Let's say that a virus spread throughout the world and damaged the areas of the brain that are responsible for emotions. The entire population was affected and could no longer experience any emotional reactions, although their reason and intellectual ability was unimpaired.
Would morality change if we no longer have any emotional reaction to cheaters, thiefs, inequity, or tragedy?
Maybe it's difficult to answer such a hypothetical, but any opinions would be appreciated.
And it is not only non-cognitivists who would believe that it would make a moral difference if humans did not experience certain emotions. For example, suppose that I were a cognitivist hedonist, act Utilitarian. I believe that one ought always to perform the act that produces the greatest balance of pleasure over pain, and I believe that that moral principle is true independently of my or anyone else’s commitment to it. For me, it would make a great deal of difference what sorts of emotions human beings experienced in different circumstances, since the amount of pain or pleasure that anyone feels as a result of my actions will depend, at least in part, on their emotional attachments. Or suppose that I am a cognitivist virtue theorist of the following variety: I believe that I ought to live my life in such a way that I live a good and meaningful life, and I believe that a corresponding normative principle applies to everyone else. They too ought to live their lives in such a way...