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?

[Bust Nak]

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?

Yes, are you suggesting that makes the former is just as moral as the latter? Not helping because you don't care is still better than not help because you aren't getting paid. The latter is mercenary and calculating.

[Paprika]

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?

Yes, are you suggesting that makes the former is just as moral as the latter?

It certainly seems that way to me.

Not helping because you don't care is still better than not help because you aren't getting paid. The latter is mercenary and calculating.

I hardly see how being mercenary is any worse than blindly acting along with one's sympatheties (if any).

[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?

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

I would contend since we are social the imperatives do not change ever. Put another way since we are social in biological function and ability those rewards will never be withdrawn from our natural workings. To me that implies we could be non social beings and compassion would not matter at all than since our survival would not be interdependent on others of our species and only contact would be for propagation of the species so therefore even religion would not be around as well. We would not have a society to build up such beliefs or institutions of. Throw away the bible and the commandments since they would no longer apply.

[jgh7]

Morality has to be based solely on one's intentions which is directly related to one's emotions and feelings.

I'll give another hypothetical:

Person A: Hates people, loves seeing them suffer. He is literally forced by authority however to only help people, and ultimately he ends up helping a ton of people.

Person B: Loves everyone and only wants to help others. Authority however has forced this person to stay locked up and thus has not been able to help anyone.

Person C: Only seeks to gain fame. They help a lot of people. They don't care at all that the people's lives are better. They only care that they are popular and get great enjoyment from being popular.

Who is the most moral? Who is the least?

[Excubis]

Morality has to be based solely on one's intentions which is directly related to one's emotions and feelings.

I'll give another hypothetical:

Person A: Hates people, loves seeing them suffer. He is literally forced by authority however to only help people, and ultimately he ends up helping a ton of people.

Person B: Loves everyone and only wants to help others. Authority however has forced this person to stay locked up and thus has not been able to help anyone.

Person C: Only seeks to gain fame. They help a lot of people. They don't care at all that the people's lives are better. They only care that they are popular and get great enjoyment from being popular.

Who is the most moral? Who is the least?

Well first off this doesn't work. Those who love to cause harm will no matter what consequences may come as a result. Although they may resist for a time all will act upon their desires. This is a well known and accepted parameter of human behavior, i.e. pedophiles nearly all re-offend or at least still fantasize about re-offending or view child porn. Another drug addicts as I once was ect... I for one could care less if a church burns down in act of arson nor care about what a person believe and will even debate such but yet I will defend your right to since I want same such freedoms.

As for person C they may maintain the guise for awhile but not always this to is also a well known behavioral attribute to humans. This is called desire dilemmas(or dilemmas of desires) and a persons actions will always depend on what they hold of value not their feelings of. Those who value feeling will of course tend to agree with you those who hold value in analytical thinking without emotion will not. It's what you value absent of why that matters most.

I do not value nor base my morals on feelings, my empathy is not rooted on feeling but thinking about others feelings since "the golden rule" do onto others as you would like them to do onto you, I find to egocentric. Some individuals like to be choked so if I like being choked I therefore should go around choking others, of course not. Yet if I value people I than should value their feelings as well and although I cannot feel what they like/dislike I can guess with a pretty good accuracy what may harm them emotionally or benefit them through comparison(analytical thinking) not based on my own emotions.

So guess you would conclude I am immoral yet, I volunteer weekly, I speak on drugs, gangs, crime at schools and juvenile detention centers and am a big brother. I do this not because of a feeling but a awareness we are all interdependent to each other. If I give a little even if I do not agree with your beliefs or where you derive your morals but because if you are a successful and contribute to the overall collective me and my kin can have a better life as well. I believe in empowering everyone for the greater good of humanity for us all because I have analyzed and concluded it's better for me as well. Compassion and empathy does not have to be an emotion only an awareness of others and as long as you value such I would then conclude you are moral in our society.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 15 by Excubis]

I will add this is why I stay out the religious side of debates about doctrine and have canceled the publication of one of my books. I do not want to rob anyone of their identity as long as that identity allows the coexistence of other identities as well. Yet I do fight against misinformation and propaganda thoroughly especially those rooted in a belief/feeling portrayed as fact or reality for all. If you haven't seen it watch docu. "Kumaré" it's on Netflix and Youtube.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 15 by Excubis]

It seems like at one point in your description you say that you value people independent of emotional attachment. But at another point in your description you say that you concluded to value and help others because it ultimately helps you? Is that the only reason you help others, to help yourself?

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 17 by jgh7]

I do not see myself as a separate organism. I see humanity as a collective organism with many functions or parts. I do not value my individuality above others, they all matter to me and enrich me by the collective well being of all.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 18 by Excubis]

Let me give a more concrete example. You said you speak at schools to help prevent kids from entering drugs, gangs, etc.

Now it is highly possible that at least one of these kids will have absolutely no direct effect on your life. They may never come into contact with you, and the effects of their actions throughout their life may never directly affect you in a significant way if it all... unless you literally believe in complete butterfly effects for all beings, and that all actions of a single being affect every single other being in the world.

What is your reason for helping people like this who will have no direct effect on your own life? Do you genuinely care about them? Do you have genuine concern for their well being outside of your own well-being? If you do, it is an emotional attachment of concern for them.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 18 by Excubis]

Let me give a more concrete example. You said you speak at schools to help prevent kids from entering drugs, gangs, etc.

Now it is highly possible that at least one of these kids will have absolutely no direct effect on your life. They may never come into contact with you, and the effects of their actions throughout their life may never directly affect you in a significant way if it all... unless you literally believe in complete butterfly effects for all beings, and that all actions of a single being affect every single other being in the world.

What is your reason for helping people like this who will have no direct effect on your own life? Do you genuinely care about them? Do you have genuine concern for their well being outside of your own well-being? If you do, it is an emotional attachment of concern for them.

Okay well although they may not have direct effect on my life they will on others and others on others ect... I will also clarify I do feel for children sorry if I implied that. But that's why I speak about my past and how choices matter and you should react by thinking not emotion. My former life was all emotion entirely from being abused and subsequent feeling of isolation, low to no self worth, ect...

Now what I am not saying I do not feel compassion but it is not what drives me to do good or be moral, it is the awareness that we are all connected physically for existence. Even when I was a christian I cared nothing about heaven nor hell, and I too have always wanted God to be real and although a confirmed atheist I still at time search but I do not trust emotion since when I lived a life of emotion I did wrong even as a christian because I was emotionally tied to an identity and therefore need to preserve that feeling to sustain that identity. I see this as the cause of fundamentalism in religiosity. The fear of losing identity when tied to emotions as the indicator of what is right or true. Emotions lie (in a way), they are not objective and can lead us in a division between each other and the greater good of humanity.

Now I am not taking the stand to be emotionless at all we need emotional people. I am highly analytical me wife is emotional, is very spiritual and believes in the supernatural. Together we have accomplished more together than separate, why both views are needed to maintain objectivity one is no better than the other. That is the problem I have with this question we need both in our society to have a balance not one over the other. Emotional connection and non-emotional analysis.