In Response to Avery (“Objective Emotion (or Lack Thereof)”)

In Response to Avery (“Objective Emotion (or Lack Thereof)”)

               

                Overall, I would say that I agree with Avery’s critique of Martha Nussbaum’s supposed claim that ethics are objective, solely because of the fact that emotions themselves are objective. Avery maintains that emotions are in fact not objective.

“ Emotions, by their very nature, are subjective.  They may, in some situations, be objectively appropriate, or objectively understandable, or objectively justified, but they themselves are still subjective, because they differ from person to person. “

                Although, I do agree with Avery, I think it should be pointed out that, in numerous ways, emotions are universal. Accordingly, it could be said, that contrary to the above statement, emotions are not actually very different from person to person. According to Gerrig and Zimbardo (2007), there are seven emotions that are unlearned, innate emotional responses, that are found in all cultures. Furthermore, the majority of the emotional  responses are expressed in similar ways over all cultures.

                Of course, this does not mean that all people have the identical emotional responses to all situations. In fact, different cultures do express themselves very differently at times. However, I think that it is important to note that, in many ways, there is a lot of carry over in emotional responses from person to person.

Gerrig, R. J., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). Psychology & life (18th ed.). Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.