What is a right action?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If animals [higher animals e.g. the primates] has a sense of morality, it is cannot be their conscious preferences or feelings

Because?
You're making some claim to definitively know what other animals' minds are like?

Not 'definitely' nor 'certainly' but have high confidence based on the reasonable research I have done on the subject.

Where any dispositions with a semblance of morality is present in animals [non-humans] they are more likely to be instinctual, i.e. inherent.

Dispositions, in general, by the way, are not decided upon. They're inherent. That's the whole gist of them. Your dispositions are due to the way your particular brain works (due to a combo of your DNA and your unique development, including environmental factors (including things like nutrition, etc.)).

Note the issue of Nature versus Nurture.

What is DNA/RNA is Nature.
The majority of the coding of the DNA are generic in all animals, thus the determining the species the animals are classed.
There are variations within the DNA between all members of the species but that is secondary.
My point is the moral function is programmed within the DNA of higher animals and is generic in all humans.

The moral function [as verified and justified] is programmed as a potential and this potential is unfolding [evidently] in different degrees in different humans in accordance to different social and environment factors.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you encourage your kid to break windows in the middle of winter or not? Please note that encouraging is good but wrong in such a situation.

Encouraging is not good in some context-free way. It depends on what you're encouraging obviously.

What is your definition of good?

For me,
the word good is a VERY loose term.

To be effective for the purpose of morality, 'good' is best defined in contrast specifically to evil for the well-being of the individuals and humanity.
Killing of humans is evil therefore no-killing of human is good.
Where killing of humans is justified by some group that is not very-good thus has to be dealt with towards ZERO killings of humans.

[bahman]

Encouraging is not good in some context-free way. It depends on what you're encouraging obviously.

What is your definition of good?

For me,
the word good is a VERY loose term.

To be effective for the purpose of morality, 'good' is best defined in contrast specifically to evil for the well-being of the individuals and humanity.
Killing of humans is evil therefore no-killing of human is good.
Where killing of humans is justified by some group that is not very-good thus has to be dealt with towards ZERO killings of humans.

Cool. How do you deal with the trolley problem?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is your definition of good?

For me,
the word good is a VERY loose term.

To be effective for the purpose of morality, 'good' is best defined in contrast specifically to evil for the well-being of the individuals and humanity.
Killing of humans is evil therefore no-killing of human is good.
Where killing of humans is justified by some group that is not very-good thus has to be dealt with towards ZERO killings of humans.

Cool. How do you deal with the trolley problem?

The casuistry approach [Trolley Problem] is not central to Morality-proper.
People can practice and discuss trolley scenarios which can be a good thing.
But there is no way what actually happen will be the same all the time since reality is so complex.
In some situations, it a matter of seconds or minutes, there is no time to think and deliberate.
Often different individuals will have their own views on the different decisions.

If a real trolley scenario is presented to any individual or group, they will have to do their best in making a decision which could be spontaneous or deliberated within the time available.

Once the decision is taken there should be no regret nor guilt by anyone. This is because there will always be millions of views on either decisions.

The above is not morality-proper!

What is moral proper is the establishing of moral standards from justified true moral facts.
In a trolley scenario, human[s] will be killed either way.
Since the moral standard is ZERO killing of humans,
the moral actions is thus to review the scenario and ensure it does not happen again in the FUTURE to ensure that no one has to make such a dreadful decision.

Potential trolley scenarios, other possible dilemmas, and evil acts will be addressed and preventions are to be incorporated to prevent them from happening in the future.

The other moral actions are uplift of the average wisdom [knowledge, rationality, etc.] of the average individual[s] so that if a trolley decision has to be made, it will end up the optimal one.

It is inevitable "trolley scenarios" will happen.
But because of the moral standard of ZERO killing, humanity [competent moral agents] will be driven to take preventive actions so that in the future the moral standard can be met as close as possible.

[Skepdick]

For me,
the word good is a VERY loose term.

To be effective for the purpose of morality, 'good' is best defined in contrast specifically to evil for the well-being of the individuals and humanity.
Killing of humans is evil therefore no-killing of human is good.
Where killing of humans is justified by some group that is not very-good thus has to be dealt with towards ZERO killings of humans.

Cool. How do you deal with the trolley problem?

The casuistry approach [Trolley Problem] is not central to Morality-proper.
People can practice and discuss trolley scenarios which can be a good thing.
But there is no way what actually happen will be the same all the time since reality is so complex.
In some situations, it a matter of seconds or minutes, there is no time to think and deliberate.
Often different individuals will have their own views on the different decisions.

If a real trolley scenario is presented to any individual or group, they will have to do their best in making a decision which could be spontaneous or deliberated within the time available.

Once the decision is taken there should be no regret nor guilt by anyone over spilled milk. This is because there will always be millions of views on either decisions.

The above is not morality-proper!

What is moral proper is the establishing of moral standards from justified true moral facts.
In a trolley scenario, human[s] will be killed either way.
Since the moral standard is ZERO killing of humans,
the moral actions is thus to review the scenario and ensure it does not happen again in the FUTURE to ensure that no one has to make such a dreadful decision.

