Rather than just making a poll, I would like to explore the roles of logic and emotion when confronted with an unanticipated event.

I've seen a few people here frequently state that logic is more important than emotion, why?

One of the uses of logic, I think, is to detract emotion from an event enabling a clear thought process. In the case of an emergency, this would be the best way to ensure as many lives as possible are saved, at the smallest possible risk...

However, take the car crash scene from I Robot...

Two cars have plummeted into the water, one containing Will Smith's adult character, the other containing a young girl. The rescuer is a robot who quickly and logically deduces that Will is the most likely to survive, and so saves his life over that of the girl.

Will's character insists that he should have died instead and that the robot should have attempted to save the girl instead. His reaction to the problem was to save the girl, and as is evident throughout the film through observing his survivor's guilt behaviour, he would have made the same decision any time. This proves that he believes that a solution based from emotion or instinct was the correct one in that situation.

Now it might be an arguement of nobility but I should think most decent adults would put the life of a child before that of their own.

It strikes me as being rather odd that despite realising logic is probably the best thing to do, humans have an alarming tendancy to do the opposite and make a decision based on emotion...

My verdict is that we need both to survive as a species and as individuals. I do not think you can make a blanket statement that logic always wins...

Your thoughts?

:EDITED FOR CLARITY:

My AP psychology class told me Emotion should be used to solve simple problems and Logic for complex problems.

... and Aladin kicks ass.

without either we are damned. it's this mix of both that put us to where humans are today.

My thoughts:
That was a crappy robot. Saving both isn't the emotional thing; it's the logical thing.

Proper Logic>Emotions

But most things distort proper logic, so it's up to you to discern it.

Without logic we wouldn't be able to make smart decisions, but without emotion things would be meaningless and thus logic would have no goal it works around. So yeah, both are necessary.

Edit:

ravens_nest:

I don't think it is the purpose of emotion to make, or guide better decisions. I think it helps us gauge whether or not we have made the right decision.
-cut for space-
I really can't think of a situation where emotions would be of no use whatsoever.

These two sentences sum up my thoughts on the matter pretty well.

GHMonkey:
without either we are damned. it's this mix of both that put us to where humans are today.

Aye. All logic? We become machines. All emotion? Well, things will probably go to the shiter rather quickly.

So I am in favour of using one to help the other. A dash of emotion in my logic, a sprinkle of logic for my emotions.

ravens_nest:
Rather than just making a poll, I would like to explore the roles of logic and emotion when confronted with an unanticipated event.

I've seen a few people here frequently state that logic is more important than emotion, why?

One of the uses of logic, I think, is to detract emotion from an event enabling a clear thought process. In the case of an emergency, this would be the best way to ensure as many lives as possible are saved, at the smallest possible risk...

However, take the car crash scene from I Robot...

Two cars have plummeted into the water, one containing Will Smith's adult character, the other containing a young girl. The rescuer is a robot who quickly and logically deduces that Will is the most likely to survive, and so saves his life over that of the girl.

Now it might be an arguement of nobility but I should think most decent adults would put the life of a child over that of their own. Thus proving that emotion beats logic in this example.

It strikes me as being rather odd that despite realising logic is probably the best thing to do, humans have an alarming tendancy to do the opposite and make a decision based on emotion...

My verdict is that we need both to survive as a species and as individuals. I do not think you can make a blanket statement that logic always wins...

Your thoughts?

In the car example, the robot choose based on probability of survival. That is illogical. The robot should have considered the potential impact of the individual on society, how long they had to live, etc.

As the second poster said, emotions are a reflexive response used for solving simple quick problems, but if capable of rationalization, logic will always prevail. Emotions are simply basic logic.

Also, your presumption is off. Why save the little girl?

I've realized that over the years i've grown so desensitized I barely have any real emotion. so Logic is the way to go.

