Well, I wont be coming back to this site for quite some time probably, so I am just gonna say that I choose a world with eternal peace, even though by some people who dont use reason it is also a world without humans, i will take it over seeing people suffer.
We were never meant to exist. The probability of all of what is happening right now is lower than 1%. We are nothing in comparison to the universe. If to have life, is to have suffering, then i dont want it.

Tell me, which world do you prefer,
A world with emotions that exists with pain and suffering as well as happiness.
Or
A world without emotions that exists with eternal peace.

No arguments here, just a choice.

Bruh. Now all you are doing is saying baseless statements without giving any reasons to anything.
I am not interested in discussion with someone who cant give proper reasoning behind their statements.
So, I am out.
Also, by saying the discussion is closed, I mean, I am not going to be replying to any messages anymore, so even if you want to talk in this discussion dont tag me.

Again, emotions arent the only thing humans have. Using logic also works. And i dont know about you, but humans for centuries have used logic to evaluate situations. So, no, emotions arent necessary for evaluation.

And if such a reality existed, you wouldn't be unable to make any evaluation on how that world appears to you. — Nickolasgaspar

Wouldnt, unable.
2 negatives, meaning you do agree that evaluation can be made.
But i know thats not what you meant.

Also, we arent evaluating it from the inside perspective anyways, as a world without emotions wouldnt have a reference of emotions to evaluate it from that perspective.

-I don't think that we have a choice.....They come with the biological body we rock..lol — Nickolasgaspar

I guess you didnt read the entire discussion word by word properly, cuz we are assuming that a world without emotions exists. And the discussion is about how it will be better or worse than reality.

I guess you are making a "what if" hypothetical question...right? — Nickolasgaspar

Duh.
Do you think there is a way to make humans stop showing emotions, peacefully?
As long as emotions exist, logic can be cast away. As long as logic can be cast away, peace cant be true.
The only exception is if every human only showcases good emotions only.
But we both know that wont happen.

Emotions are necessary in our mental functions as humans (and in animals). We even discovered primitive "emotions" in flies guiding their behavior. — Nickolasgaspar

This statement is just factually incorrect. Emotions arent necessary in our mental functions as humans.
I wrote a lot here, but it got deleted and I am bored, so I will shorten it.
Computers can do stuff better than us without emotions.

So "meaning" is what we "scan" our emotions for — Nickolasgaspar

Since emotions dont exists in our 'hypothetical', we have nothing to scan.
So, basically, you are saying that most of what you said was not related to the discussion.
Weird flex, but ok.

This is the huge difference between AI and Biological intelligence. The first is guided by algorithms that are updated( try and error) with the intention to reach the defined goals set by the code, while the second guides an organism to select a behavior that makes senses(meaning) in relation to satisfying a specific emotion. — Nickolasgaspar

My brain left the chat while reading this.
I dont know where you learned about AI from, but its literally about re-creating biological intelligence.
Both work on the same principles.
What you call 'algorithms' for computers, is what exists inside our brain as well.
What you call 'defined goals' is also taken from humans. As organisms, our brain doesnt work to satisy our emotions, it works to reach a defined goal. I feel weird that me(an organism), has to tell you(also an organism), about why we exist. Or rather, why we dont just go extinct. Its because we are meant to do 3 things. Collect info, breed, and pass on that info. All that to gain immortality. Before you think i am talking about some pseudo-science or some religious stuff, let me assure you that I am not.

Without emotions we won't have organisms trying to understand what it means to feel that way and what he/she should do to address that emotion. — Nickolasgaspar

Bruh, did you even read this before sending?
Starts with - "Without emotions", Ends with - "Address that emotion"
Where did emotion come from?
You were supposed to assume they dont exist.
If there is no emotions, they is nothing to address, thus, nothing to understand about them.

Also, I have already said this before that this discussion has been closed.
Please look for another discussion or open one of your own if you want to further discuss it with people.

Nicely said.
According to you, emotions are below conscience.
According to me, emotions are below the line of necessary.
So, they are unnecessary. (According to my reasoning that is)

So, many messages, damn.
I wont be able to reply to all of these.
And I see, me saying we should end the discussion, since its not really going anywhere, didnt really work.
I will try to put some of my thoughts here, however, dont expect me to reply to all. (I apologize for that in advance)

I will try to translate this better, for once. I am translating this by how I understood it, so if its wrong, feel free to correct me.
@Book273 is trying to say that financially there are 3 types of people. Rich, middle-class and poor. The rich have worked at some point in tie to earn money. (Be it ethical or not). Middle-class people have to work constantly and work to earn money. And poor people have to work even harder. So, the government trying to help just the poor people (Poor including people who cant or refuse to work), is kinda unfair. Either everyone should be equally helped, or like Book273 said, no one should be helped at all.
I kinda agree with it. The meaning of equality is kind of subjective. So, giving a poor person chance to earn money is a way for equality to someone, while to someone else, helping just poor people is inequality.

