The Man Acting from Passion Acts by Compulsion

The Man Acting from Passion Acts by Compulsion

Can actions that result from emotions be autonomous and free? It is impossible according to rationalist conception of freedom. However, if actions are done in the light of depictive choices, freedom can result from autonomy. It is true that rationalist conception cannot provide a room for akratic (intentional and free) actions done against the best judgment of the agent (Saarinen 28).

Emotions that humans feel determine multiple actions and responses. For instance, fear experienced when threatened by a hostile wild animal can result in an individual running away from the imminent danger. On the other hand, it is by compassion that a sound minded person helps a blind man to cross a busy road, but there are cases when emotions influence free agency. For instance, an agoraphobic is not a free agent if he cannot leave the immediate surroundings due to fear. In fact, a traditional question should be based on the extent of freedom of action due to the nature of emotional experience.

A question such as this will be related to matters on blame and a person’s moral responsibility. It is common sense that an individual is not morally responsible for an action that lacks freedom. Instead, fear or any other causative factor for an agoraphobic’s failure to attend an obligatory activity or to honor an appointment is to blame and not the person himself because he lacks freedom. People should fault his condition that he cannot control instead of him. Another example is that if a person commits a crime under the influence of passion or strong emotions, the authorities can prosecute and convict him, but with a lighter sentence as compared to crime committed in cold blood. In the eyes of the law, such a person is less blameworthy both legally and morally as his consciousness did not play a role in his crime.

Answering a question on freedom of action triggered by emotions calls for knowledge on the obligatory requirements for free actions. The two divisions of freedom matters are liberty of spontaneity and liberty of indifference. The former refers to self determination or autonomy while the latter refers to available alternatives. Any free action conception ought to account for the truth of its appearance and if the agent had an alternative option prior to its execution or it if was the agent’s plan all along to accomplish the task in contention.

Some scholars argue that actions triggered by emotions lack absolute freedom because emotional spell on agents makes it nearly impossible to judge freely and consciously. However, there is no hard evidence to turn this into a convincing argument. Still it cannot be overruled that emotions can impact distinct options that the agents consider. Specifically, anger, jealousy, fear or other negative emotions diminish the available options to be considered. There is an opposite effect in the case of positive emotions such as happiness and joy. In light of this, it is clear that free agency is not under threat of emotions. In fact, the choice remains imperative because emotions like these offer direction to the agent on the course of action.

 On the other hand, people are necessitated to consider a scenario where the actions to be performed are fully determined by emotions. There is no immediate implication that the actions in consideration lack autonomy or freedom. Compatibilists state that actions are not rendered unfree if alternative options are unavailable. The modest concept of freedom explains that agents would act free only if they have different options of motivations to choose from.

Multiple theories of emotions were conceived during the medieval times. They highlighted the nature of emotions and how they operate. There are different perspectives to view emotions, thus making it challenging to analyze them as per a particular situation. Emotions, on one hand, are what make people behave in a humane manner. On the other hand, there is a striking similarity between responses shown by animals (particularly pets) and human emotions. Furthermore, expression of emotions reflects the nature of the social environment that an individual lives in though there is likelihood that natural selection shape emotion and the resultant actions (Marenborn 569).

Medieval theory of judgment confirms that emotions are strong motivators of action and they can limit agent’s freedom. Judgment theory constitutes cognitive position in that emotions are basic personal judgments on the position of humans in the world today, ideals and value projections, and mythologies and structures according to the way people experience and live their lives. It is a clarification that emotions play a significant role in matters pertaining human activity and survival. Judging refers to a mental ability applied by people to acknowledge a given experience or the societal state.

In Solomon’s theory, negative emotions such as anger results after an individual judge their feelings to imply offence or being insulted. Anger is an outcome for damages done to a person or someone close to a particular individual that is significant though not trivial. The event that elicited anger as a reaction was committed willingly, thus, the perpetrator should be punished accordingly.  A series of judgments such as these constitutes emotions that influence actions that are strong enough to limit the freedom of the perpetrator, given that he/she will eventually be brought to justice.

Judging is fundamental to understanding the correlation between emotions and actions because it is an agent's action rather than an activity occurring to an individual. Therefore, it confirms the claim that a person should evaluate or acknowledge action to be emotional. The distinction between judgment and emotions is judgment is based on a set of traditions and beliefs. Emotions can only occur if beliefs exist in a cognitive process, but not necessarily consciously or deliberately. Judgments are spontaneous because there is no need of conscious mental effort for a person to react to an action. For example, a judgment on being offended demands no conscious effort.

In Aristotle’s medieval theory on emotions, he states that pathe pervades human lives. He further expounds that human judgments are always influenced by their mood swings and emotions both in pernicious and perverse cases. In this regard, a person that intends to act must first consider or speculate the possible emotional reaction of others to avoid limiting their freedom or autonomy. Aristotle admits that pathe can disrupt and destabilize human reasoning and action because skeptics can use it to fulfill nefarious intentions.

Emotions are a link between soul and the body. They motivate and initiate thought process and physical actions. Emotions also accompany experiences that people gain hence the formation of action memories, perceptions, and thoughts. Some emotions wield greater impact on human morality, freedom, and thought process. Besides, they have causal and influential force on judgments and perceptions and how they result in actions.  A simple idea cannot gather enough driving force to initiate actions unless emotions are involved. Emotions can also make people avoid action for fear of reprisal and the negative consequences, hence inhibition of freedom. For example, many Europeans view incest during circumcision or contraception as morally unacceptable and wrong despite a proof or rational reasoning. Instead, they base their judgments on its disgusting nature. Freedom of selection and choice result from emotions as well.

Decisions that people make on a daily basis are founded on emotions. An individual experiences qualia and emotions by conducting new actions, but will never recur in a similar manner. Reflection on these actions results in the acquisition of new knowledge hence inching closer to attaining freedom (Marenbon 572).  In this way, human soul reflects on the surrounding in a physical world. While emotions can exist without ideas or actions, reflections and actions hardly exist in the absence of emotions.

In summary, it is clear that emotions wield motivational forces to initiate actions. In addition, they can influence change and shifts with regards to an individual’s views and perceptions. Emotions can despise actions and can cause them as well. Therefore, a choice of these actions entails selecting personal experience that determines qualia and freedom. Failure to commit given actions on the grounds of emotions or moral judgments is a limitation and restriction of freedom to possess certain thoughts and memories. In this way, emotions become a sole determinant of the kinds of memories that humans have and how they perceive their surroundings, the planet, and the universe.

Works Cited

Marenbon, John. The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. 569-587. Print.

Saarinen, Risto. Weakness of Will in Renaissance and Reformation Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.26-32. Print.