> if you aren't being driven by emotion you're incapable of doing good. I'd say the article is claiming one is "less likely", not incapable. > they're better

> if you aren't being driven by emotion you're incapable of doing good. I'd say the article is claiming one is "less likely", not incapable. > they're better off ignored. So you advocate inaction? Seems like the author may have a point :)