in 2007ish, Jesse Prinz, a philosopher at CUNY, raised the question about a possible connection between emotions and moral thinking/response. He made a convincing argument that evolutionarily speaking, emotions like empathy and disgust probably function as foundations for moral responses.

As far as I know, he doesn't claim that rationality should be replaced by emotionality. He does not say that morality would be better if it was all about our feelings.

But he does suggest that one reason why there is so much moral agreement among humans (generally speaking, almost all of us agree that murder is wrong and stealing is wrong, etc.) is because we respond differently to things that feel good, and thing that feel bad. Descriptively. As a species. We don't welcome murderers. We don't like it. We say "Ick" and that becomes "That's evil" over time.

What sucks is that people learn a little philosophy, and then misinterpret it, and apply it incorrectly., and then condemn the philosophy. Not you. The people you are responding to - they took the notion that emotionality is probably biologically foundational to morality, and decided that means that all their feelings are accurate measures of reality. That's not what Prinz says.

Morality may be based on emotional response, but that does not mean that it is GOOD, if morality is based on emotional response. (It may not be bad either. And we may never be able to get out of our human biases long enough to be able to tell.)

I enjoyed this story and I do think rationality and rules are important in a civilized society. I agree with you on many points, and thanks for writing a thought-provoking piece.