Regardless of your view of psychological states, are you seriously suggesting that humans have states when they feel no emotions at all? I agree that often we can not be driven by our feelings; however, to imagine no hormones roaming our bloodstream and no feelings at all seems to be a severe situation.
All research is welcomed. On Aug 16, 10:15 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, wrong, Orn. As Lee suggests, the moral should best be served without > emotions attached. That's the evaluation stage. "The truth of us having > omnipresent emotions" in my view is a narcissistic self-aggrandizement. > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:31 PM, ornamentalmind > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > "...I maintian that morality is best sreved without emotions attached, > > can > > you show my why I am wrong? " - Lee > > > Wrong?...since we all have emotions (and I would posit that we have > > emotions all of the time too), any determination of right/wrong would > > be made including emotions. However, assuming the truth of us having > > omnipresent emotions, morality would/could not exist without them. > > > On Aug 16, 4:09 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Paradox, yes agreat frind of mine tells me the same sorta thing, that > > > morality without emotion is somehow lacking. It is partly due to his > > > words and my respect for him that I have started this thread. > > > > However as Rigsy points out to evict a looter from his council home > > > for his looting does not adress any problems, nor does it serve as > > > adiquate punishment, and would I think only make things worse. > > > > This course of actions is a fine example of thinking/talking about > > > morality whilst angry, and is to my mind no good at all. > > > > I maintian that morality is best sreved without emotions attached, can > > > you show my why I am wrong? > > > > On Aug 14, 5:31 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Deep question, Lee; not an easy one. One who suffers injury must have > > > > the right of redress, be that restitution or retribution, or else we > > > > live in Hobbes's state of nature. The question of balance and > > > > proportionality is the proper remit of the law courts and great minds. > > > > Where the injury in question falls outside the purview of the > > > > collective good or the legal framework to that end, morality and > > > > values must act to constrain the individual in respect of balance and > > > > proportionality; that is why it's so very vital that we understand > > > > what we do when we tinker with the foundations and structures of a > > > > society's moral compass. > > > > > Personally, i've always felt that emotions are the fuel for the > > > > directed mind. > > > > > On Aug 12, 1:28 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > So as we should all know we have had quite a week of it here in the > > > > > UK. Facebook and many other web places have been inundated with all > > > > > sorts of sillyness. > > > > > > Calls to bring back national service, calls to evict those found > > > > > guilty of the rioting and looting, calls to stop their benifits. I > > > > > have witnessed some of my good good friends spew out all mannor of > > > > > sillyness in their anger. > > > > > > I have procliamed in the past that all questions of morality are > > > > > better served sans emotions and I see much this week that has only > > > > > firmed this view. > > > > > > In order to discover though the validity of this thought tell me do > > > > > you agree, or not and why? People of ME sway my opinion with your > > > > > wise words. > > > > > > What good can come of deciding upon a course of action whilst holding > > > > > onto your anger? > > > > > > I ask of course as a self confessed recovered angry man.- Hide quoted > > text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