Now, I would like to reply to some of @Nickolasgaspar's messages, because I liked their perspective.

Feelings are the result we get when we try to reason and understand our emotions. — Nickolasgaspar

Ok. Understandable. I have nothing against this at all.

So in my opinion, the opening statement should ask whether feelings are unnecessary and the obvious answer is of course they are. — Nickolasgaspar

No, the opening statement should be are 'emotions' necessary. You just explained what feelings are. Feelings are results or answer or conclusion. Emotions are the source. I was asking if that source is necessary.

That would be like trying to ignore our attempt to understand our emotions thus remove "meaning" from our thoughts and behavior. — Nickolasgaspar

I agree with half of this statement.
Yes, it is like trying to ignoring the attempt to understand emotions.
And I am all for that. I dont want to know about emotions, and I dont see how they will help, since we are talking about a world without emotions..... A world without 'emotions', wont have 'emotions'. So, there is nothing to understand about them. Since, they dont exist. Do you understand?
Now for the part which I disagree with,
Acoording to you doing so removes 'meaning' from our thoughts and behaviour.
First of all, this assumes that you know the meaning to thoughts and behaviour and life and basically everything. So, either you think you are God, or you didnt give a second to think about what you typed.
Secondly, 'meaning' of thoughts and behaviour, as well as of life, is subjective. If for you, removing emotions removes meaning, then for me, not working towards removing emotions removes meaning. So, that statement doesnt hold up.
Thirdly, even if we take your subjective meaning of 'meaning', i totally disagree that removing emotions will remove meaning, as you are assuming that emotions are the only part of human thought. Reasoning, personality, deduction, etc. are all as equal part of human thought as emotions. If anything they are a bigger part, as they existed longer and in more quantity than emotions.
So, no, removing emotions wont remove 'meaning'.

Now, some extra things,
@Joshs, you know that you agree with Mr. Nick, but your ego isnt allowing you to accept. You think that somehow, your answer has to be better than Nick's answer. If you here to just disagree with anything and everything you can see, I would suggest looking elsewhere.

Finally,
To @Bylaw,
You were literally the one who said to stop replying to this discussion, yet here you are rpelying to my message expecting me to answer.
As I said, if I get an email, I am likely to check it, and ending up coming here. For 2 months, I didnt receive any, and I genuinely thought no one was interested anymore.
But today, I received mails regarding to you replying to my messages, and I ended up coming here.
So, at the very least, please follow your own principles.

Necessary to whom and what does that person or those people have as values?
When were they necessary and to whom and for what purpose and according to what values? — Bylaw

There's literally liike atleast 20 messages explaining all of this, and I honestly tired of saying the same thing over and over again. I will reply to it one last time here.
*According to me, emotions are unnecessary to everyone, and people without emotions, have the same values as humans with emotions had, which werent related to their emotions.(Saying humans without emotions have no value, is like saying, orange juice without sugar doesnt have value and should be free of cost). If anything they have more value, as they wont do unethical stuff. Emotions were necessary for survival as they helped in rapid progress of humanity in a short amount of time. (They dont do anymore as we dont face existence threatening issues as much anymore).

Bruh, you literally are taking that quote out of context from my source.
I never said animals dont have consciousness, I said 'some' 'organisms' dont.

And look at this, mindreading. You are claiming to have knowledge of our internal mental states. All of us. — Bylaw

I am not making a claim about anything.
I am only making an obvious observation.
You are the one claiming that I have knowledge of everyone's internal mental states by supposedly reading my internal mental state.
Such a hypocrite.

All you have to do is stop reading replies to your posts here. You are in control of your peace as far as our replies. You are in control. — Bylaw

And all you have to do is not reply anymore.
But you dont seem to be doing that either, are you?
Because you dont care how others feel as long as you can feel accomplished, or so I would assume from what is obvious already.

Since, you have said it, and no one seems to be discussing about this topic anyways, i will stop replying.
The only reason I was replying so far was because I get emails that someone mentioned me, and so I end up checking the website and reading the comment anyways.
And I dont want to stop those emails from coming in case that someone actually interested in the discussion wants to talk.

