Outside of your hypothetical post emotion world, if a referendum were held today, would you vote to stop all payments to the disabled that cannot work? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Of course not.

If they resort to stealing, housing them in prison would be a waste of resources. Wouldn't execution be logical to preserve society's resources? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yes, it would be logical, but in a world with emotions, i.e. real life, emotions often precede logic.
We can take Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame as an example, of course using movie logic isnt a good thing, but i am pretty sure that the logic and emotions part of it can be applied as a valid example.
Thanos wanted to kill 50% of all population is a painless way, so that the other 50% could thrive.
As logical as it sounds, people would never agree to something like this.

There is no logical reason for us to do anything as an end in itself. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I think we have reached an impasse here, as by my reasoning and evidence, I cant see how co-operation cant lead to success, and how success wouldnt be preferred.

I would like to give some input here.
Yes, some atheists often try to shove down their opinions on theist people.
I believe there to be 2 reason for this.
1) Because atheist dont want theist people to end up being unhappy over something that wasnt logical to begin with. For example:- It is ok to find happiness in God, but is it ok to blame God for the mistakes you have done? Many theists (not all) do it and atheists try to reduce it.
2) Because they don't care about other's opinions and think that only 1 opinion to exist.

The second one of course is an immoral thing to do.
I was never born into a family where my father is an atheist and my mother is a theist (She doesn't believe in a particular God, but believes there to be one.)
As a result, I always had the choice to consider myself a atheist or a theist.
I just happened to not need to find happiness and meaning in God, and thus became an atheist.
However, many people I knew couldn't fathom a world which wasn't created by God.
So, in order to not get bashed about being an athiest (in a hindu surrounding), i had to tell people why God doesnt exist.
Note that I didnt do it because I felt like it was the right thing to do, but because If i didnt, people would think that I am an atheist because I dont truly understand religion.
Although once I grew up to be around 13-15 years old, theists just want to bash on atheist just as much as atheist want to bash on theist.
It isnt a one way argument, both sides have been wrong.

Now that I have more experience with people, I know its fine for people to be either theists or atheist, as long as they agree their flaws.
Atheists aren't greater humans. Just because they believe in truth or dont need to find happiness in something, doesnt mean they are somehow better than others. And atheists should agree to this fact.
Theists also have to agree on the fact, that they simply use religion as a way to find security and happiness, and shouldn't try to prove that Gods exist, as it is most likely false anyways.

Emotions are private mental state, that is not directly accessible to the other beings. — Corvus

I do not believe this claim to be true as humans have been able to read brain waves which are caused by logic as well as emotions, for quite some time now.
Yes, we aren't able to do it quite well, but as Dr. Karoly Zsolnai Feher says, according to the theory of papers, if we go 2 more papers down the line, the amount of development would be astounding.
Neuralink, which is a company created by Elon Musk is already showing amazing progress in this field.

Hello everyone.
This is something I have wanted to discuss with you all, which might or might not be related to the question, but i find to be very interesting.

I have a bit of interest in artificial intelligence and how scientists and researchers programme it to be efficient and sometimes even surpass what a human could do. Some of these examples will be Alpha-Zero by DeepMind, Google, which is a chess engine whom not even the World Champion Magnus Carlsen can defeat. Chess has over 120+ million possible move configurations just after the 3rd move! That is such a high number that not even a computer can process and store all possible configurations, meaning the AI doesnt know which move is the absolute best move against any given situation. (Unless its mate in 1, or something like that).
Now, the interesting part isnt here. DeepMind by Google also made an A.I. model named 'Deep Reinforcement Learning' during 2013-2015 which learned how to play games by watching YouTube! (The learning by watching YouTube part only came around 2018)
Yep, you read it right, it learned how to play games by watching tutorials and speedruns done by humans and was even able to surpass them.
The biggest problem faced by A.I.s so far was that they dont know if they are good at a game or not if they dont have any indication. (Scoreboard showing how well the player is doing)
As humans have a very complex brain, we don't need such indications for adventure and action based games like, Assassin's Creed or GTA, as the entertainment value is more than enough for us.
So, the way the scientists worked around it is by adding a piece of code which imitates curiosity.
With this code in place, the A.I. no longer needed an indication to motivate it, the concept of being able to gain knowledge itself became its motivation.
The first thing the A.I. did after being programmed like this, watching T.V., yep it just stopped playing the game and started watching T.V. (T.V. inside of the video game)
It would refuse to even move from its spot as the T.V. was fulfilling it's curiosity.
The scientists then had to re-programme it in a way, such that, it would still have curiosity but it would prioritize logic over curiosity.
Note:- When the A.I. watched the video, the only input it gets it the video itself. It isn't supplied with info such as which button was pressed when to achieve something. It had to figure it out on its own.

