Ok.
This is not what I wanted.
Maybe its because of my lack of ability to make you guys understand what I am talking about.
So, I will try again.

I am trying to discuss about how a world without emotions will exist and if that world would be better or worse than this current one.
Unfortunately, I would have to put on some rules, since you guys aren't helping the discussion anymore and are just targeting to make me feel bad.
1) I know that emotions are good. I know their importance. Yes, I made some dubious points to try to say otherwise, and I apologize about that. So, stop saying how important they are and start talking about how getting rid of them will make a difference.
2) I am not saying humans=robot, thats just a wrong fact. I am saying that the making of the brain, and the principles it stands on is similar, and one day in the future, maybe science will be able to make a proper humanoid A.I. even with emotions.
3) Stop assuming that emotions are deeply connected with consciousness. There are people who suffer from Alexithymia, which causes theem to not have emotions. And they still have perfectly good logic and consciousness. Or would you guys go as far as calling them robots/animals, and say that they aren't humans?
4) Stop thinking about how we will get rid of emotions. That is not the point of interest of this discussion.
This post should only discuss about how a world without emotions would function.

I think we will have to do this all over again.
Also, before someone says - "Oh, but your post question says 'Are emotions unnecessary now', clearly stating that we should talk about the necessity of emotions first.", like i said, i wasn't able to frame my question properly, and i agree that that was due to the lack of my ability.

I will the first points of discussion now-
1) In a world without emotions, there will be no negative emotions such as greed, jealousy, sadness, etc.
So, we can guarantee that no one will those emotions. Meaning, world is already a better place.
2) There would be no positive emotions either. No one would help each other, unless it profits them directly. (which is the same case as a world with emotions, as well)
3) There will be no violence in such a world, as violence requires emotions as well as energy. In a world without emotions, energy would become a large decider, and people won't waste their energy on something that doesn't matter to them.
4) Even if we consider that violence is possible without emotions, we still have ways to work with it. Just as we have a police force in our world, there would be a police force in a world void of emotions. There will be certain rules that descibe that any sort of killing or harming other is strictly not allowed.
5) This discussion is a hypothetical with the rule being humans wont have emotions. So please dont make arguments like humans would magically start to have emotions out of thin air.
6) I hope you guys will help me make this a better discussion where we can talk about the correct thing. If anyone here has any problems with how I want this discussion to go, please kindly leave.


Edit:- Just wanted to add that emotional pain and physical pain are 2 different types of pain. So, even in a world void of emotions, people would feel physical pain.

If we had no emotions we would be a society of pod people (don't watch if you haven't seen the movie):

@Kinglord1090
Your list of rules and regulations just shows you are contriving and rigging your argument and any trying to stop dissent or counter views.

Your not wanting a discussion your wanting to preach that you have some magic solution for your own personal anxieties.

You haven't thought through your position at all.

Your post is as ludicrous as saying "we can Eliminate suffering and have world peace if we just eliminate humans,prove me wrong".

This whole thread is about your anxiety,your problems with your emotions.

How about you work on yourself rather than "fixing" the entire planet?

Bruhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I literally said in the message that people should point out how an emotionless world will not be able to function properly.

Either you didn't read it, or you just want to act like you are smart by throwing random accusation at me.

Oh, so we are using 70 year old movies made for the purpose of 'entertainment' as our sources now?
How can you sink so low?

@Kinglord1090
And I literally said you are framing the question in an attempt to justify your argument.

Read my post bruuuuuuuuih!

I don't need to throw shade,your digging your own contradictions and displaying your idealistic claptrap extremely well.

@Kinglord1090

By the way,interesting choice of username.
Delusions of grandeur!

Oh, so we are using 70 year old movies made for the purpose of 'entertainment' as our sources now?
How can you sink so low? — Kinglord1090

:rofl:

I don't understand.
I framed the questions in a way, that i could still be opposed.
Also, like i said before, if you dont wanna be here, just leave.

Oh, and what would perhaps your username mean?
Identity Theft, thats what it would mean.

@Kinglord1090
My username is the name of the greatest Greek philosopher you ignorant dumbass. Wiki is your friend!

Look at my reply, you beautiful man.

@Kinglord1090
You framed the question with a ludicrous impossible assumption.

Can you guess what the assumption was?

That you are capable of reason?

@Kinglord1090
No. Try again.

By the way,you calling me beautiful is the first thing you have got right this thread.

I am gonna guess that you will say that the impossible assumption is that emotions and logic can be seperated.
And I already gave the answer for that.
There are people who suffer from Alexithymia who dont have emotions, yet are as humans as any one of us.

I called you beautiful because i didnt wanna swear.
Take a hint.
Even a person like you who believes so much in the power of emotion can't understand sarcasm.

@Kinglord1090

Correctomundo! Look at the emotions on kinglord!!

Now,it's a misnomer that people with alexithymia don't have emotions. So your whole argument is gone.

Your sarcasm is shit!

"Alexithymia is a personality trait characterized by the subclinical inability to identify and describe emotions experienced by one's self. The core characteristic of alexithymia is marked dysfunction in emotional awareness, social attachment, and interpersonal relation. Furthermore, people with high levels of alexithymia can have difficulty distinguishing and appreciating the emotions of others, which is thought to lead to unempathic and ineffective emotional responses."
Source:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexithymia

Ok, so you are just saying science is wrong?
That years of medical research and development is false?
Or the wikipedia and all websites are just full of lies?

First of all, comedy is subjective, so i get it if you didn't like it.
But that doesnt mean that my sarcasm was bad.
It just means your understanding of humor is flawed.

@Kinglord1090

Read the article.