Potential trolley scenarios, other possible dilemmas, and evil acts will be addressed and preventions are to incorporated to prevent them from happening in the future.

The other moral actions are uplift of the average wisdom [knowledge, rationality, etc.] of the average individual[s] so that if a trolley decision has to be made, it will end up the optimal one.

It is inevitable "trolley scenarios" will happen.
But because of the moral standard of ZERO killing, humanity [competent moral agents] will be driven to take preventive actions so that in the future the moral standard can be met as close as possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continual ... nt_process

[bahman]

For me,
the word good is a VERY loose term.

To be effective for the purpose of morality, 'good' is best defined in contrast specifically to evil for the well-being of the individuals and humanity.
Killing of humans is evil therefore no-killing of human is good.
Where killing of humans is justified by some group that is not very-good thus has to be dealt with towards ZERO killings of humans.

Cool. How do you deal with the trolley problem?

The casuistry approach [Trolley Problem] is not central to Morality-proper.

It is related to morality-porper. You cannot say I don't care what is going to happen.

People can practice and discuss trolley scenarios which can be a good thing.
But there is no way what actually happen will be the same all the time since reality is so complex.

Any situation has two sides in most of the time so reality is simple. We are able to decide in a complicated situation when there are more sides too provided that we have a criteria to act and choose upon.

In some situations, it a matter of seconds or minutes, there is no time to think and deliberate.
Often different individuals will have their own views on the different decisions.

Person view no. Universal criteria yes.

If a real trolley scenario is presented to any individual or group, they will have to do their best in making a decision which could be spontaneous or deliberated within the time available.

Which is?

Once the decision is taken there should be no regret nor guilt by anyone. This is because there will always be millions of views on either decisions.

No, once a right decision is made then there should be no regret or guilt by anyone.

The above is not morality-proper!

It is.

What is moral proper is the establishing of moral standards from justified true moral facts.

Fairness is a moral fact. And the only one.

In a trolley scenario, human[s] will be killed either way.
Since the moral standard is ZERO killing of humans,

Oh come on, that is unavoidable. Zero killing human cannot possibly be a moral standard.

the moral actions is thus to review the scenario and ensure it does not happen again in the FUTURE to ensure that no one has to make such a dreadful decision.

That is the leason.

Potential trolley scenarios, other possible dilemmas, and evil acts will be addressed and preventions are to be incorporated to prevent them from happening in the future.

But complicated situatations happen all the time. And you have to morally decide.

The other moral actions are uplift of the average wisdom [knowledge, rationality, etc.] of the average individual[s] so that if a trolley decision has to be made, it will end up the optimal one.

Fairness.

It is inevitable "trolley scenarios" will happen.
But because of the moral standard of ZERO killing, humanity [competent moral agents] will be driven to take preventive actions so that in the future the moral standard can be met as close as possible.

Zero killing cannot be a standard since sometimes it must be avoided.

[Terrapin Station]

Not 'definitely' nor 'certainly' but have high confidence based on the reasonable research I have done on the subject.

Can you give an example of research that you believe justifies a conclusion here (and explain how you believe it justifies the conclusion)?

The majority of the coding of the DNA are generic in all animals,

What definition of "generic" are you using there?

There are variations within the DNA between all members of the species but that is secondary.

You mean "secondary" in the taxonomic system you're using?

My point is the moral function is programmed within the DNA of higher animals and is generic in all humans.

Note that claiming this doesn't amount to claiming that moral maxims aren't mental, and it doesn't amount to a support for any normative (ought/should).

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is inevitable "trolley scenarios" will happen.
But because of the moral standard of ZERO killing, humanity [competent moral agents] will be driven to take preventive actions so that in the future the moral standard can be met as close as possible.

Zero killing cannot be a standard since sometimes it must be avoided.

Why not?
A standard can be an ideal to act as a guide.
As such we do not expect to achieve the standard at all times or permanently.

If ZERO killing has to be avoided, who has the final authority to make that decision and based on what 'standards'?
Point is what fair to one [or a group] is always perceived an unfairness to another.

The critical point with ZERO killing as a standard as a guide is that it will a driver for continuous improvements towards the ideal.
Without a standard, things will go off at every tangent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not 'definitely' nor 'certainly' but have high confidence based on the reasonable research I have done on the subject.

Can you give an example of research that you believe justifies a conclusion here (and explain how you believe it justifies the conclusion)?

Re: "You're making some claim to definitively know what other animals' minds are like?"

There are tons of research on 'animal mind'.
Just google "animal mind research"
and note,
"Scholarly articles for animal mind research"
there are 'About 2,800,000 results (0.03 sec)'.

As for animal mind research re 'morality' I have already provided a link related to monkeys.

The majority of the coding of the DNA are generic in all animals,

What definition of "generic" are you using there?