The reason why I am mentioning this is because, first of all, its very interesting, and second of all, it shows how even giving fake emotions can sometimes lead to unwanted things. If we consider the A.I.'s curiosity to be an emotion, we can also make the assumption that emotions are coded in the same way in humans like it has been done in A.I.'s.
In both cases, emotions play a very important role and help facilitate logic faster, however it either needs some correction or we have to lose accuracy/efficiency.

I guess soon enough the question will arise, 'Are emotion-based A.I. and humans same, if the only thing that makes human different from robots is the emotions that they have?'
What a time to be alive!

Source:-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjfDO2pWpys

If we look at evolution, we can easily see that emotions were never meant to be a part of organisms.
It was a byproduct of evolution which was trying a way to teach organisms logic faster.
Once evolution reached a state where logic could easily be understood by brain, the need for emotions stopped.
It is a vestigial part of as, just like an appendix or wisdom teeth.

This is again just straight up false.
Science doesnt say that we dont have control over our emotions.

I am not making anything up.
That is the difference.
All my replies so far have been either based on logic and reason or been educated guesses.
If biology says humans dont have free will, then i agree that humans dont have free-will, because there is research and proof for the case.

That is just straight up false.
For it were true, science would be contradicting itself.

biology has quite clearly established that emotions are the foundation for behavior. It'f much quicker than your "thinking ability". In fact according to the science of biology you do NOT have any free will. You have NO choice to pick and chose, or to stop your emotions. That's silly to think you can. It doesn't even match our everyday reality. — skyblack

I completely agree with all of your claims here.
I never disagreed with any of them since the beginning.
The only thing you are getting wrong is that you are assuming that i am telling humans to stop emotions.
I am not doing that at all.
This discussion is only about what would happen in such a case where it does happen.
This is not a discussion about how we can make it happen.
I have said this multiple times in this discussion already.
If you think its useless to talk about a scenario which might never happen, feel free to leave and not post here anymore.

So before you give out advice such as "Please read the quote carefully", it might be best to understand that your comprehension is limited by your thought. I am not being mean here. Just stating a fact. — skyblack

Bruh, if anything, I am on the side which isnt using emotions to form my thoughts.
Meaning my comprehension are less limited as I am not letting emotions bias my thoughts.
Of course, you arent being mean here, and even if you were, i am ok with a bit of criticism, but talking about a quote and then denying/ignoring the true meaning of it by saying my comprehension is limited, just looks like you are saying it because you yourself dont have comprehension of something and are trying to find a way to succeed in the debate without reason.

You are welcome to a be a faithful follower of an ever-changing god called science. — skyblack

I wouldnt mind if you dont believe in science or dont share the same opinions as me.
However, saying science is ever-changing seems contradictory, as science believes there to be a single non-changing answer for everything.
Apart from that, I guess we have reached an impasse, as I cant simply let all evidences collected by millions of years of research by scientists go to waste.

Or maybe you just didnt understand the sarcasm.

They seem comparatively stupid and comparatively angry. — Kenosha Kid

Oh, ok. Sorry, i think i misunderstood what you meant.
It is true that often it seems like both the sides are equally angry at something, but I do personally believe with the OP's claim, as I think there are social experiments done where this has seen to be a common phenomenon.

