some point in their life and get to feel love, love is the pure
concentrate of selflessness and compassion (compassion without
selflessness is just selfish egoistic compassion which isnt really
compassion at all) and if we are all capable to feel love to a single
human being we are capable of feeling love towards all human
beings. Having in mind that great majority of people do feel
love(ultimate compassion) and then act without it in their future
decisions towards others makes humans quite hypocritical. I
wouldnt pose the question if compassion is necessary for morality
because its logical that without care for others and their
expectations and well-being there is no morale(although we do
not need to explicitly care about someone to do right by them, we
certainly are more efficient when we do). But since we live in a
diverse world which contains in it some people who cant feel
emotions I am obliged to take them into consideration. Can a man
be moral without the actual feeling of compassion , well without
the ability to feel emotions we can still use our brains to think up
the dos and do nots in our interactions, this kind of morale would
be more of a mechanic one rather than real emotion-based(one
would have to rationally predict if others will react positively or
negatively to their actions, without shifting of the point of view
due to inability to feel others emotions) but we cant deny its
existence ,I think the name utilitarian morale would fit it the
best(its main purpose would be efficiency in social interactions).
This mechanic, utilitarian, emotionless morale is harder to practice
than emotion based one but at least its the proof that all humans
with various kinds of emotional backgrounds(or lack of them) can
act towards others morally(it can be practiced by those who do
have emotions yet choose to reserve them for specific people
only). Next to being compassionate, for acting morally it is useful
to be rational and to make smart predictions of the outcome of our