I'm trying to illuminate why absolute logic cares not for morality or emotions. I am showing why emotions are an important and credible aspect in argumentation.
well, we have a few problems with the set up.
firstly, your initial premise is loaded. you are honest in that, anyway. you are "trying to show" what you have already concluded. there would seem to be little room for debate. of course, that is not going to stop anyone who loves this sorta thing.
secondly, you begin with a supposition that is seriously flawed - emotion and reason are not in opposition, nor are reason and morality. in its best guise, morality is a product of reason. That "emotions are an important and credible aspect in argumentation" is perfectly rational without your attempting to show that logic is amoral.
logically, you have four possible outcomes:
- i survive
- my mother survives
- we both survive
- neither survives.
logic takes a different approach than morality. logic goes for (most) certain, morality goes for 'most good'. the latter puts the definition of 'good' into question, but we can delay that for now. let us quantify our options:
- best resolution: both survive.
- least good resolution: neither survives
- most probable resolution: one survives by eating the other.
- optimal resolution: if only one survives, the one that survives, survives best (that is, the one in the better condition to start with)
note, that "I survive" is not in there. that "I survive" is not necessarily the most rational conclusion. killing my mother in order that i survive by eating her is no more rational than allowing her to kill me so that she may survive by eating me. That "I survive" is a personal psycho-emotional preference. as you posit the scenario, it sounds as if "i survive" is the most rational option. except that it may not be.
it is not rational, to chose to harm oneself. It is not rational, per se, to choose to harm another. to harm another to defend oneself may be rational, if in defending yourself you do not cause greater harm to yourself than in not harming the other.
if it hurts to do something, even if that something is needed to survive, it is still rational to choose not to do so if the pain of doing so is greater than the pain in NOT doing so. If the pain in killing, butchering, cooking and eating your mother causes you greater psychological harm than in closing your eyes and accepting your fate, it is perfectly rational to accept your fate.
the question you are asking is like asking 'which is better? a claw hammer or an acetelene torch?". the answer depends a lot on what you are going to use it for. reason and nonreason are tools, both of them useful, but not necessarily for the same things. is your objective to be moral or to survive? there are times ya know, when those two objectives are not wholly compatible - ask any soldier come home from the war.
finally, morality does not exist in a vacuum. arguably, it is not moral or immoral to act in anyway that does not affect another.
morality is subjective. is it moral to eat another to save yourself? many would say yes.
is it moral to kill another in order to eat them in order to save yourself? many would still say yes but more would say no.
reason, is less subjective. the two propositions above are rationally equal, but not morally equal.
if we 'objectify' the question - if we determine that there is a GOOD that is not subective (hard to do, but for argument's sake...), can we still address the question?
we again start with a difficulty - you have not established a relationship between reason and good. good is an objective, reason is a path. reason can lead you to the objective, but reaching the objective without employing reason is still reaching the objective. sometimes, **** happens... sometimes, some really GOOD **** happens.
whaddya do when you meet a Grizzly inna woods? your emotions tell you to RUUUUUUUUUUN! if you have any knowledge of grizzlies, though, reason tells you that running will likely lead to your abrupt dismemberment. reason tells you to harness your fear, roll into a ball protecting the soft parts and do not move.
importantly, fear here is still very much at work. reason would have no fuel on which to operate without the fear that tells you that you MUST do something and do it quick. reason and passion work hand in hand when they work best.
again, we come back to apt useage. when your girlfriend is considering leaving you for another guy because he makes her laugh... do not try to reason her out of it... get down on your knees and beg.. cry.. wail and plead. probably won't work, but it stands a better chance than reason because her cause for leaving is not based on reason but emotion. IF she says yes, reason might help in determining how to KEEP her... and that reason may tell you to be more passionate.
in debate, we have pretty specific ends. for some, WIN at any cost - for others, get the rightest and truest answer. (i am lucky in that. In my case, those two things tend to go together). in your arguments, bring your passion. let your passion propel you, but let your reason guide you. passion is an important part of rhetoric, of convincing speech. but reason leads more often to right answers.
no, i would not kill another to save myself. if the other died, yeah, i would probably eat them, but probably not if it were someone i loved.
geo.