It is our emotions that compel us to help humanity. Why would it be logical for us to help humanity as opposed to just our self in a post emotion world? — Down The Rabbit Hole

This topic has already been discussed in this post, and thus, i will just post the few necessary points here.
Feel free to peruse the entire thing, if you want to.

Helping humanity leads to faster development.
The more people can work in development the better.
In a world void of emotions, development becomes an important factor for life.
As a result, anything that can block development will be removed and anything that can help development will be appreciated.

Would we leave the disabled that cannot work to die, or give them financial assistance? If the latter, what logical reason is there for doing so? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Unfortunately, the cold harsh truth is that, they will have to die, if they cannot work.
As this is the most logical choice.
Before, you say that it is harsh and immoral, do not forget that the very reason humans are the apex species is because of this reality.
The species that couldnt survive in a harsh world by evolving were simply lead to extinction, and those who survived by evolving flourished.
The same logic and fate will follow such a world.

Actually not so much in this context; hypotheticals are used to illustrate a type of thing one might actually come across. By selecting one of such a massive scale there are plenty of directions that could be imagined, but ultimately it will be difficult to maintain a point of view with any justified confidence. It's the right idea just a very broad application in a semantically sensitive environment. — Cheshire

I have always looked at hypotheticals, as something where we can assume the wildest of things, yet with reason still find an answer.
If you are saying that it is not the correct definition of a hypothetical, i would gladly back off.
I am not experienced enough in English or Philosophy to be confident in saying that my definition is correct, so I appreciate you teaching me about it.
However, it also means that there is a word that describes my definition, and as such, it was my lack of ability that caused me to regard it as a hypothetical and not as the question? query? (i dont know what to call it)'s fault.

In actuality theology employs the same logical process but starts with some major assumptions. I don't think it's entirely accurate to portray religion as an activity of pure emotion. Drug addiction, perhaps. — Cheshire

I apologize if I sounded like I meant religion wasnt based on logic.
I am one of the few atheists who dont mind religious people who are happy with what they do. (Given they dont do immoral things)
I am only stating that the logic that its based on is often flawed or unnecessary.
What i was showing by my statement there was that, any emotions that were related to religious beliefs have started to decline over time.
And those emotions are simply vanishing away, with logic and reason taking their place instead.

I dont know where the part of science came in as, science know that the heart, in fact doesnt have consciousness or the ability to think.
If we take heart as a metaphor for emotions, then science still doesnt agree that emotions are required to find truth.
Please read the quote carefully.

"The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of... We know the truth not only by the reason, but by the heart" — skyblack

Pascal used the words very carefully by saying, 'We know the truth not only by reason, but by the heart.'
It does not say that, in order to find truth, emotions are necessary, only that it has been useful in achieving it, so far.
He doesnt state that emotions are required to find out the truth, only that it is a viable tool in doing so, an alternate way, if you will.

Pascal once said, "The understanding and the feelings are moulded by intercourse; the understanding and feelings are corrupted by intercourse. Thus good or bad society improves or corrupts them. It is, then, all-important to know how to choose in order to improve and not to corrupt them; and we cannot make this choice, if they be not already improved and not corrupted. Thus a circle is formed, and those are fortunate who escape it."
Meaning, if somehow everything doesn't go right, tht is if violence still continues to be a thing, it would from an unbreakable circle, and the only one fortunate enough to break out of it would make the choice to die rather than live in such a world.

You made a very point point till the part you said that humans in such a world would still develop emotions.
I have said this before in a different reply, but for this hypothetical to work, we have to assume that emotions never existed, and never will.
That they never will be created even if it is preferrable in some cases.

