What is a right action?

[bahman]

In other words, I don't know what you have in mind by an "unbiased" decision. What would an "unbiased" decision be?

Are you looking for an example?

Explanation and/or example, yes.

I already gave an example. Think of a situation that the outcomes of options are not known. You simply don't know which option is better so the decision is unbiased or free.

[Terrapin Station]

Are you looking for an example?

Explanation and/or example, yes.

I already gave an example. Think of a situation that the outcomes of options are not known. You simply don't know which option is better so the decision is unbiased or free.

Even if you're just picking button #1 or 2, or A or B or whatever, might you not have a bias for one number or letter over the other?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are tons of research on 'animal mind'.
Just google "animal mind research"

So no, apparently you can't give an example.

Because it is so common these days, I find it so stupid if I were to answer your question.
You should have been well informed of this and I am surprised that you are that ignorant to ask for an example.

Note the link I gave regarding the animal morality is an example of the study of animal mind.
Here's one.
Animals Are Moral Creatures, Scientist Argues
https://www.livescience.com/24802-anima ... -book.html

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

As with Skepdick response

• Standards are not supposed to "work". They are supposed to be aimed at.
  Closer to the mark is better than further from the mark.

I would add [Skepdick mentioned it], standards are guides for prevention, correction and continuous improvements in the future.

You are lost and stuck with the present in this case.

You presented a dilemma which there will be an inevitable killing.
As I had stated whoever is killed in that dilemma, 50% [there about] will agree and the other 50% will disagree.

Thus instead of squabbling of what has already happened and the past, we should be more concern about corrective actions, preventive and continuous improvement in the future to ensure such a dilemma do not occurred in the first place.
Why are you ignoring this point rather than crying over spilled milk?

Point is morality-proper is about the future and the corrective actions, preventive and continuous improvement measures to ensure we align with the moral standards as close as possible.

When morality-proper is established with a credible framework and system, we will not be too concern with judgments, decisions, of the individuals, since all individuals are on the path to moral improvements and competence in alignment with the inherent moral functions.

[bahman]

Explanation and/or example, yes.

I already gave an example. Think of a situation that the outcomes of options are not known. You simply don't know which option is better so the decision is unbiased or free.

Even if you're just picking button #1 or 2, or A or B or whatever, might you not have a bias for one number or letter over the other?

You can eliminate that by having two similar buttons one leads to a desirable thing and another one indesirable.

[bahman]

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.

As with Skepdick response

• Standards are not supposed to "work". They are supposed to be aimed at.
  Closer to the mark is better than further from the mark.

I would add [Skepdick mentioned it], standards are guides for prevention, correction and continuous improvements in the future.

You are lost and stuck with the present in this case.

You presented a dilemma which there will be an inevitable killing.
As I had stated whoever is killed in that dilemma, 50% [there about] will agree and the other 50% will disagree.

Thus instead of squabbling of what has already happened and the past, we should be more concern about corrective actions, preventive and continuous improvement in the future to ensure such a dilemma do not occurred in the first place.
Why are you ignoring this point rather than crying over spilled milk?

Point is morality-proper is about the future and the corrective actions, preventive and continuous improvement measures to ensure we align with the moral standards as close as possible.

When morality-proper is established with a credible framework and system, we will not be too concern with judgments, decisions, of the individuals, since all individuals are on the path to moral improvements and competence in alignment with the inherent moral functions.

And what you are going to do with your marriage when you are in love with someone else.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And what you are going to do with your marriage when you are in love with someone else.

I don't get your point at all.
What is the relevance of your point to the above?

[bahman]

And what you are going to do with your marriage when you are in love with someone else.

I don't get your point at all.
What is the relevance of your point to the above?

I am talking about a moral situation that a couple is having a problem. The husband is not in love with his wife and instead loves another woman. What he is supposed to do.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And what you are going to do with your marriage when you are in love with someone else.

I don't get your point at all.
What is the relevance of your point to the above?

I am talking about a moral situation that a couple is having a problem. The husband is not in love with his wife and instead loves another woman. What he is supposed to do.

That has nothing to do with morality-proper.

It is not a big issue to humanity if a person loves another woman instead of his wife.
If person marries the woman he loves before divorcing his wife, that would be a legal* issue not an issue of morality-proper. * or issue of traditional laws.
All these are problems and they can be resolved and improved upon where necessary, but that has nothing to do with moral-proper directly.

However if the husband killed, poisoned or physically harmed his wife that would be a moral issue, i.e. the moral fact, no human ought to kill another.

[bahman]

I don't get your point at all.
What is the relevance of your point to the above?

I am talking about a moral situation that a couple is having a problem. The husband is not in love with his wife and instead loves another woman. What he is supposed to do.

That has nothing to do with morality-proper.

It is not a big issue to humanity if a person loves another woman instead of his wife.
If person marries the woman he loves before divorcing his wife, that would be a legal* issue not an issue of morality-proper. * or issue of traditional laws.
All these are problems and they can be resolved and improved upon where necessary, but that has nothing to do with moral-proper directly.

However if the husband killed, poisoned or physically harmed his wife that would be a moral issue, i.e. the moral fact, no human ought to kill another.

Legal issue? What is the principle for establishing such a constraint?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am talking about a moral situation that a couple is having a problem. The husband is not in love with his wife and instead loves another woman. What he is supposed to do.