I don't see the life of a child which is almost certain to die as something more important then a life of an adult that is almost certain to survive. (seriously, they said it in the movie. The survival rate was something like 17% if my memory is right)

It's all about paternal/maternal instincts, really, in your example. Which is almost definitely has something to do with self-preservation of species as a whole and dates way back.

We're animals, we've been animals and we still are - despite having a greater grasp on logic and use of technology and science.

Meh.

And yes, I'd rather choose logic.

This may seem stupid, but without emotion, there would be no crime. No greed that causes robberies, no lust that causes rape. Car crashes and other common errors would hardly ever occur, because we would all be thinking with logic.

I'm tired, so this may only seem smart to me right now.

I agree, many things can be justified with logic, but so can many things be justified by emotion. I think we should try to balance out all things, so that we do not rely to much on any one thing.
While I agree that logic often provides the best course of action, it can also be used to justify terrible things, but when those acts are looked at from a coldly unfeeling, logical perspective, it makes terrible sense. Look at all the elderly that live in any first world country, especially places like the United States, Britain, and Japan. The government often supports these aging members of society, through social security in the US (not sure what other counties' equivalents are), or through their family members, often putting much strain on their son's and daughter's finances. But do they benefit society as a whole in any way? Not really, they are retired, are earning more tax dollars than they are paying. So, from a purely logical perspective, all people should either A.) work until they die, or are no longer capable of working (which then leads to B) or B.) Being purged from society, for the better of that society as a whole.
While I, of course, would never support such a thing, it shows what could be justified by using logic alone.

That's my deep, thoughtful post for the day, so don't expect another one. :P

Zombify:
This may seem stupid, but without emotion, there would be no crime. No greed that causes robberies, no lust that causes rape. Car crashes and other common errors would hardly ever occur, because we would all be thinking with logic.

I'm tired, so this may only seem smart to me right now.

Umm, not really.

If we're talking about unfeeling automatons, then maybe. But that's not what logic is all about.

If you really wanted to dominate (rape) someone or commit murder, the logical choice in every day society would be not to do it because of the high chance of being caught and punished.

But if there was no such thing in place, if you were almost absolutely sure that nobody will ever find out and you'll stay free... It's a completely logical thing to commit an act.

So while spontaneous crimes based entirely on emotion would probably not be less frequent, there'd be a lot more well-calculated intelligent ones. Also, logic is not really a sure-fire way to go - when lacking information, it's logical to just rely on what you have or assume - which might be wrong, in the end. So if you believe you're not going to be caught because you're an awesome ninja and commit the act and fail to flee because you're not an awesome ninja but just a fat anime fanboy... Yeah.

Some common errors could also be avoided, yes. But logic thrives on information. If you don't have enough knowledge in the first place, as it's pretty common, you'll be likely to commit the mistake.

Zombify:
This may seem stupid, but without emotion, there would be no crime. No greed that causes robberies, no lust that causes rape. Car crashes and other common errors would hardly ever occur, because we would all be thinking with logic.

I'm tired, so this may only seem smart to me right now.

So if you could get money with less work then working, you wouldn't do it?

When not in pressure people think logically most of the time but under pressure they'll go by instinct i.e emotion

Valate:
My thoughts:
That was a crappy robot. Saving both isn't the emotional thing; it's the logical thing.

Proper Logic>Emotions

But most things distort proper logic, so it's up to you to discern it.

The scenario from the movie is that it only has time to save one.

And I think that if everyone acted logically, the world would really really really suck.
There would be no videogames. They waste time and energy and money for little or no tangible rewards other than sheer entertainment value (which purely logical people would recognize as useless).
There would be no music, for much of the same reasons as videogames. The tangible benefits of playing or listening to music (hand-eye coordination, more brain power and whatnot) could be easily replicated by other, more productive activities.
It would not be fun.

A logically sound decision is a perfect decision. In your example, I agree with the robot's choice to save Will Smith. If you value the life of someone more than another, that's your choice, it has nothing to do with the topic.

ygetoff:

Valate:
My thoughts:
That was a crappy robot. Saving both isn't the emotional thing; it's the logical thing.