Even if we assume that emotions can exist, my believe would be that 1 of 2 of these possibilities take place.
1) They will try to think logically if having emotions would be a good idea, and as we have discussed before, it can also lead to under-development, which isnt ideal for them. So, they will not develop emotions, as they will deem it to be a risky move which provides little to no knowledge towards their goal.
2) They will accept emotions, and start living as us humans in teh real-life do, however, since they were born without emotions, as soon as they see emotions causing under-development, they will stop using it.
In both these cases, it is not preferrable for them to choose emotions, as even if they can gain knowledge from it faster, it also risks heavy under-development.

The only reason humans with emotions find that emotions make the world a better place, is because we have emotions, as thinking about it logically tells us that it also makes the world a worse place.

If we look at it from a co-operation point of view, like we have done before, we can see that every human in a world void of emotions will be friends, i.e. co-operative as they all share the same goals.
This friendship doesnt mean they have to feel sad about each other's death, as they can understand that humans do in-fact die, and that it is unevitable.
Even, in real-life many people dont cry at funerals, simply because they know to accept the truth and that crying isnt gonna bring the dead back, yes they do get sad, but thats simply because they dont have so much control over their emotions, so they cannot.

Like, I said, no one in a world void of emotions can 'let someone down' or 'dissappoint' them, because for one, these are emotions, and for two, disappointment only comes if there was something to be expected.
For ex:- A parent gets dissapointed at their kid's grade, as they were expecting more from them.

I think you would probably want to argue that emotion as you see it is this juice or energy that comes over us and interferes with our ability to achieve understanding, but this psychologist’s view is that striving rationally to achieve gain of knowledge and prevent loss of understanding , and anticipation of situations that may pose a threat to such goals , is precisely what emotion is. — Joshs

Yes, I would argue that emotions as I see it is juice or energy.
The reason for it is simple, thats how we have been told it is.
99% of people who arent interested in philosophy would give this same answer if asked.
Because thats what we have defined emotions to be.
If we were to ignore this definition, and use the psychologist’s definition instead, then we would have never had this problem.
As his definition clearly states that emotions are tools to eliminate things which stop development.
That is to say, if emotions themselves posed a threat to these goals, by definition, we will have to use our emotions to destroy the emotions.
Which can be seen as a contradiction and thus, the definition can be dis-approved.

With a gun built from intelligence, the bear can be killed easily.
With a vaccine made from intelligence, soon covid is also going to be wiped.
So, your points were incorrect.
But, please, I ask you to stay on topic, for if not, I wouldnt reply to your messages.

Well, since you aren't helping with the discussion, I guess I don't need to reply to your messages anymore.

It is not.........
Lol
In my case, you can just wiki 'Brain', and get what you need.

Well, I dont need to give proof as all of it is already available on the internet.
Scientists know that intelligence lies within the brain.
So, there is no burden to carry anymore.

Also, if you deny the existence of them, then the burden of proving them wrong falls on you.
So, you can get busy as well.
However, I wouldnt actually want that as most people here want a logical and/or correct explanation for things.

Ok.
You can have your belief and I can have mine.

Ok, and by the same logic, if anyone wants to kill you for power, its totally fine.

Again, you are just using baseless assumptions.
I am fine with it if OP is, but I personally wouldnt agree with/take into consideration your words, if you cant provide explanations for it.
And since, you are saying that intelligence doesnt exist, i guess you are saying that your own opinions dont matter, as one has to be intelligent to form opinions.

Ignorance is bliss means - 'if one is unaware of an unpleasant fact or situation one cannot be troubled by it.'
So, if you are trying to say that stupid people are happy because they arent troubled by the truth, you are correct.
If you are saying otherwise, you are wrong.

Hmmmmm.
Good point.
However, the question talks about how stupid people seem happier in "comparison" to smart people, not about how much happy stupid people are.

Yes.
By sheer luck.
Not because they deserved it.

Does anyone know what the number under our profile name means?

Thanks, i guess?
I am still a bit confused, but if you just meant it in a good way, then thank you and welcome back to you too.
You have posted any comment to the discussion yet, so i dont know what you are welcoming me back to.

No, you just happened to use a bad example of the proverb.

