Is Emotion a Part of Morality?

[jgh7]

Let's say we have two people:

Person A: This person has very low emotions. They feel practically no care or empathy for others. They don't get satisfaction out of helping them or any real sadness out of hurting them. But this person is extremely logical and for some reason cares about morality and thus tries to do right and avoid wrong because of this.

Person B: Just as logical as person A. But they are an extremely emotional person. They genuinely care deeply for others. It makes them sad to see others suffer and he is greatly joyful to see others happy.

Based solely off of these descriptions, are both person A and person B equally moral, or is one more moral than the other?

Or... is this information completely irrelevant to morality? Does morality depend solely on works, or does a person's "heart" factor in to it too?

[Divine Insight]

Or... is this information completely irrelevant to morality? Does morality depend solely on works, or does a person's "heart" factor in to it too?

The very concept of morality is a man-made concept. Therefore it's entirely up to you to define it in depth.

Biblical morality apparently doesn't amount to anything other than obedience to God. Whether you feel good about obeying him or not is apparently irrelevant. This should be obvious when God commanded Abraham to murder his own son.

There are also other places in the early books of the Bible where the prophets tell the people that they are to stone wrongdoers to death whether they like it or not. They are not supposed to go by how they personally feel about it, they are merely supposed to obey the Lord thy God.

So biblical morality has absolutely nothing to do with where a person's "heart" is. Biblical morality has solely to do with obeying God, whether you like it or not is apparently irrelevant.

And so I think your question actually brings up a very good point about "Secular Morality". Humans do tend to see where compassion and empathy are an important aspect of morality, whereas the Bible does not.

[Excubis]

Let's say we have two people:

Person A: This person has very low emotions. They feel practically no care or empathy for others. They don't get satisfaction out of helping them or any real sadness out of hurting them. But this person is extremely logical and for some reason cares about morality and thus tries to do right and avoid wrong because of this.

Person B: Just as logical as person A. But they are an extremely emotional person. They genuinely care deeply for others. It makes them sad to see others suffer and he is greatly joyful to see others happy.

Based solely off of these descriptions, are both person A and person B equally moral, or is one more moral than the other?

Or... is this information completely irrelevant to morality? Does morality depend solely on works, or does a person's "heart" factor in to it too?

Well since this applies only to human morality I would first assume both person A & B live in same social group otherwise one could not objectively conclude either being moral or immoral.

So if both do reside in same social structure both would be equally moral and yes actions/behaviors in a social group would be of more importance than where they derive their value. Now this would also depend on the underlying(unspoken) social contract of that society. I would say though at times a persons emotion's can and will override logical thinking, we often experience great emotional awareness even when it is not logical to do so. This manifests in human behavior in such termed behavioral phenomena as "mob mentality" were being caught up in the emotion of the moment overrides logic and can even cause many to abandon their morals.

I would say emotional empathy is important but not more so. If person A is logical then they must realize they exist thanks to the society and its various social agreements. Therefore would be aware of the intimate connection between an individual's(self) and the community(others) well being. Although this is not as apparent today it is still valid, no person is an island on to themselves at all.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

That is one interpretation based off cherrypicking certain parts of the bible.

I will now counter by cherrypicking as well.

-----

First Corinthians 13

1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

...13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Also there's Luke 10:27 from Jesus:

He answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

-----

Love and emotion plays a pivotal role in Christianity. It is not simply obedience. Even if it is obedience, God is commanding you to love. So one could argue that love and thus emotion is a part of biblical morality.

I tend to believe that someone with less care for others is actually more immoral than someone with more care, even if they both do the same works.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

The very concept of morality is a man-made concept. Therefore it's entirely up to you to define it in depth.

The word is but morality in a sociological study is not. All that it truly means is acceptable social interactions(behaviors) with in a social paradigm(social structure) that benefit the species or culture observed. Even ants have an ethical structure to their social workings and those that endanger the collective good are dealt with. This occurs in all social animals and even non social ones on this planet. The concept of morality although stemming from religious/ spiritual memes is no longer a valid overall look on morality. It is also not unique to Abrahamic religions either.

[Paprika]

Let's say we have two people:

Person A: This person has very low emotions. They feel practically no care or empathy for others. They don't get satisfaction out of helping them or any real sadness out of hurting them. But this person is extremely logical and for some reason cares about morality and thus tries to do right and avoid wrong because of this.

Person B: Just as logical as person A. But they are an extremely emotional person. They genuinely care deeply for others. It makes them sad to see others suffer and he is greatly joyful to see others happy.

Based solely off of these descriptions, are both person A and person B equally moral, or is one more moral than the other?

Why on earth should possessing a sympathetic response - often involuntary - make someone more moral?

[Bust Nak]

Let's say we have two people ...

Based solely off of these descriptions, are both person A and person B equally moral, or is one more moral than the other?

Or... is this information completely irrelevant to morality? Does morality depend solely on works, or does a person's "heart" factor in to it too?

This is more a matter of motives being important part of morality. Being motivated by compassion is more moral than being motivated by social reward or repercussions.

[Excubis]

Let's say we have two people ...

Based solely off of these descriptions, are both person A and person B equally moral, or is one more moral than the other?

Or... is this information completely irrelevant to morality? Does morality depend solely on works, or does a person's "heart" factor in to it too?

This is more a matter of motives being important part of morality. Being motivated by compassion is more moral than being motivated by social reward or repercussions.

Why?

[Bust Nak]

Let's say we have two people ...

Based solely off of these descriptions, are both person A and person B equally moral, or is one more moral than the other?

Or... is this information completely irrelevant to morality? Does morality depend solely on works, or does a person's "heart" factor in to it too?

This is more a matter of motives being important part of morality. Being motivated by compassion is more moral than being motivated by social reward or repercussions.

Why?

Because the latter implies he would no longer act morally, if there is no reward or repercussions.

[Paprika]

Let's say we have two people ...

Based solely off of these descriptions, are both person A and person B equally moral, or is one more moral than the other?

Or... is this information completely irrelevant to morality? Does morality depend solely on works, or does a person's "heart" factor in to it too?

This is more a matter of motives being important part of morality. Being motivated by compassion is more moral than being motivated by social reward or repercussions.

Why?

Because the latter implies he would no longer act morally, if there is no reward or repercussions.

According to this reasoning, should not the former also imply a similar thing: that he would no longer act morally if there was no compassion?