receive a promotion in the future, Horace becomes
determined to cause Virgil to get demoted or fired, in hopes that he will be Virgil’s replacement.
(1) Virgil works harder than Horace and is more productive, and receives the promotion.
Horace knows that Virgil worked harder than he did, but still becomes envious, wish-
ing that he had received the raise instead of Virgil.
(2) Horace and Virgil work equally hard and are equally productive, and
their employer, Tacitus, unable to distinguish between the merits of the two employ-
ees, tells them that he will flip a coin to determines who will get the promotion. The
coin lands on the side Virgil guessed, and he is promoted.
24
Section 3
(3) Horace works harder than Virgil and is more productive, but Tacitus gives the promo-
tion to Virgil, even though he did not earn it.
Analysis of these scenarios shows how envy indicates distorted reasoning and defects of character
In cases (1) and (2), Horace is unhappy with a fair outcome: Virgil worked harder than he
did in case (1), and so Virgil deserved the promotion while Horace did not. In case (2), they worked
equally hard, but it was by chance that Virgil received the promotion, not by dishonesty. The
promotion was decided by a coin toss, so each candidate had an equal chance of being awarded
the promotion; Virgil fairly won. In (1) and (2), though an appropriate response might be disap-
pointment, Horace thinks he should have received the promotion rather than Virgil; he mistakenly
feels that he has suffered an injustice. He incorrectly reasons that because the outcome is not in his
The outcome of case (3), however, is unjust; even though Horace earned the promotion,
Tacitus awards it to Virgil. In this case, Horace seems entitled to respond with negative feelings
because he has actually been wronged. However, he misplaces his negative feelings by directing
envy at Virgil. It is through no fault of Virgil that Horace suffered an injustice; it is more appropri-
ate for Horace to feel righteous indignation at Tacitus’ unfair actions. In this case, Horace could
rightly desire that Virgil be stripped of the promotion, so that Horace may be awarded what he, not
Virgil, has earned. This desire is rooted in the goal of rectifying an actual injustice, not in harming
another person. This is different from Horace desiring that Virgil should be stripped of the promo-
tion in cases (1) and (2) because of a mistaken belief that he has been wronged. Here, however,
25
The Role of Emotions in Moral Deliberation
Horace actually has been wronged, but he mistakenly directs his negative feelings toward Virgil,
rather than Tacitus. In all three cases, Horace exhibits a misunderstanding of justice.
In each of these cases, Horace is revealed to have the character flaw of finding value in
himself only in relation to others, rather than intrinsically. Although Virgil has done nothing to
harm him, Horace, like Brutus on the scales, feels as though he has been demoted because his
colleague has been promoted. A propensity to look outward to find one’s inner worth leads to in-
security and anxiety, and a false view of the self. Horace feels inferior even though, in reality, he
has not been harmed by injustice or suffered any material loss. Valuing himself relative to Virgil,
however, he feels inferior. Desiring to rid himself of such unpleasant feelings, Horace wants to
cause Virgil to be fired or demoted so that the promotion can be transferred to him, and he will be
superior to Virgil.
These cases also provide an example of possessive envy that is rooted in destructive envy;
Horace may want the raise for the additional authority and increased pay that comes with a promo-
tion, but rather than endeavor to earn it fairly, he becomes determined to have Virgil demoted or
fired. This indicates that he is more interested in pulling Virgil down than he is in advancing him-
self upward. This is because envy is the strong negative feeling in response to a perceived shift in
the balance of superiority. We can imagine that Horace will be satisfied to have Virgil fired, even
if he does not receive the promotion as a result. Either way, Horace is no longer inferior to Virgil.
Horace’s desire to restore the balance of perceived superiority by detracting from Virgil regardless
as to whether he then receives the promotion is spite, another character flaw associated with envy.