Proper Logic>Emotions

But most things distort proper logic, so it's up to you to discern it.

The scenario from the movie is that it only has time to save one.

And I think that if everyone acted logically, the world would really really really suck.
There would be no videogames. They waste time and energy and money for little or no tangible rewards other than sheer entertainment value (which purely logical people would recognize as useless).
There would be no music, for much of the same reasons as videogames. The tangible benefits of playing or listening to music (hand-eye coordination, more brain power and whatnot) could be easily replicated by other, more productive activities.
It would not be fun.

No, you're forgetting that there's still a concept of boredom. Boredom=bad so logically us sentient beings find ways to cope with boredom. E.G. Video games and the like.

ygetoff:

Valate:
My thoughts:
That was a crappy robot. Saving both isn't the emotional thing; it's the logical thing.

Proper Logic>Emotions

But most things distort proper logic, so it's up to you to discern it.

The scenario from the movie is that it only has time to save one.

And I think that if everyone acted logically, the world would really really really suck.
There would be no videogames. They waste time and energy and money for little or no tangible rewards other than sheer entertainment value (which purely logical people would recognize as useless).
There would be no music, for much of the same reasons as videogames. The tangible benefits of playing or listening to music (hand-eye coordination, more brain power and whatnot) could be easily replicated by other, more productive activities.
It would not be fun.

Umm, you're creating the Strawman Vulcan here.

If entertainment makes you feel good, it's rather logical to pursue it.
Productiveness has nothing to do with it. If you're completely logical, you'd probably end up killing yourself, anyways, seeing through illusion of importance we create around everything.

In reality, you have to have a balance of both. You have to consider both emotions and logic - for example, thinking logically about the emotional impact of what your words or actions might have on other people, and empathising with the emotions of others in order to understand the problem you're trying to solve, and knowing when your emotions might be leading you astray.

Going to either extreme is a mistake, because not everything in life can be solved or understood with logic - because some issues and solutions are purely emotional - and going wholly on emotions can lead a person to make irrational, unwise decisions.

I think if you deny either one of those aspects, you're denying a part of your own humanity. We are feeling beings whose emotional experiences bring meaning to our lives, but we're also defined as a species by our ability to process higher logic. You need both.

Kubanator:

Zombify:
This may seem stupid, but without emotion, there would be no crime. No greed that causes robberies, no lust that causes rape. Car crashes and other common errors would hardly ever occur, because we would all be thinking with logic.

I'm tired, so this may only seem smart to me right now.

So if you could get money with less work then working, you wouldn't do it?

You'd also have to put it up against the risks of losing that money and being imprisoned/harmed in the act.

But, yes, if the profit was more likely and the risk reasonable, it'd be completely logical.

Kubanator:

In the car example, the robot choose based on probability of survival. That is illogical. The robot should have considered the potential impact of the individual on society, how long they had to live, etc.

As the second poster said, emotions are a reflexive response used for solving simple quick problems, but if capable of rationalization, logic will always prevail. Emotions are simply basic logic.

Also, your presumption is off. Why save the little girl?

InfernoJesus:
A logically sound decision is a perfect decision. In your example, I agree with the robot's choice to save Will Smith. If you value the life of someone more than another, that's your choice, it has nothing to do with the topic.

This where the argument about nobility comes into play. It is an emotional decision, whether or not to save a child's life at the risk of your own. You will not have time to think about the potential impact on society. It would not be logical even to consider this, given certain emergency situations where every second counts.

The question of valuing life is as much a logical question as it is an answer derived from considering one's emotions. It has everything to do with the topic.

There surely cannot be a perfect decision? You simply cannot be aware of every possible variable.

