Moral and knowledge as distinction has been already made by Plato. Since we live in a world which accentuates way more the knowing part, and works with it in focus as an unknowing matter we come ever more to value as freedom. Some may find it odd, but to know can be said, to hold the power of ethics which make the form of your life.
To believe otherwise gives only resistance to feel the right thing. So many thoughts and ideas are unmold in exact understandings and as by wonder we say the right things. The context where we build on our lives can be easily seen as easy to grasp on to, but sometimes this can be a fault in thought (or identification).
To be emotive is not really a way to get on started a life. Because although it can help, the true values lies within context not feeling. An other book I am reading is about self-regulation. A core subject into psychology, even stated as the core of it all. People who are feeling negative get on finding mates. People who are feeling good make their mates an option, and seem (only seem!) to invest in better relations afterwards. It is not so that people overvalue what they have in every stance!
In this way moral reasoning is not the best option, it is rather derived from negative feeling, while knowledge in the proper lifeform is more wanted. Often, of course, we are vulnerable by emotion and get stuck within it. We make themes and scenes, we like to talk over. Discrete contact gets in those situations not its true hearing. Even if there is no real distinction between conceptual identities (handles) or events. I don't believe you can understand need from an ethics view. There's moral!