(Original post by The Angry Stoic)
You'll have to bear with me on this one as its not one of my opinions I've perfected explaining.
It's not a catagorical imperative or imperatives based on individual emotions, so you wouldn't say 'chickenonsteroids hates being raped so its imperative not to rape him', but rather the negative affect an act has on your emotions in the sense that you are hurt, in any sense, so you would say 'chickenonsteroids hates being raped because it hurts him and it imperative not to hurt him' as you may like getting raped so it wouldn't hurt you. Or maybe being whipped is a better example here. No one likes to be raped!
So if an action results in a negative emotion then you shouldn't do it? That's a bit simple. The moral dilemmas we face can be much more complicated than a case of punching someone. If I were to say "TAS hates taxes because he doesn't like losing hard earned money therefore it's an imperative not to tax him' then it seems, by your definition of morality, taxes shouldn't be permitted. Or, 'TAS's son hates needles therefore it's imperative you don't inject him with anything' which means that you can't give him any vaccines. Now, you may respond by saying that the benefit of the vaccine outweighs the negative emotion initially felt. However, doing that turns your moral theory into a consequentialist one whereas it was trying to be a deontological one previously.
The next problem is sometimes it is useless to hurt someone against their will to help them in the long term most commonly with children and stupid people. I'm trying to decide on what's the right thing to do myself. Kant would say people are an end to themselves not a means to an end so shouldn't be manipulated but I'm not sure if that holds if the end they are being manipulated to is to benefit themselves so they are in part both the means and the end.
Woops, I forgot you mentioned this. You can read my previous point anyway.
This part is a bit confusing. Who is using who as a means to an end? Kant's maxim utilises consent. I use a teacher as a means to an end (to gain education) but that's permitted since the teacher allows it, plus they use students as a means to an end (to further their knowledge and get paid). So teachers can allow themselves to be 'manipulated' since it'll benefit them in the long run and they allow it.
The problem I have with the word manipulation is that it carries negative connotations and isn't corrected for context. If you're manipulating (or exploiting, if you want a clearer word) someone, you're using them as a means to an end without their explicit permission.
Furthermore people's emotions can be manipulated. What should you do for a man who likes to be a slave?
I'm not trying to say this morality is 'objective', whatever people mean by that theses days I don't know and if they mean it never changes then this system would be objective once the kinks are worked out, but emotions are the only thing we have to base morality on. They may be inherently irrational but that doesn't mean they can't be used rationally.
This sort of system is generally what most atheists already do I believe.
How well did I explain that? Terribly I fear. It's something I'm still thinking about myself.
I have to disagree with your statement about emotion. It's pretty bold! Emotions do play a large part in our moral decision making since we aren't purely rational beings but we use reason quite a lot in the decisions especially when the problems become more complicated.
Do you know what emotivism is? (This isn't meant to be condescing
) Your explanation was a bit confusing and I bet my response was too