I just want to make a clear statement here, since clearly you might try to comment again, that I still believe that a world void of emotions can be peaceful and function atleast better than real-life if not perfectly and that I have provided enough evidence and arguments to atleast show that what I am talking about is not complete garbage.

Well, judging by the fact that I had a dicussion named 'Are emotions unnecessary now?", i guess I have a bit of knowledge or insight that I can share.

Lets answer the main question at hand first.
How voluntary are emotions?
They are 60-70% voluntary.

Now, lets see how it changed within the years.
When the first organism appeared in the ocean, it had no emotions, nor a brain, so lets go a bit ahead in time.
Mammals and other animals started to experience emotions. They felt fear, empathy towards other animals, need to protect their children. These emotions were 99% involuntary.
Next came humans, the creatures nature blessed with the power of intelligence, but this intelligence hadnt grown up to a point where humans could make good use of them. People were still blindly following their emotions. Here, emotions were 50% voluntary.
Now, in the modern era, we have so much advancement in science, that we dont need emotions to make false logic for us.
Emotions told us, that thunder is dangerous, so we should pray to the one who controls thunder.
Science and logic told us, that thunder is dangerous, but a thick coil of copper wire attached to the ground can negate it.
In both these cases, we can clearly see that thunder is being regarded as dangerous correctly, however how humans should react to it is regarded on different basis.
As a result, emotions now are 60-70% voluntary.

I hope I have answered your question, using only facts.

If we follow these statistics, we might refer that in the future, emotions will become 100% voluntary.
If that happens, can a human exhibiting such characteristics be called a human?
Since most people believe an emotionless person to not be regarded a human, would a person who has 100% control over their emotions, who can choose to feel any emotions at any time be regarded as a human?

Well, is being a conscious robot wrong?
And like I said already, if its not wrong, then wouldnt it be better, since humans with emotions will/can do bad things, while a 'conscious robot' wouldnt do so?

If emotions are unnecessary I don’t think we could call our selves human — Oppyfan

A theist can say that people who dont believe in Gods arent humans.
An atheist can say that people who blindly follow a non-existing figure arent humans.
A satanist can say that people who dont worship the devil arent humans.

The point is, we can look at what a human is in 2 ways, subjectively and objectively.
One of the main points atheists bring up in their debates against theists is that, if Gods is true, they must be true in all cases, which as we can see, isnt true. Some people believe God is Jesus(or his father, i am not christian), some believe Allah is God, some believe Shiva is God and some dont believe in it. If God were true in all cases, such diversity shouldnt have existed.
Meaning, objectively, God doesnt exist.

So, if we look at what a human is subjectively, by many people's beliefs its a person with emotions, while from some people's beliefs its a person with reason.

As a result, we would have to look at it objectively.
What is a human? A human is a homo-sapien.

Would an emotionless homo-sapien be human?
Yes- Then its solved. A emotionless human is still human.
No- Then it would be the next step of evolution with a new name like, no-homo-sapien.

It is very unlikely that any animal lacks consciousness. — Bylaw

"Researchers have argued that consciousness in mammals arises in the neocortex, and therefore cannot arise in animals which lack a neocortex. For example, Rose argued in 2002 that the "fishes have nervous systems that mediate effective escape and avoidance responses to noxious stimuli, but, these responses must occur without a concurrent, human-like awareness of pain, suffering or distress, which depend on separately evolved neocortex.""
Source:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness

Almost as if people are dodging basic evidence to try to prove me wrong, then still debate that they were right.
Some people also mentioned how not having emotions would also lead to people not understanding physical pain, which is just incorrect, but they wont stop saying it, even if i give evidence.

And those replies led to criticism also. — Bylaw

Isn't that just proving my point more?
No evidence can convince you guys.
Cause you are just not ready to listen.
You just want to prove me wrong in any basis possible.
If i tell you to stop commenting, would you? Probably not, even if it meant i can have peace.

I just want to make this clear.
This post is closed.
You are free to discuss with one another, but I wont be able to reply.
So, keep discussing if you feel so, but dont target me specifically.
I know its difficult, since I seem like the only one who is taking this side of the debate, but thats just how the world runs, I wont have enough time and energy to devote to this one thought I believe in.
I cant live my life, by only focusing in one thing forever, because of these emotions, which as lovely as they are, I dont deem them to be necessary.

