has it ever occurred to anyone that the concept of right and wrong existing in a dichotomy derives from a flawed model of emotion?
consider a hypothetical person whose emotions are purely based in the moral truth. if you're religious, you can imagine this person is god. if not, it doesn't matter, since they're only hypothetical either way.
it's safe to say, that person would be angered to see something morally wrong, and pacified to see something morally right, correct? in a sense, we can consider that the definition of right and wrong; i.e., they're defined by how someone would feel to witness them if that person were a perfect moral being.
but don't people usually have other emotions than anger and pacification? what about joy, sadness, fear, worry, compassion, etc?
maybe instead of seeing things as "morally right" and "morally wrong," we could start to see them as the seemingly analogous expressions "morally commendable" and "morally outrageous." it now becomes clear they are not actually opposites. because now, we can put other emotions there. when luck, rather than anyone's righteousness, protects people and protects natural order, we can call it "morally delightful"; when, despite everything, luck causes harm, we might call it "morally depressing"; when someone violates the natural order, but doesn't do so wrongfully per se in that they're careful not to allow harm to come of it, we might call it "morally worrying," since surely they must be hurting inside. in all manner of ways, we could represent our moral sensibilities with as full a spectrum of emotion as our hearts, instead of just reducing it to a binary choice.