26
Section 3
comparison with others, as opposed to looking for intrinsic value. While it is natural to do so, such
dispositions lead to insecurity and anxiety, because the feeling agent is usually in the midst of
others whose fortunes fluctuate. Finding self-worth in relation to others results in an unstable and
sometimes false view of the self, and when the feeling agent perceives himself to be of low value
relative to others, many negative emotions arise. Among these are sadness, and a propensity to
direct negative emotions at others who have not actually harmed the feeling agent.
Nietzsche says that the feeling of ressentiment, a form of envy that is specifically hatred
or ill will toward those with more power, arises from weakness and results in self-deception. It
arises, like all forms of envy, because of a perceived imbalance of power. Those who feel ressenti-
ment do so because they feel weak in relation to those who are stronger. Nietzsche describes the
way in which ressentiment allows the weak to feel better about being in a lower position through
self-deception:
“The ‘well-born’ felt they were ‘the happy’; they did not need first of all to con-
struct their happiness artificially by looking at their enemies, or in some cases by
talking themselves into it, lying themselves into it (as all men of ressentiment are
wont to do) …” (Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality, first essay, chapter
10).
The feeling agent, according to Nietzsche, observes the superiority of another, and the feeling of
ressentiment permits the feeling agent to “construct … happiness artificially” by determining that
the other person should not possess the object that makes him superior. Nietzsche identifies this
as false happiness, a kind of self-deception, but it is also a defense against feelings of inferiority.
27
The Role of Emotions in Moral Deliberation
Because ressentiment allows the weak to falsely believe themselves to be content with their status,
Nietzsche argues that those who feel ressentiment do so to compensate for their own weakness.
He states that the success of the powerful is “all very much the opposite of ‘happiness’ at the level
of the powerless, the oppressed, and those rankled with poisonous and hostile feelings, for whom
it manifests itself as essentially a narcotic, an anaesthetic, rest, peace, ‘sabbath’, relaxation of the
mind and stretching of the limbs.” (Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality, first essay, chapter
10). Ressentiment, like all species of envy, is indicative of discontentment with one’s position rela-
tive to another, but it is not productive; it fails to produce a desire to achieve, and is instead the
The feeling agent’s desire that the person he envies loses possession of the object for no
other reason than to diminish his perceived superiority is a spiteful desire. In some cases of envy,
the desire extends to the object coming into possession by the feeling agent. This is still an instance
of spite because the feeling agent does not want merely to possess the object – he wants the other
Kant recognizes envy as “a propensity to view the well-being of others with distress, even
though it does not detract from one’s own… [Envy] aims, at least in terms of one’s wishes, at
destroying others’ good fortune.” (Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals 6:459). Though the formula-
tions of the Categorical Imperative stipulate objective duties that do not allow for consideration of
emotion, Kant recognized the impact of emotions on the propensities of an individual to certain
actions. Though the Kantian position advocates disregarding the emotions when performing moral
duties, emotions are always a part of moral deliberation, so we will be more likely to act morally
28
Section 3
when we are aware of the role emotions play in decision-making and seek to control those that
are unworthy, as explained in Section 1. Kant recognizes that spite is inherent in envy. The desire
to “[destroy] others’ good fortune” is spite, and it is unproductive for the feeling agent and detri-
mental to the person who is envied if it is acted upon. Envy does not result in improvement of the
feeling agent, rather, as Kant points out, “envy is when we wish imperfection and ill-fortune to
others, not so that we might ourselves be perfect and fortunate in consequence, but so that in that
case we might alone be perfect and fortunate.” (Kant, Lectures on Ethics, 27:438). These feelings
are not worthy in people because we should have an emotional investment in encouraging com-
The feeling agent desires the destruction of another person’s good fortune, as well as his
failure and unhappiness, though the person has not harmed the feeling agent, nor will his downfall
result in anything positive or productive for the feeling agent. These spiteful inclinations are often
satisfied by immoral acts, though it is immoral just to desire such things. As human beings, it is a
envy as “a turbulent pain arising from the prosperity [of another person] but is not a pain arising
from undeserved prosperity, but from the prosperity of one who is equal and similar to him who is
envious” (Aristotle, Rhetoric 1387b21-25). With this definition, Aristotle identifies envy as a kind
of pain resulting from an improper feeling. The pain associated with envy is distinct from a mor-
ally good pain, such as pain arising from a sense of injustice at seeing an innocent person being
beaten in the street. Anger and empathetic pain is morally appropriate, because the feeling agent
29
The Role of Emotions in Moral Deliberation
is witnessing an injustice and has an interest in preventing such acts from occurring. Righteous
indignation is a mean in accordance with eudaimonia, happiness, between spite and envy. Aristotle
says, “the man who feels righteous indignation is distressed at instances of undeserved good for-
tune, but the envious man goes further and is distressed at any good fortune, while the spiteful man
is so far from feeling distress that he actually rejoices” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1108b3).