I am surprise you asked since I don't think there is much confusion with this term;

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/generic?s=t
Generic: of, applicable to, or referring to all the members of a genus, class, group, or kind; general.

There are variations within the DNA between all members of the species but that is secondary.

You mean "secondary" in the taxonomic system you're using?

Note for example, the Sherpas in the high Himalayas who has different DNA codings from the normal in that they have the potential to live more effectively with lesser oxygen in the air after 500 years of adaptations to the highlands. There are difference in DNA within groups in different conditions.

But the core DNA features of the generic humans is 'constant' i.e. all humans has four limbs, a head, human digestive systems, etc.

My point is the moral function is programmed within the DNA of higher animals and is generic in all humans.

Note that claiming this doesn't amount to claiming that moral maxims aren't mental, and it doesn't amount to a support for any normative (ought/should).

Just in case, note,

Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615

What is embedded in the human DNA that is generic to ALL humans are the specific potential in terms of programs [moral] within neurons that generate moral oughtness.
Ultimately there is a physical referent to what are moral facts in addition to the DNA embedded programs.

[bahman]

It is inevitable "trolley scenarios" will happen.
But because of the moral standard of ZERO killing, humanity [competent moral agents] will be driven to take preventive actions so that in the future the moral standard can be met as close as possible.

Zero killing cannot be a standard since sometimes it must be avoided.

Why not?
A standard can be an ideal to act as a guide.
As such we do not expect to achieve the standard at all times or permanently.

If ZERO killing has to be avoided, who has the final authority to make that decision and based on what 'standards'?
Point is what fair to one [or a group] is always perceived an unfairness to another.

The critical point with ZERO killing as a standard as a guide is that it will a driver for continuous improvements towards the ideal.
Without a standard, things will go off at every tangent.

Think of a pregnant woman whose life is in danger due to pregnancy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Zero killing cannot be a standard since sometimes it must be avoided.

Why not?
A standard can be an ideal to act as a guide.
As such we do not expect to achieve the standard at all times or permanently.

If ZERO killing has to be avoided, who has the final authority to make that decision and based on what 'standards'?
Point is what fair to one [or a group] is always perceived an unfairness to another.

The critical point with ZERO killing as a standard as a guide is that it will a driver for continuous improvements towards the ideal.
Without a standard, things will go off at every tangent.

Think of a pregnant woman whose life is in danger due to pregnancy.

What is the issue with this where upon there is a moral standard of ZERO killing.

In the above case, the doctors will have to do their best and give advice for the woman [with spouse and relative] to make their best decisions.

Whatever the decision taken by the woman, there should be no regrets or guilt.

But that there is moral standard of ZERO Killing, it will drive competent moral agents to review the event to look for preventive measure to be taken in the future.
If it is a real medical issues, the medical community will surely try to find answers to prevent future occurrences.

If it was an unplanned pregnancy, the woman and her spouse should ensure they have effective contraception methods or improve controls over their lusts.

If their religion [RC] insist on no contraception, then humanity will need to find ways to get rid of that religion which is based on an illusory God.

Note your preferred view against no moral standard of ZERO Killing, it will be status quo with a lackadaisical attitude to seek preventive methods and improvements for the future. This is what is going on at present, where millions of humans [born and unborn] will continue to be killed.
In that case, in a way you are a complicit killer?

[bahman]

Why not?
A standard can be an ideal to act as a guide.
As such we do not expect to achieve the standard at all times or permanently.

If ZERO killing has to be avoided, who has the final authority to make that decision and based on what 'standards'?
Point is what fair to one [or a group] is always perceived an unfairness to another.

The critical point with ZERO killing as a standard as a guide is that it will a driver for continuous improvements towards the ideal.
Without a standard, things will go off at every tangent.

Think of a pregnant woman whose life is in danger due to pregnancy.

What is the issue with this where upon there is a moral standard of ZERO killing.

The issue is that you are going to kill the fetus in order to save the life of the mother. So the standard of zero killing does not work. Moreover, morality address all area of human behavior. Think that you are a married man and sexually interested in another woman. What you are going to do. You cannot enjoy your sexual life with your partner anymore. How zero killing is going to resolve the issue here.

[Skepdick]

The issue is that you are going to kill the fetus in order to save the life of the mother. So the standard of zero killing does not work.

Standards are not supposed to "work". They are supposed to be aimed at.

Closer to the mark is better than further from the mark.

[bahman]

The issue is that you are going to kill the fetus in order to save the life of the mother. So the standard of zero killing does not work.

Standards are not supposed to "work". They are supposed to be aimed at.

Closer to the mark is better than further from the mark.

Morality is supposed to resolve a situation when it comes to the right moral decision. Zero killings cannot conduct us in all situations.

[Skepdick]

Morality is supposed to resolve a situation when it comes to the right moral decision. Zero killings cannot conduct us in all situations.

It wouldn't be a decision if morality resolved it for you, would it?

You are free to decide whatever you wish (free will), but only the decision which brings about a better outcome is the moral one.