Why is black ethics a pack function (and white ethics not)?

Black ethics is emotions; this is how the meaning of this function is traditionally understood by the majority.
What are emotions originally, what is their evolutionary meaning? Emotions are a mechanism created by nature to induce some activity in other individuals. The subject experiences a certain emotion; this prompts them to become aroused and express this arousal outwardly through expressive behavior; this behavior is seen by other individuals, who respond with action or by joining the expression, causing it to spread.
Non-social animals do not have emotions. In the most primitive social animals, basic emotions—fear and joy—are already present.
The expression of fear consists of alarm calls that mobilize the pack either to repel a predator or to flee; the expression of joy is the so-called food call, which summons other members of the pack to join the feast. In both cases, the benefit of expressive behavior is achieved only through synchronization of activity within the group. No group—no one to synchronize with—no point in expressing—no point in experiencing emotions—no emotions. If someone were to emote alone and shout, they would only waste energy or make themselves an easier target for predators.
This is precisely why Fe is social—because only in a group is its expressiveness beneficial to its bearer. But why is Fe a pack function, whereas Fi is not?
The matter is not only in the extraversion of the former and the introversion of the latter (although this, of course, also plays a role). More important is the following.
Where Fe, by virtue of its dynamic and “cheerful” nature, synchronizes with others up to complete merging (I am you, you are me), Fi, due to its seriousness (attention to another’s subjectivity) and its static nature (discreteness of perception), always separates you and I, and considers them as two distinct subjects connected by personal relations.
As a result, if Fe of even a single person can sometimes trigger a chain reaction in society, encompassing and synchronizing thousands and millions in their activity, Fi usually operates at the level of small groups in which all participants know each other personally.
Even if someone attempts to impose their attitude via Fi, this occurs within a very limited social scope, and not in the form of an instantaneous resonance of the entire group as a whole, but along established chains of personal connections, according to the “telephone game” principle—where at any given moment only two individuals interact, and each subsequent participant adds something of their own, personal, to the information being passed further along the chain.