My position (my emotional stance) is that all emotion is *socially conditioned.* For me social, sexual, religious and political emotivism dictate that moral statements exclusively express our physical feelings. The way I see it, any *reasoning* involved simply refers to an initial brief analysis of the situation encountered followed by the main emotional response ending in attempts at rationalising and explaining (in what seems the most appropriate and convincing manner) to ourselves and others, the reasons why we are so emotional about the subject in the first place and to provide apologetics for any actions that might have followed such outbursts.

My own (emotional) answer to the question of the widespread emotional revulsion against abortion and homosexuality as to what is the source and meaning of such extreme hatred. The answer for me is quite simple - its in the bible (and can be found in the *instructions for the faithful* of most other world religions which has been internalised by the masses, reinforced by all organs of the state and backed up by the mass media and the educational dens of mass conformity such as our nurseries, schools, colleges and universities, where our young are taught to think about what is right and wrong - not about whether *morals* (goodness and badness) actually exist.

Thus they learn acceptance of *moral norms* and to put their own interpretation on what constitutes an appropriate ethical approach to ideas of right and wrong regarding their fellow man, animals and the environment, and whether they should be simply acknowledged or modified rather than recognise *morals* for what they are - as reificative descriptions of instinctive/learned/interiorised opinion manifested as animal behaviour by humans.

In a slightly modified version of Antonio's neurological sequence I would characterise the process as follows:

1. A quick neurological interpretation of facts of the given news or situation (a baby has been found murdered) in the sense of a linguistic analysis of the pure data which triggers the response. i. e, a neuro-grammatical analysis of the input of what is encountered sententially.

2. Emotion *kicks in* with a neuro-biological feeling of outrage or compassion etc. (often a warm feeling in the chest area and a rise in blood-pressure.)

3. A reasoning consideration of the most coherent and logical way of justifying the emotional reaction and communicating the reasons for one's response in words

This *reasoned consideration* is (as Gary C. Moore  points out in another form of words) no more than the original emotion re-jigged and uttered as a linguistic sentential string - for though emotion often can be communicated by gesticulation, facial contortion etc., being an *inner feeling,* it needs to be communicated in the form of words. Whilst Gary did not agree per se that there is no difference betwixt emotion and reason, he did frame what he wrote in a way which suggests that he does have sympathy with the position:

Gary:
*But it goes right to the roots of thinking itself as a mere aspect, even a side show, of animal living itself. If emotion cannot be separated from reason, then morality cannot be separated from *sentiments*. Worse than that, neither can be separated from habit. *

Antonio does not share the idea for he has written:

* IMHO, they can be separated, since Emotion can be a subject of Reason whilst Reason cannot be a matter of Emotion. (true, one could guess that the reasoning modality makes oneself feel emotion - yet this would be a reasoning itself, too...) *

Again, for me reasoning is *emotion writ cold.* Reasoning is a reification of emotion which is an existential PHYSICAL mode or state of the body-brain that can be identified by PHYSICAL changes in skin temperature, the influence adrenaline pumped into the circulatory system. Emotion is a physical state of the body - a body which undergoes physiological changes, of which the individual sometimes experiences physical stress, often with distortion of the facial features, ( some people faint) and cardiac rhythm changes and can be detected. Though the variety of emotion we call *reasoning* is also a physical activity - it tends to remain an activity of the neural nets
(which also generates a change in brainmeat temperature)

Most of such linguistic responses are standard pre-scripted feedbacks (res judicata - "a matter [already] judged",) which have their origin in the primal, unsocialised, self-protective, greedy, hyper-selfishness displayed by the new-born and humans in early infancy, which has been modified and internalised in the young by social and ethical attitudes inculcated in them by parents and wider society.

Thus, the standard verbal outbursts of moral outrage at news of a mass murder, child molestation, blasphemy against God, corruption etc., are in fact simply verbal symbols representing neuro-physical, formerly orally unelaborated, emotional sensations of elementary awareness of human objects following stimulation.

The manipulators that run religion want more power over people and more wealth. This presupposes expansionism. The more the believers multiply - the more influence and wealth the church and its hierarchy accumulate. Abortion and same sex relationships mean less sheep in the flock. To pastoralists infertile rams and repetitiously aborting ewes are eliminated. An oversimplification? I don't think so. There are no OBJECTIVE moral facts, therefore 'murder is wrong' can't be objectively true whether the
*murder* in carried out by the destruction of an embryo or the *murder by implication or in absentia) implied in homosexual coupling. I also feel that the religious animosity towards homosexuality reflects the agenda of a mostly homosexual priesthood to distance themselves from such activity in the eyes of the faithful and reassure parents that their young son is entering a seminary and not a religious version of a gay bath house should he wish to study holy orders with his ass against the wall.

The priestly disregard of the feminine desire or need to sometimes abort an unwanted fetus merely reflects the anti-feminist attitude to women as a threat to their predatory
*sexual market* which is demonstrated by the biblical attitude towards women prior to the arrival of Christ, who, if the theories that he was a heterosexual (affair with Mary Magdalen, possible marriage [Gnostic scriptures etc.,] are correct displayed a more accommodating stance towards women, both socially and doctrinally - compared to his acolyte Paul - the gay woman-hater who was guilty of being so active in proselytising the evil cult and spreading the cancer so extensively.

Emotivists teach that moral statements only express the speaker's feelings about the issue. Later emotivists added this idea to Emotivism: In Emotivism a moral statement isn't literally a statement about the speaker's feelings on the topic, but expresses those feelings with emotive force. When an emotivist says 'murder is wrong' it's like saying 'down with murder' or 'murder, yuck!' or just saying 'murder' while pulling a horrified face, or making a thumbs-down gesture at the same time as saying 'murder is wrong'.

PS. A rejection of the *concept of morality* as something real does not mean that the emotivist abjures civilised behaviour towards others - it simply means that he recognises that *morality* is no more then human opinion which differs and changes over time and is subject to huge variation from society to society, from country to country and even class to class, from political party to political party and that there is no need for any religious dimension.

Now whether such opinions should be subject to democratically arrived at decision-making - rather than imposed from above - is a very interesting question. It is often said that if a vote were to be taken (here in Britain) as to imposing the death penalty for murder, or drastically curbing immigration etc., that there would be an overwhelming vote for extreme action. Almost the whole of the German people knew it advance what Nazism implied for their Jewish citizens etc. The *morally motivated Christian fanatics Bush and Blair knew in advance what the bombing of Baghdad meant for the civilian population in spite of the lies about surgical strikes. The Islamic fanatics knew in advance what the attack on the Twin Towers meant for the 3-thousand innocent Americans and others who worked in the buildings.

Thus the gun laws and *right to bear arms* in the USA for example are quite different from the British attitude to private citizens possessing arms for their protection. What is ethically correct (= public opinion) in one state compared to another (with similar cultural ties of origin and language etc.,) can be quite different.

Jud Evans June 2009.