That has nothing to do with morality-proper.

It is not a big issue to humanity if a person loves another woman instead of his wife.
If person marries the woman he loves before divorcing his wife, that would be a legal* issue not an issue of morality-proper. * or issue of traditional laws.
All these are problems and they can be resolved and improved upon where necessary, but that has nothing to do with moral-proper directly.

However if the husband killed, poisoned or physically harmed his wife that would be a moral issue, i.e. the moral fact, no human ought to kill another.

Legal issue? What is the principle for establishing such a constraint?

It is just a fact that such issues are dealt legally or traditionally in tribal laws if any.

The point is we need to trash what is morality-proper in alignment with what is human nature.

At this point and in the near future, the question of loves and marriage need not be dealt within morality-proper. Even when they are, they will be dealt within the fringe of morality -proper.

Currently we have laws to deal with marriages, it would be appropriately a legal issue.

[bahman]

That has nothing to do with morality-proper.

It is not a big issue to humanity if a person loves another woman instead of his wife.
If person marries the woman he loves before divorcing his wife, that would be a legal* issue not an issue of morality-proper. * or issue of traditional laws.
All these are problems and they can be resolved and improved upon where necessary, but that has nothing to do with moral-proper directly.

However if the husband killed, poisoned or physically harmed his wife that would be a moral issue, i.e. the moral fact, no human ought to kill another.

Legal issue? What is the principle for establishing such a constraint?

It is just a fact that such issues are dealt legally or traditionally in tribal laws if any.

The point is we need to trash what is morality-proper in alignment with what is human nature.

At this point and in the near future, the question of loves and marriage need not be dealt within morality-proper. Even when they are, they will be dealt within the fringe of morality -proper.

Currently we have laws to deal with marriages, it would be appropriately a legal issue.

If it is so, then killing a person also is a legal issue rather than moral.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Legal issue? What is the principle for establishing such a constraint?

It is just a fact that such issues are dealt legally or traditionally in tribal laws if any.

The point is we need to trash what is morality-proper in alignment with what is human nature.

At this point and in the near future, the question of loves and marriage need not be dealt within morality-proper. Even when they are, they will be dealt within the fringe of morality -proper.

Currently we have laws to deal with marriages, it would be appropriately a legal issue.

If it is so, then killing a person also is a legal issue rather than moral.

Killing another human is a critical moral issue, rated at 95/100 relative to others, e.g. petty crimes at 10/100 and love & marriage would be 2/100.
As I had stated earlier, the inherent moral potential and function is unfolding very slowly at present. Nevertheless the inherent ought-not_ness to kill human is quite active to the extent that the majority do not go about killing humans willy-nilly.

There are a minority with the active potential to kill humans and some minority permitting killing within their 'justified' rationale.
As such these issue of killing humans by the minority had been handled by tribal laws, religions, and at the present by sovereign laws.

The purpose of morality-proper [confined to the individual inner mental processes] is to reinforce more strongly the ought-not_ness to kill human in the majority and generate greater increase in the strengths of the the ought-not_ness to kill human inhibitors in the minority.
Note this in only anticipate in the future as it is too late to do with our current and next generation.

When the moral competence of the average and minority are increased say 100x relative to the current status, then there will be less dependent on legal laws and the larger majority [95%] will be spontaneously moral, i.e. will not kill humans at all [except rare cases].

[bahman]

It is just a fact that such issues are dealt legally or traditionally in tribal laws if any.

The point is we need to trash what is morality-proper in alignment with what is human nature.

At this point and in the near future, the question of loves and marriage need not be dealt within morality-proper. Even when they are, they will be dealt within the fringe of morality -proper.

Currently we have laws to deal with marriages, it would be appropriately a legal issue.

If it is so, then killing a person also is a legal issue rather than moral.

Killing another human is a critical moral issue, rated at 95/100 relative to others, e.g. petty crimes at 10/100 and love & marriage would be 2/100.
As I had stated earlier, the inherent moral potential and function is unfolding very slowly at present. Nevertheless the inherent ought-not_ness to kill human is quite active to the extent that the majority do not go about killing humans willy-nilly.

There are a minority with the active potential to kill humans and some minority permitting killing within their 'justified' rationale.
As such these issue of killing humans by the minority had been handled by tribal laws, religions, and at the present by sovereign laws.

The purpose of morality-proper [confined to the individual inner mental processes] is to reinforce more strongly the ought-not_ness to kill human in the majority and generate greater increase in the strengths of the the ought-not_ness to kill human inhibitors in the minority.
Note this in only anticipate in the future as it is too late to do with our current and next generation.

When the moral competence of the average and minority are increased say 100x relative to the current status, then there will be less dependent on legal laws and the larger majority [95%] will be spontaneously moral, i.e. will not kill humans at all [except rare cases].

You are not paying any attention to what I am saying? Why cheating the wife is not a moral issue but killing a person is moral? I am saying that both moral issues. You are saying that only the second one is a moral issue. Why?

[Terrapin Station]

I already gave an example. Think of a situation that the outcomes of options are not known. You simply don't know which option is better so the decision is unbiased or free.

Even if you're just picking button #1 or 2, or A or B or whatever, might you not have a bias for one number or letter over the other?

You can eliminate that by having two similar buttons one leads to a desirable thing and another one indesirable.

They're still two buttons situated in some way that one can have a bias about. (left/right, above/below, etc.)