The proverb is used when someone or something is made very unefficiently but still works.

In this case, using a basic generator to help cook food is an excellent and efficient way to solve the problem, as once the food is cooked, it can be used for other stuff as well.
And if the person gets copper and magnetite, (or just straight up gets copper wire and magnets), they will be able to produce electricity, and with some zinc and some other metals, they can even make a battery.

So, a good example would actually be if the person had done something like dissasemble their boat(or something important for later use), and used that to make this, as now even though they dont have a boat anymore, which is bad, they can atleast eat food, so, it will be a stupid choice which works, thus satisying the proverb.

What is WB?

I think the question whether wisdom is more valuable than happiness is a very important one, and one that I would unhesitatingly answer by saying that happiness is more valuable. — Amalac

If this is your statement, then we have reached an impasse, as I would unhesitatingly answer by saying wisdom is more valuable.
Note, that I am not saying that I believe that wisdom is more important.
In any real case scenario, I would more likey choose to be happy than know some wisdom that I can't use in real life to make my life easier. I am just saying that if we look at it from a logical point of view, it is mostly always better to choose knowledge.

who were happier? — Amalac

Like i have said before, the question isnt 'who is happier', but the question is 'who is 'right?'.
And the answer is that smart people are morally right, ths have the higher ground.

This doesnt look stupid though.
This is literally an example of a basic generator, one of the greatest inventions of this world.

So, you are not gonna deny the other claims that it is ok to kill someone for power?

Like i said before, power isnt something that exists as one thing.
Power refers to either money, political power, strength, or some such attribute.
If people stop believing or needing the attribute, the power will dissolve as well.

This is why democracy exists.
If every person in the country is given the same amount of control over the government, then a higher power cannot exist, and thus, no dictatorship shall prevail.
This is literally just a fact, so if you try to talk your way against it, you would be talking your way out of reason.

If it was only about happiness, wouldn't we be better off killing 99% population?
We could get more resources and happiness for everyone that way.
The point is that, happiness wasnt a factor for living until living things evolved and got those emotions.
However, the thirst to gain knowledge and reproduce has been present even since the creation of the first micro-organism.
So, the question shouldn't be if stupid people are happier and/or if smart people are sad, it should be if it is right to justify stupidness only by looking at it from an emotional point of view.

Still, if you wanted to find the answer to that question, you would have just posted that.
So, here is my answer to your current question-
Stupid people don't know and/or don't care how well their next generation can live.
We have many real-life examples for this.
Extreme deforestation and really limited drinkable water supply, to name a few.
As long as they can live happy, they will take up more resources.
Since, no one stops them if they have money, they end up happy.
Smart people on the other hand, want to make sure that the next generation can survive, thrive and also help their own next generation.
This isnt a very easy task to do.
It takes multiple sleepless nights and gives constant stress to people to think about this stuff.
And as a resut, they generally end up not being as happy as stupid people.
But, when they do succeed, like when scientists found vaccine to covid-19, the entire world gets to smile and be happy with them, and this makes them so happy that it is worth all the pain.

I wanna thank everyone for participating and being active so far.
I have enjoyed a lot and learned a lot from these discussions.
Many of the replies here have opened my eyes and helped shape some of my views on certain topics, those topics being related to real-life philosophy and not this hypothetical.
I still strongly believe that a world void of emotions would be pretty peaceful and that emotions are unnecessary to achieve the same goals as the ones in this hypothetical.
Feel free to continue on this discussion, or not, if you dont want to.
Its completely fine if you choose either.
If no comments are posted for a few days, I will un-officially end this discussion by giving it a conclusion.
However, anyone interested will still be able to comment and clear any doubts/queries they might have.

This discussion has been on the top page of the website ever since it was created, that is, for a duration of 3 days, because it has been getting a lot of traction, probably because of it being kind of a sensitive topic as well as sounding illogical (ironically) at first.
It has gained 135 comments + 1 (This one) in just 3 days.
It is really an amazing feat, and I am very impressed by myself as well as everyone here.
So, good job everyone.

