Discuss the roles of cognition and emotion in moral judgment, with Essay

Discuss the roles of cognition and emotion in moral judgment, with particular reference to the research of parklande et al (2001). Approximately 1000 words - Essay exercise in the aerial tramway dilemma, whereby a runaway trolley will kill atomic number 23 people and a soulfulness is given the choice to press unity switch whereby instead of five, only one mortal will be killed, people generally deem it appropriate to press the switch. In the footbridge dilemma, however, whereby on that point is a person on the bridge who needs to be furthered down in front of the trolley to save five people, though he will himself be killed, people deem it inappropriate to push that person from the bridge in front of the trolley.The question arises that though the effect of both dilemmas is the same, i.e. one person needs to die to save five from dying, however, people are more reluctant to push someone on to the tracks, though not to press a switch. The question that arises in the minds of moral philosophers is what makes it morally agreeable to sacrifice one life to save five in the trolley dilemma but not in the footbridge dilemma? (Green et al, 2001).Green et al purpose that perhaps, if one is to take the approach of Immanuel Kant, it hindquarters be said that the reluctance arises out of the fact that in the first example, the person is just regrettably in the way of the trolley, whereas in the second one would have to literally use him to achieve the required end. However, when the same example is changed slightly and the track is looped so that if the body of that one person does not chip it, it will kill the five people, people still think it appropriate to let that one persons body be used to stop the trolley.Green et al suggest that there is no one correct solution to this problem, there is still confusion as to why in one case it is appropriate for a mans body to be used to save five people, while inappropriate in another case. The problem also lies i n the fact that there are no moral reasons on which these two situations can be distinguished and there are no set moral principles to guide people in coming up with a solution to this problem.Green et al maintain