The emotions are still experienced,but not processed as well as normal.

It's impossible to not have emotions.

I dont think you are understanding what the article states.
The reason they said it like this - "emotions experienced by one's self.", isnt because they actually experience it, its because it is how they have to try to communicate with other people.
In layman terms, they are being forced to try to experience it even though they cannot.

@Kinglord1090

Nope. They have trouble with processing emotions,not that they don't have any.

Have your worked in clinical settings?

Because you might understand if you had.

Well, seems like we reached an impasse.
Seems like clearly, you never had any hardships in your life since you cleary dont care about other humans.
I wont be replying to here anymore.

Before I leave this post, I would like to say one last thing to everyone.

Thank you for taking your time to share your opinions on this discussion.
And, Mr Protagoras, get a life, mate.
You wont get anywhere in life if you dont care about others.

@Kinglord1090
There's no impasse. You never even got off the ground.

There was no discussion. You rolled in with a dogma and preached it,then got slapped down gracefully.

Now you posts are getting emotional. So don't recommend shit you can't do yourself.

And I'm happy in my life,with all I want. Comes from being
real,and taking responsibility for my Emotions.

If only you knew how wrong your comment about hardship is...

You really need to get out more,and stop living in your own head.

@Kinglord1090

By the way you running off through logic or emotion?!
Or both...

A world without emotions... :chin:

So, neither happiness nor suffering. Well, with these two things gone, utilitarianism goes out the window. Kantian ethics would still apply though - it basically ignores the consequences of actions (happiness/sorrow). In fact, since we're talking about ethics vis-à-vis rationality, Kant's wish to render morality an extension of logic seems to be fit like a glove - Kant was of the opinion that immorality was a violation of the law of noncontradiction. Assuming Kant's ethics are put into effect, a world sans emotions would be good.

Too, virtue ethics would also find a niche in a feelingless world for the simple reason that the highest virtue is reason - Kant would've approved. If virtue ethics differs from Kantian ethics, it's only in the sense that in the former, the feelings of affected parties in a moral issue might need to be given proper weightage. However, with emotions out of the equation, both virtue ethics and Kantian ethics will converge on rationality/reason as the cornerstone of morality.

Interestingly, we must be extra cautious with Christianity - it's a marriage between emotions (hedonic heaven & hell) and rationality (Kantian duty ethics - the decalogue). We can separate the two, keep one and throw the other out.

Voila! We have a world devoid of all emotions and good to boot. I'll end with a question, "would a world of sentient AIs that can't emote be a moral world?" It looks like Kant (deontology) and Socrates (virtue ethics) though separated by nearly one-and-a-half thousand years were laying down the groundwork for a world populated by AI (artificial intelligence) units, each one of which would have, in Hermione Granger's view, "the emotional range of a teaspoon." We're basically developing machine-apt ethical models. :chin:

Well, this thread has gotten ironically emotional. I'll try to examine your question. First, what are emotions? Some might say they are instinctual responses to stimulus that help us survive as a species, and as a social group. The younger you are, the more emotions drive you through your day.

But as we age and the brain develops more, a person is able to gain mastery over their emotions. Just because we are angry and want to hit someone, doesn't mean that we do. Emotions become more of a digest, and a guide. If I feel angry at a situation, instead of just reacting, I think about it.

But what about the case in which there is no time to think about it? If you have no foreknowledge of a situation you're about to be in? If you have to act right then, or disaster will strike? When you cannot take the time or effort to think, emotion is the digest of the situation that lets you act when thinking would leave you paralyzed.

So do we need emotion? As we age and learn, perhaps we don't as much. I have suffered from medical depression, where all of my emotions disappear. Yet, I still "know" what I need to do when I wake up in the morning. Its not "exciting" when those days happen, but I still function. I also pretend to have emotions when speaking with others on those days, because emotions are a social lubricant.

Would there still be violence? Yes. One can conclude that another human being does not deserve to live. Violence is still an effective tool for getting things that you need. I don't think a lack of emotions would necessarily make the human race better. I think it would severely hinder development from a child to an adult. I think it would make social interactions slower and more muted. And finally, I think it would hinder our ability to react quickly to new situations, making us weak as a species to things that require the split second judgement that emotions provide.

I am trying to discuss about how a world without emotions will exist and if that world would be better or worse than this current one. — Kinglord1090

Would this imply the non-existence of empathy?

Really nice view on this discussion.
I will try to answer your question.

"would a world of sentient AIs that can't emote be a moral world?"
If we consider that morals stem from emotions, then in a world void of emotions, morals wouldnt exist.
Of course, morals aren't based off of only emotions.

I am going to take example from life that existed before us, ones which existed without emotions, namely micro-organisms.
Ever since they are created, they only have 2 goals, these goals are the 2 most fundamental goals of life which can also be intepreted as the only logical meaning to life.
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.
The reason these goals exist is because of mortality.
If living things didnt die, these goals wouldnt exist, or atleast reproducing would be unnecessary as well as harmful as the more population there is, the more space and resources it will take.

Now, you might be thinking why i am talking about this instead of answering the question.
The reason is that, I want to show some perspectives that might defeat the purpose of the question in the first place.
So, I ask you (rhetorically) -
Would a world of micro-organisms be a moral world?
See?
Now it has become a difficult answer once we know that micro-organisms are the same living things we evolved from.
They don't have emotions.
But they aren't mindless robots either.
So, then, if we cant differentiate micro-organisms with robots, yet know that something is different, how can people easily assume that a human without emotions would become a mindless robot?

So, my answer to your question is,
If we use the above 2 fundamentals to be the morals of such a world, then yes, such a world would be moral.