There is definately cause for debate here I can tell.

ravens_nest:
Snip

In a way Emotion is good and bad. Take the movie Watchmen for example

Hmmm for you IRobot example(good movie btw), saving the girl may also have been logical. She was just a child he was a full grown adult. She has twice as many years more than Will Smith, and would have contributed more to the system longer. Also, she could have been the next Einstien, while he was already locked in the roll of street hardenned cop

Zombify:
This may seem stupid, but without emotion, there would be no crime. No greed that causes robberies, no lust that causes rape. Car crashes and other common errors would hardly ever occur, because we would all be thinking with logic.

I'm tired, so this may only seem smart to me right now.

Yet another flaw with this statement:

If there are no emotions, then all sexual interaction would be for reproductive purposes (no enjoyment = no pleasure). Rape can be for reproduction just as much as for lust. So there would be 'no rape', but more as a result of the victims not having any emotions.

Without emotions, nobody would care about enforcing laws beyond their logical limit. No sense of being wronged means no crimes of passion, but the punishment for most crimes of passion comes from an emotional need for retribution.

I honestly believe that if you were to remove one or the other, its absence would be the only difference. Though, to be honest, I can't imagine a human being without both.

ravens_nest:

This where the argument about nobility comes into play. It is an emotional decision, whether or not to save a child's life at the risk of your own. You will not have time to think about the potential impact on society. It would not be logical even to consider this, given certain emergency situations where every second counts.

The question of valuing life is as much a logical question as it is an answer derived from considering one's emotions. It has everything to do with the topic.

There surely cannot be a perfect decision? You simply cannot be aware of every possible variable.

There is definately cause for debate here I can tell.

Emotions don't help you make a better decision. Emotions just take away from the logical examination of the situation. While it isn't practical to consider every variable, it is still better to take as many of the variables into consideration as possible as opposed to relying on an emotional surge.

The emotional repercussions of your decision may be a factor in your decision, but emotions do not help to make a better or worse decision.

Zombify:
This may seem stupid, but without emotion, there would be no crime. No greed that causes robberies, no lust that causes rape. Car crashes and other common errors would hardly ever occur, because we would all be thinking with logic.

I'm tired, so this may only seem smart to me right now.

I have to disagree. Greed isn't an emotion. Actions like theft derive from natural survival instincts and needs. In a wholly logical society, where you have an absence of emotions and no empathy for other people, wouldn't the most logical decision be to act in a way that benefits your chances for survival and benefits your prosperity over others? You would want to diminish the chances of success of other people in order to increase your likelihood of passing on your genes, right? Logically, that would be your only purpose for living. You have no emotional reason to improve society, or give anything to anybody else, right?

What you have to understand is that emotions and empathy actually bind society together. That's the reason why we evolved with the ability to read body language, feel compassion and make noble decisions. Besides, if we didn't care about other people, we would have no motivation to 'do the right thing'. Likewise, if we didn't have selfish emotions, we wouldn't fear the consequences of our actions. That's one reason why the majority of people obey the law. And the absence of those emotions is why psychopaths are amoral.

We need those who act with pure emotion and those who act with pure logic (None exist today, sadly. Or ever. Because acting completely without emotion is impossible. Atleast until I learn to snuff out my emotions) but then theres the normal people who act with a mix.

Without both we are little more than slaves to one or the other, such is the case of robots. However, education is the key to logic and most fail that particular challenge that every life encounters and they fall victim to their emotions as direct result, usually becoming desperate criminals with no regard for their victims.

logic simply helps with some problems in life.

emotions are what help you know why you want to live and what you live for.

if we didn't have emotions, we'd all be insanely boring and forever living completely boring lives.

you know what I mean?

Most certainly. I like to at least put up the pretension of intelligence and rationality, and of the things an intelligent, rational person has to put up with (especially in such annoying things as school that isn't AP or anything else ojne finds boring). Without emotion, life would be more boring, however we wouldn't have to put up with impulsive idiots running things of the highest importance. (Read Obama, no offence to anyone who likes him)

ravens_nest:

My verdict is that we need both to survive as a species and as individuals. I do not think you can make a blanket statement that logic always wins...

