Unemotional Reasoning

While, in an earlier post, I acknowledged the potential usefulness of felt reasons as a tool for appeal to the masses, I also think that felt reasons have some major flaws which non-felt reasons do not possess.  Most importantly, I think that basing one's actions on felt reasons can result in one neglecting certain morally obligatory actions because they fail to appeal to one's emotions.  As a personal example of this, I am a vegetarian for ethical reasons.  I made the decision to become a vegetarian due to non-felt reasons; if I had relied on felt reasons, I would likely only have eliminated some meats from my diet, because I dislike certain animals from which common meat products come, such as cows.  Thus, if I had relied on felt reasons, I would still eat beef.

It is true that one can apply general felt reasons to specific categories - so, one can decide that cruelty to animals is wrong based on felt reasons, and then apply that to all individual animals despite dislike for some animals.  However, the sizes of categories and their relationships to one another are variable, and so hard to determine.  It would be very easy to claim that a general felt reason did not apply to some specific category or another.