Does the existence of emotions in humans need to be justified? Emotions aren’t a design choice, they’re an evolved feature, and there doesn’t seem to be much point in arguing for why they should be there (to make a normative claim about the existence of emotions) since they simply are there and there isn’t much to do about it.
Now if the question were something like “I’m building an AGI; should I design something analogous to what we experience as emotions into it?” that seems like a more interesting reason to possible need a justification for their usefulness.
In short, your second paragraph is what I’m after.
Philosophically, I don’t think the distinction you make between a design choice and an evolved feature carries much relevance. It’s true that some things evolve that have no purpose and it’s easy to imagine that emotions are one of things especially since people often conceptualize emotion as the “opposite” of rationality, however; some things evolve that clearly do serve a purpose (in other words there is a justification for their existence), like the eye. Of course nobody sat down with the intent to design an eye. It evolved, was useful, and stuck around because of that utility. The utility of the eye (its justification for sticking around) exists independent of whether the eye exists. A designer recognizes the utility before hand and purposefully implements it. Evolution “recognizes” the utility after stumbling into it.
Does the existence of emotions in humans need to be justified? Emotions aren’t a design choice, they’re an evolved feature, and there doesn’t seem to be much point in arguing for why they should be there (to make a normative claim about the existence of emotions) since they simply are there and there isn’t much to do about it.
Now if the question were something like “I’m building an AGI; should I design something analogous to what we experience as emotions into it?” that seems like a more interesting reason to possible need a justification for their usefulness.
In short, your second paragraph is what I’m after.
Philosophically, I don’t think the distinction you make between a design choice and an evolved feature carries much relevance. It’s true that some things evolve that have no purpose and it’s easy to imagine that emotions are one of things especially since people often conceptualize emotion as the “opposite” of rationality, however; some things evolve that clearly do serve a purpose (in other words there is a justification for their existence), like the eye. Of course nobody sat down with the intent to design an eye. It evolved, was useful, and stuck around because of that utility. The utility of the eye (its justification for sticking around) exists independent of whether the eye exists. A designer recognizes the utility before hand and purposefully implements it. Evolution “recognizes” the utility after stumbling into it.