Wel,, I did announce that this post is closed, but people are still commenting.
Not only that, you guys just keep saying the same things over and over again, even though I did give appropriate replies already.
I have got what I wanted, which is atleast 1 person who thinks that my thought is correct.

I just want to talk about one topic, which I guess people still can't seem to understand.
Are emotionless humans really humans?

My answer is yes, they are still humans.
I have said this over and over and over again, emotions and logic arent the only things that make humans different from robots and/or other organisms.
Thus, getting rid of emotions, only removes a part of what makes a human, human.
You could argue that this part is a big part, and I wouldnt oppose that opinion.
However, I believe that by getting rid of that part, we can open up space for a new part or maybe just let logic or other parts take over, which seems like a reasonable choice.

Now, let us consider, that emotionless humans will not be humans, but rather robot-like creatures who have no sense of consciousness or anything.
What is wrong with that?
There are a load of organisms that live on this planet who arent even capable of having thought or consciousness, yet their lives arent exactly 'useless', as if they never had existed, we would never have been able to even have this discussion.

Hitler has killed many people, many kings of old eras have done unthinkable things to humans, people believed the earth is flat, and even if you argue that they were inhumane in their behaviours, you cant argue that they were not humans.
So, please stop saying things which has already been discussed in the post.

I have an absolute and objective understanding of reality.
That understanding is that reality is the only real thing.

I don't know what your idea of success is but say it is financial growth, or technological progress, why are these goals any less arbitrary than the goals of having as many parties and making as many banana sandwiches as possible? — Down The Rabbit Hole

They arent.
Both of these goals are equally important.
That is to say, for people who have these goals.
Since, people without emotions are likely to only have the 2 fundamental goals, they wouldnt work towards anything else.

Well, the way our body understands emotions is through chemicals and hormones.
So, it would necessarily be impossible for a device wired directly to the brain to pick up on atleast some of them.
Sure, maybe they wont be able to read exact emotions but only vague ones intepreted from actions, but like Dr. Karoly Zsolnai Feher says, 2 more papers down the line, the amount of development would be amazing.

I would suggest you watch this:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKe53bcyBQY
Its only 8 mins long and very informative.
Its 1:51 am for me now, so unfortuantely i wont have time to refer to it again, but i will make sure to reply to your comment by tomorrow.

Same could be said for religion as well, if we only talk about it from the 'existence of God' point of view.
If we also look at social welfare and happiness, of course its not as bad as flat earthers.

I have mentioned it, wait did I? Yes, I did.
I mentioned that theists and atheists alike share their opinions and sometimes force them, and sharing is fine, but forcing isnt.
Flat earthers force other people to have the same belief as them.
Thats why they are wrong in the given situation.

Well, I guess I might as well conclude it and end the discussion right now.

Conclusion:-
Are emotions unnecessary now?
Not at all.
Can removing emotions from life lead to a peaceful life?
Maybe, with a little hint towards yes.
Do we love Shrek?
Wait this wasnt supposed to be here.
What is the meaning of life, the universe and everything?
42.
Is everyone, (except some) who posted their opinions here beautiful and amazing people?
Yes.
Will this conclusion ever end?
I hope so.

I, Kinglord1090, with the power vested in me by no one, hereby judge this discussion as closed/concluded.
You may now kiss the bride. (Or anyone close to you, you friend, your wife, your boss's wiife, your parents, your child. Just share love, ok?)

This has been a very wonderful experience, but like everything, this should come to an end too.
I dont want to overwhelm thephilosophyforum's servers.
I just want my future self to look at this discussion and realise how their perception has changed/not changed over time.
I think that will be good way to pass some time. (Not being disrespectful to anyone)

Again, maybe that is how you perceived it, and you might be right.
But my perception could also be right.
We wont know unless a God or a creator tells us about it, i guess.

Well, judging from the assumption that this discussion isnt really going to go any deeper, I would close it in a few days. (Probably by15th July)
Also, such a ridiculous situatuion probably shouldnt have been imagined in the first place anyways.
Thank you to everyone who participated and shared their thoughts.
I would ask everyone to love thy neighbour and have a good day.
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk. (not an actual Ted Talk)

Well, as thought out as that seems, i still dont think its enough evidence for your claim.
I can only assume at this point that your belief is that proper communication can bring peace and mine is that ridding of emotions can bring peace.
And i am fine with it as long as they are just opinions.

You are looking at the broader idea rather than focusing on the fundamental one.
Why do micro-organisms do all the things you just mentioned, i.e. move towards light or maximize their functioning?
The answer is that they do it because - 1) they want to gain knowledge and 2) they want to reproduce and pass on this knowledge.
And both of these are so, because organisms arent immortal, and the only way to immortality seems to be to know how to become immortal.