Keep doing what you do, and who knows, maybe I will come up with an even more illogical sounding logical argument in the future, and i hope most of you will be there to witness it.

I am sorry, but if you cant show evidence or explain your claims, it cant mean anything to people who respect philosophy.

emotions are more important than logic — MikeListeral

So, we should just mindlessly go around killing people and not use logic?
Since, clearly thats what you are trying to say.

and power is more important then emotions — MikeListeral

Ok, so, if I come to kill you and take your money, its ok to do so?
Since, power is the most important, shouldn't me and everyone else try to kill each other in order to be the most powerful and end up dooming humanity?

second comes emotions. an idiot with close foamily and — MikeListeral

an idiot with close foamily and friends will succeed better then a genius without. — MikeListeral

Oh yes, of course, the power of friendship is stronger than an atomic bomb.

Power cant mean anything unless logic and/or emotions deem them to be.
If people stop caring about money, the richest person in the world would be equal to a homeless person.

So, your position is that even though emotional interest in suffering is greatly reduced; the drive to optimize will motivate people to relieve it. I'm not sure I agree, but it is a coherent idea. — Cheshire

Yes, that is my position.
It is ok if you don't agree with it.
This is just a hypothetical, and it's fine if we have different opinions on something.
I am fine as long as you agree that it is logical, as thinking about it logically is all i care about.
I am not here to change someone's views and opinions, only to listen to them and share mine.

Predicting the effect of altering major variables in a macro structure is uncertain in principle. — Cheshire

But isn't that the point of hypotheticals?
Imagining a situatuion and altering major variables with its macro structure and then trying to predict/imagine the effect using logic and moral explanations.

Consider that evolution itself is a process of optimization. If emotions were not in our interest, then shouldn't simply fade on their own? — Cheshire

Evolutions is a process of optimization, for it werent we would still have un-opposoble thumbs and tails.
Emotions are not in our interest, and thus it is reducing and fading away.
We have proof for it.
https://religionnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Religiosity-Graph1.png
Sure, you can make the argument that religion and emotions aren't the same, but you cant disagree that religion consists 99% of emotions.
Fear of death, fear of not being cared about, guilt, faith, all these are related to religion.
So, if religion isn't taking care of them, what is?
Simple answer, logic.
Humans used to believe all natural occurences like thunder, volcanic eruptions, rain, seasons, stars, moon, etc were made and/or controlled by God or a similar higher being because they didn't have logic or more precisely, knowledge of these things.
As soon as science and logic began to explain these phenomenons, these emotions of fear against them decreased and in turn, religiousness and belief in God reduced within the people.
So, we do have evidence for emotions fading away as we don't require it anymore.

It's arguable people might lose the capacity for dialectic thought if emotions are eliminated. — Cheshire

Yes, that is a good point.
However, like I said before, I believe, for the capacity of dialectic thought that humanity will lose, it will also gain accuracy so as to not need so much capacity.

Eliminating emotions would nullify half of the nervous system and seemingly undermine the conflict that drives human intelligence. — Cheshire

Wouldn't nullifying half of the nervous system mean there would be more space for logic itself.
For example, if we had a hard disk which contained 50gb of emotions and 50gb of logic, and we deleted emotions, we will now have 50gb more space for more logic to be added.
Also, again, like I have said above, I believe for every type of emotional stuff we decrease within the human mind, we will be able to get more accurate solutions to problems using logic.

Well, if you are just saying that emotions help facilitate co-operation in real-life, you are absolutely correct.
But that doesnt justify your claim that without them co-operation wont be as full.

Like, I have said or meant to say before, emotions are an incomplete version of logic itself.
As a result, they can help people develop faster.
However, this comes at a price.
Emotions also leads to stoppage or decrease development in many cases.
This is why even most people here agree that emotions should be controlled and that people should have logic as well along with emotions.
So that, humanity can have the speed of development gained with emotions as well as accuracy gained from logic.