That pretty much sums up my answer. I have a thing against extremism and blanket statements. Being on the extreme far ends of a scale can't help you in as many ways at being near the middle.

Emotion is reflex logic.

ravens_nest:
Now it might be an arguement of nobility but I should think most decent adults would put the life of a child over that of their own. Thus proving that emotion beats logic in this example.

Does it? In the example you've given it basically comes down to a choice, save one life or risk losing both. In the example, the robot knows for certain that he can save one of them, but to attempt to save both he'd risk losing both; so logically he went with the option with greater probability of success. Sure it might be more noble to try and save both of them, but if you fail and they both die and possibly you die too, where does that leave you?

InfernoJesus:

ravens_nest:

This where the argument about nobility comes into play. It is an emotional decision, whether or not to save a child's life at the risk of your own. You will not have time to think about the potential impact on society. It would not be logical even to consider this, given certain emergency situations where every second counts.

The question of valuing life is as much a logical question as it is an answer derived from considering one's emotions. It has everything to do with the topic.

There surely cannot be a perfect decision? You simply cannot be aware of every possible variable.

There is definately cause for debate here I can tell.

Emotions don't help you make a better decision. Emotions just take away from the logical examination of the situation. While it isn't practical to consider every variable, it is still better to take as many of the variables into consideration as possible as opposed to relying on an emotional surge.

The emotional repercussions of your decision may be a factor in your decision, but emotions do not help to make a better or worse decision.

Actually, in many situations, emotions do help you make a better decision. Emotions like fear prevent us from committing actions that conflict with society's rules, because we fear the consequences of our actions. The absence of fear and emotion is a telltale feature of a psychopath. Because they have no emotional connection to other people, and no fear of the results of their action, they have nothing to inhibit them from committing violent crimes. Why shouldn't they kill someone who gets in their way if they don't care about them? There's no emotion to stop them from doing so, and, logically, in that situation, they should eliminate anybody who opposes their progress, provided they can get away with it, right?

People who vote for a solely logical society seem to picking and choosing the emotions they like and don't like and not looking deeper into what emotions actually mean, and why they evolved and stayed with us. I think the fact that emotions are strongly tied to positive social behaviours is certainly something to take into account. In fact, in reference to the OP, if you were being solely logical, you probably wouldn't risk your life to save anybody, because it puts you at too great a peril. So you would let both people drown.

InfernoJesus:

ravens_nest:

This where the argument about nobility comes into play. It is an emotional decision, whether or not to save a child's life at the risk of your own. You will not have time to think about the potential impact on society. It would not be logical even to consider this, given certain emergency situations where every second counts.

The question of valuing life is as much a logical question as it is an answer derived from considering one's emotions. It has everything to do with the topic.

There surely cannot be a perfect decision? You simply cannot be aware of every possible variable.

There is definately cause for debate here I can tell.

Emotions don't help you make a better decision. Emotions just take away from the logical examination of the situation. While it isn't practical to consider every variable, it is still better to take as many of the variables into consideration as possible as opposed to relying on an emotional surge.

The emotional repercussions of your decision may be a factor in your decision, but emotions do not help to make a better or worse decision.

I don't think it is the purpose of emotion to make, or guide better decisions. I think it helps us gauge whether or not we have made the right decision.

Besides, some decisions aren't always needing of pure logic. Picking a colour of flower for example. You may choose red, simply because you like it more. If the only purpose was to choose a colour that made you feel better, then logic would have no place dictating which colour was best.

If you consider hospital walls however...

They are usually painted in low intensity colours like pale blue, green or yellows. There are psychological reasons why they are these colours. They promote the feeling of sanitation, calmness and recovery. People that feel better, often get better. So although you have made a logical decision, the results needed to take emotional response very much into consideration.

I really can't think of a situation where emotions would be of no use whatsoever.