I would personally believe in the same way you described Stephen Hawking believes.
That if we collect all pieces of a puzzle, we will be able to solve it as well.

I am also one who mildly believes in the Many World Intepretations theory.
This theory basically states that for every choice that has been made, a new parallel version of it will exist.

So, i guess one could summarize my way of thinking to be similar to Stephen Hawking's.
Of course, i am in no way even near to his intelligence level.
But, maybe we might be very similar in the way we think.

You should look into Fahrenheit 451 its a book and old movie available on youtube. — Cheshire

Thank you for the recommendations.
I would definitely check out Fahrenheit 451, but i dont know about the other one as i am not really into old timey movies. (I was born in 2004)

Without profits driving production or empathy to remove suffering where does the motivation come from; an intuitive idea of what society ought look like? — Cheshire

For the motivation, I would say that death itself is a motivation good enough to cause people to live.
It has been said before, in one of the comments, that the person who wrote the comment was going through a tough time in thier life and the only thing that motivated them to wake up the next day wwas their fear of death.
So, i guess if death can be a motivation for a person whose emotions and logic told him to stop living, it can be for someone who only uses logic as well.
As for the connection between capitalism and optimization, you made a brilliant point, it does seem like capitalization will occur in such a world, but i guess it wouldnt the same way we think it is in the real-life.
In real-life, capitalization often occurs for profit and monopoly whereas I think the reason for capitalization in a world void of emotions will be because of the lack of preference that people there possess.
For example:- Since people wouldnt have a preference over what food they consume, the company that creates food will become a monopoly.
And maybe because everyone wants to achieve their goals, the companies will turn over all the profits to the government or to R&D.
Thus creating something which is halfway between capitalism and communism.
Where it is about monopoly, but not about profit, and also not about giving money to people but to humanity as a whole.

Again, please be concise. i cant understand anything you are saying.

I think whats happening here is just mis-communication.
I am trying to tell you something with my definition of logic and emotions, and you are trying to do it in your own way.
Since this is my discussion, i assume its only fair that you try to understand it from my level, meaning from the same definitions that I am using.

For example:- You wouldnt go upto an Amish person and ask them if they have seen a cybertruck nearby would you? You would ask them if they have seen a weird metallic car which looks like a kid's drawing.

Again, your words just seem mumbo--jumbo to me, but that's just because i am not smart enough to ingest so much info at once, so i would really appreciate if you try to make your words concise.

Lets just focus on the motivation part here.
In the previous comments it has been clearly stated that there are 2 goals to any living being and that motivation for it isnt required.
And before you think without motivation, goals cant be met, just listen to my example.
But before that, lets just summarize the 2 goals again.
Goals-
1) Gain knowledge.
2) Reproduce and pass on knowledge to the offspring.
Now for the example,
Micro-organism.
Done.
What?
Ok, I will explain it in more detail.
Micro-oganism gained knowledge and passd it onto thier offsprings without needing motivations.
Only because of their such action were we able to evolve from them to humans.
This proves that motivations arent required for achieving something.

Please note that, in these few discussions, we are ignoring death to be a factor of motivation as every living being will have that.
If we were to make discussions where considering death as an important factor of motivation is necessary, then we can conclude that the only motivation required for humans in a world void of emotions is death, and that death is what motivates them to achieve their goals.

Removing emotions lead to a peaceful and productive society; who could truly enjoy it? — Cheshire

No one.
But no one will hate it either.
And that in its own way is beautiful.
Just as a world (real-life) where some people enjoy the world while some people hate it, a world opposite to it would also be just as beautiful.

Quick edit:- There could be an argument made that capitalism wouldnt exist in a world void of emotions either, as greed and/or profits often seem to be the cause of it.

Lol, no.
The reason i summed up so short there is because I already talked about it in detail in a different comment.
I am not saying that all criminal acts are done because of emotions, rather, I am saying that without emotions to cloud logic, logic can prevail, and criminal acts would never have a solid ground against pure logic.
In a way, i guess i am saying that somehow emotions even if not directly causing it have some part in every criminal act.
Robbery? Done because of greed
Murder? Done because of anger, etc
Of course, we can try to justify them with logic, like, 'Oh, the person robbed the house because doing so would mean he doesnt have to worry about his medical bills anymore., but note that such logic is still based on emotions. Why is the person robbing instead of earning money? You could say because it is easier, but logic would say that it is because he/she/they are lazy. And laziness is an emotion.