My argument on this is that, if we get rid of emotions, we might not have development at such a great speed, but we will have good accuracy of what should happen.

For your last argument, i cant really say something against it, as you are already doing that for yourself.
You are literally just saying that you can pirate something, i.e. break rules just because others allow you to do that.
I am pretty sure that no one wants a world where there are no rules or where breaking is ok.
By your logic, its ok to kill someone as long as no one tried their best protecting them.
Thats just not an argument anymore.

Again, like i said before,
Please do not assume stuff based on half truth.

Emotions aren't the only thing that facilitate co-operaion.
There are other factors at play as well.

Also, assuming that co-operation is required for survival (right now) is also an incorrect assumption.
Yes, it was highly necessary for survival in our past.
But, that was because humanity had no way of fighting lion and mammoths alone.
If we hadnt co-operated then, humanity could have had become extinct as a whole.
That doesnt justify that co-operation is still required.

The facts are that -
Co-operation is often required to fight a common enemy.
As long as there is a common enemy, there will be co-operation.
Emotions only play the role to facilitate them faster.

For example:-
There are 3 kingdoms.
Kingdom A and B are small kingdoms and have been fighting for land from each other.
Kingdom C is a fairly big kingdom which has a lot of military force, and can easily defeat the kingdoms one at a time, but not together.
Kingdom C announces to fight against both the kingdoms one by one, not realising that it cant defeat them if they work together.
Kingdom A and B have been enemies for centuries, and if emotions were the only factor for co-operation, then they would never agree to co-operate.
And this is not just a baseless assumption.
We can see that in history, this is how many countries lost.
Even now, (I am from India), India would never agree to work along with Pakistan no matter how big the problem gets. (The open minded, like myself will. But India, is full of people who care more about their so-called 'patriotism' then survival)
However, if we look at it through logic, we can easily assume that co-operation will happen.
And that Kingdoms A and B will be fight C together, and then continue their personal fights at a later time, if still deemed necessary.

This example beautifully shows how logic can facilitate co-operation when emotions say otherwise.

"Without empathy, people would be largely indifferent to suffering,"
Yes, that makes sense.

"so there isn't a reason why they would work together to reduce it."
This does not make sense.
You arent putting 2 and 2 together here, to get 4.
You are putting 2 and 1 together and assuming it makes 4.
You are assuming that empathy alone is/could be the reason for working together to reduce suffering.
I believe this to be incorrect.
Suffering leads to slowed development.
In a world void of emotions, development and research is everything.
So, in order to maximize development, suffering will have to be reduced.

I talked about this before in a different reply, so i will put the necessary words here, however, feel free to read the complete comment for more info.
"These 2 goals are- (can also be intepreted as 3)
1) Collect information and knowledge about the world.
2) Reproduce and pass on this information to the offsprings."
These 2 are the main goals for any living creature.
As a result, anything that can cause a block in this will be taken care of, even without emotions.
This has often been done with the help of evolution in real-life, as creatures before did not have emotions or logic which was as high level as of a human's.
For example:- Creatures used to live in water, however as living on land had more chances to gain knowledge and also reproduction, with the help of evolution, they stepped onto land, not because of curiosity, or because they were suffering, but because their life goals were more important to them.

With this info in mind, i guess its safe to say that even in a world void of emotions, it will be necessary to keep suffering as reduced as possible.

But, i like cold harsh truth and hypotheticals.
So, lets assume a different world, where people dont care about other people.
Emotions can still be a thing, exceot empathy, and logic can reside as well.
However, if there was to be a world where people dont care about other people, the cold harsh truth is that, people would not care about other's suffering, just as a lion doesnt care if a deer has to die for it to eat, and just as most humans in real-life dont care how animals feel as long as they taste great.
Please, note that this paragraph contains a hypothetical different from the current discussion and the words and opinions i stated in this, shouldnt be taken to justify something else for the actual discussion.