It is clear from this that righteous indignation is distinct from envy, which for Aristotle has a more
insidious nature. Desiring that your fellow human should fail is inherently bad, and is an inap-
propriate pain. Aristotle states, “some [feelings] have names that directly connote depravity, such
as malice, shamelessness, and envy … All these, and more like them, are so called as being evil
in themselves.” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1107a9-14). Envy is identified with many vices,
rooted in unworthy feelings toward others, which are never morally appropriate or acceptable.
A truly virtuous person will not feel envy because this person will not have the defects of
character or misunderstanding of justice that are necessary for envy to arise. If Brutus, from the
example diagrammed above, had determined his self-worth based on intrinsic value, not his value
in relation to Caesar, he would not have had feelings of inferiority and therefore would not have
felt envy. Likewise, if, endowed with a proper understanding of justice, Horace had recognized the
fairness in Virgil’s promotion in cases (1) and (2), or correctly identified the source of injustice in
case (3), he would not have envied his colleague his promotion.
It is obvious that envy can lead to harm for those who are envied; indeed envy necessar-
30
Section 3
ily involves desiring that harm be brought upon those who are envied. What is less clear is how
envy harms the feeling agent, as well. The monstrous imagery employed throughout the ages to
depict envy concerns itself mostly with the feeling agent and not with the objects of envy. Not
only can it move us to act immorally to bring harm to those we envy, merely feeling the emotion
can be harmful. Descartes identifies damage done to the body by envy. In Passions of the Soul, he
describes envy as a danger to human happiness in article 184, titled “Why the Envious are Apt to
have Leaden Complexions”. He states, “There is no vice so harmful to human felicity as that of
envy. For not only do those who are tainted by it afflict themselves, they also do everything in their
power to disturb the pleasure of others.” (Passions of the Soul, Article 184, 10-13). He adds, “And
they usually have leaden complexions – that is, pale, mingled with yellow and black, as though
bruised,” (Ibid. 13-15) noting physical as well as psychological damage done to the person who
feels envy.
Although much of the physiological observations are incorrect, Descartes rightly identi-
fied that envy has a negative impact on the feeling agent. Envy is intertwined with feelings of in-
feriority and insecurity, which lead to anxiety. The physical damage that can be caused by anxiety
is well documented in the field of psychiatry. Additionally, by its nature, envy is an unpleasant
sensation. Envy reminds the feeling agent of his feelings of inferiority and brings about feelings
of insecurity, and the hatred and negative emotions that accompany these feelings are disagreeable
to the feeling agent. Envy, then, not only indicates flaws in the feeling agent, but causes negative
emotions to surface, making the feeling agent unhappy, and even resulting in physical harm.
31
The Role of Emotions in Moral Deliberation
#
Section #
#
The Role of Emotions in Moral Deliberation
#
Section #
#
The Role of Emotions in Moral Deliberation
#
Section #
#
The Role of Emotions in Moral Deliberation
#
Section #
#
The Role of Emotions in Moral Deliberation
#
Section #
#
The Role of Emotions in Moral Deliberation
#
Section #
#
The Role of Emotions in Moral Deliberation
#
Section #
#
The Role of Emotions in Moral Deliberation
#
Section #