I disagree. Case in point - cheating on a spouse. It may be "logical" to say it would be ok to cheat as long as the spouse doesn't find out - it's harmless fun. However, with "emotion" comes guilt. If one feels "guilty" about cheating they will then be less apt to do the immoral act because feeling guilty is not comfortable. Also empathy would come into it because that would allow you to know how you would feel if your spouse cheated on you and you don't want to cause your spouse that same pain.
I do agree that emotion can lead to a choice of not causing pain/suffering.
It would be an immoral thing to cheat on a spouse, if you've agreed not to. (its a given most of the time)
One would not be causing any direct suffering, if said spouse never found out. But one would have to decieve and tell lies, which has vast consequences.
I
n many cases, logic should not be used as the one and only determening factor.
In NO case should emotion be used as the one and only determening factor, because it clouds judgement in ways we do not yet fully understand.
What may seem right at the time may cause massive harm in the future, and thats where logic and reason come in to play.
Take the trolley problem for example:
Trolley problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are a lot of factors and variables one has to take in to account in order to make a true morally "good" choice.
Causality, logic, reason, and to a minor extent, emotion.
Just because something "feels" right doesn't make it so.
Edit: I double posted, and deleted the first.