I guess I forgot to mention that that comment wasnt actually meant as a point of discussion for this post, rather it was just something I found interesting.

But, since you already replied to the comment, i guess we can talk a look anyways.
First of all, I just want to apologize as I cant understand what you are trying to say half of the time.
So, I am just gonna make an assumption and debate according to it, and you can just tell me if i intepreted your comment correctly or not later.

I am assuming that you are trying to say that robots dont have 'free will' or the power of 'choice' like humans do, for which I only have one answer.
The answer is that humans dont have these either.
All of our decisions are based on some factor or the other.

I have said this multiple times already, and I am honestly just getting bored now.
Stop assuming stuff i dont say.
I never said emotions arent a part of how we make decisions, I only said that they arent required anymore.
Emotions were built as a way to learn logic faster, but it had a drawback, and that was accuracy.
Giving up speed for accuracy seems like a perfectly logical choice to me.

You have made such a long topic discussing about everything, yet you still didnt follow the most important rule of the post.
Stop thinking about it in an emotional point of view.
We are here to discuss only on a world void of emotions, where the emotions are happiness, guilt sadness, etc and not the one defined by the psychologist you mention of.
So, for this discussion i ask you to not use different definitions of emotion, as it can create a lot of confusion and stay at the topic in hand.
And also, dont make imaginary situations where emotional thinking would be a must, as in a world void of emotions such situatuions cant exist, because there are no emotions, you understand what i mean?
For example:- If we think about a universe where Jupiter doesnt exist, you can bring up an imaginary situation where Jupiter is required for your situation to work. That just doesnt make sense.

You are not looking at the subject of matter here.
The simple and cold truthful answer is that, in a world void of emotions, people who are able-bodied will work till death, and the non-able-bodied will accept death.
They wont feel bad about it, as they dont have emotions.

I think my words completely went over your head here.
By 'science', i obviously meant people who follow 'science' or reason.
And I completely agree that science is open to revision. I never said it wasnt.
I said that it is believed that even if we keep revising, we would still get one answer that will no longer need to be revised.
For example, chameleons were thought to change color magically at first, then thought to change color by chemical reactions that happen inside its body, and now it is thought to be because chameleons can change the cellular structure of their outer skin, which change how light reflects/absorbs off of it, thus changing their color. This last explanation could or could not be the absolute truth and the final explanation we need. And science is all about finding this answer, i.e. the absolute truth.
I am pretty sure everyone else here understood that this is what I meant.

Its not non-sensical to think about evolution in this way at all.
There are thousands of years of research put into this by scientists from all over the world.
I am pretty sure that the name Darwin would a ring a bell in everyone's ears.
He theorized 'The Theory of Evolution' and his theory has been used for more than a century now.
So, saying that these attributes are wrong would be saying that all scientists and the research formed for over a century is also wrong.

No one here said anything about emotions not playing a huge role in what we do and how we experience them.
The only thing being said here is that, those emotions, no matter how important part they play, if removed, could make world a more peaceful place.
Also, we have discussed this before, but emotions are basically like an alpha build of logic.
Meaning, emotions and logic arent so different from each other.
And because of this, there are many similarities to the way a human thinks and to the way a robot thinks.
These similarities can be used to make the educated assumption that on the most basic level, human mind isnt that different from robotic mind.

"The best reason for believing that robots might some day become conscious is that we human beings are conscious, and we are a sort of robot ourselves. That is, we are extraordinarily complex self-controlling, self-sustaining physical mechanisms, designed over the eons by natural selection, and operating according to the same well-understood principles that govern all the other physical processes in living things: digestive and metabolic processes, self-repair and reproductive processes, for instance. It may be wildly over-ambitious to suppose that human artificers can repeat Nature's triumph, with variations in material, form, and design process, but this is not a deep objection. It is not as if a conscious machine contradicted any fundamental laws of nature, the way a perpetual motion machine does."
Source:-https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/concrobt.htm

If they are capable of stealing then they would also be capable of performing a level of work, therefore are not working by choice, ergo, execution would be an acceptable recourse. — Book273

I see what you are saying here, but we have already discussed this before, and I have made the argument that in a world void of emotions, no one would commit crimes.
The simplest way I can put it is that, one themselves will understand that living a life without gaining knowledge and leeching off of resources is wrong, and they themselves would either not do it, or if they are incapable of work, accept death.

True.
I agree with your notion.