What is a right action?

[Peter Holmes]

Genuine question. What bearing does whether people can have things in their minds of which they're not aware have on the question 'what is a right action'?

Does the rightness or wrongness of an action have anything to do with what is or isn't going on in people's minds when they act? (I take it that responsibility and therefore praise and blame are separate matters.)

[Terrapin Station]

There are many behavior that people do where they are unaware and was not consciously intended, e.g. slip of the tongue or certain actions not consciousness intended.

For example, some could have picked his nose in public and when someone asked why, the unaware person would say, "did I." Video evidence could proven to him, he did that.
In this case, whilst the person did not act intentionally, the 'thoughts' that represent and triggered such actions unconsciously would have been raised in his brain to activate his actions.

Note 'what is thought' is basically neural activities with some sort of origins & sources which he person is not aware of. Thoughts only become conscious thoughts and brought to awareness when they manifest in the specific part of the brain to be conscious thoughts.

Again, what I'm asking you is to provide EVIDENCE that there would be mental content that the people aren't aware of.

In order to address that, you'd have to say, "The evidence that there is mental content that the people aren't aware of is __________" and then you'd need to fill in the blank with the evidence.

"The evidence that there is mental content that the people aren't aware of is __________"
when a person is questioned why he picked his nose in public [empirical evidence] and he stated he was not aware he was doing it.

"The evidence that there is mental content that the people aren't aware of is __________"
when a person is drunk or for whatever reasons claimed he was not aware he raped the girl when DNA evidence proved he did rape the girl.

There are loads of examples where people claimed they are not aware of the actions [supported by mental content] they had done.

You're not getting to the "supported by mental content" part.

The person picked their nose in public and they're not aware that they're doing it. That part is fine. No disagreement on it.

What we're disagreeing on is the good reason to believe that there was mental content behind them picking their nose that they simply weren't aware of. The good reason to believe that is ______?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again, what I'm asking you is to provide EVIDENCE that there would be mental content that the people aren't aware of.

In order to address that, you'd have to say, "The evidence that there is mental content that the people aren't aware of is __________" and then you'd need to fill in the blank with the evidence.

"The evidence that there is mental content that the people aren't aware of is __________"
when a person is questioned why he picked his nose in public [empirical evidence] and he stated he was not aware he was doing it.

"The evidence that there is mental content that the people aren't aware of is __________"
when a person is drunk or for whatever reasons claimed he was not aware he raped the girl when DNA evidence proved he did rape the girl.

There are loads of examples where people claimed they are not aware of the actions [supported by mental content] they had done.

You're not getting to the "supported by mental content" part.

The person picked their nose in public and they're not aware that they're doing it. That part is fine. No disagreement on it.

What we're disagreeing on is the good reason to believe that there was mental content behind them picking their nose that they simply weren't aware of. The good reason to believe that is ______?

What is your definition of mental content?
I believe you are heavily influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers in this case.

Note generally;

• mind = the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental* activity of an organism
  mental = of or relating to the mind
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mental

* I would say it is the brain's activities of an organism.

Mental content, thus is related to the neural activities and processes within the brain that is related to the mind.

Thus, that a person who has picked his nose but was unaware, surely his action was corresponded by a certain set of neural activities and processes, i.e. mental content.

[Terrapin Station]

What is your definition of mental content?

Anything that's at all in the vein of thoughts, ideas, concepts, judgments, desires, feelings, urges, imaginings, etc. etc.

If you're considering all brain phenomena, period, to be "mental" okay. The question then is whether you'd be saying that there can be unconscious or subconscious phenomena anything like thoughts, ideas, concepts, desires, etc.

Normal usage in psychology and psychiatry of the terms "unconscious mind" and "subconscious mind" do posit things like thoughts, ideas, concepts, desires, etc. that we're not aware of.

[bahman]

Genuine question. What bearing does whether people can have things in their minds of which they're not aware have on the question 'what is a right action'?

Could you please elaborate?

Does the rightness or wrongness of an action have anything to do with what is or isn't going on in people's minds when they act? (I take it that responsibility and therefore praise and blame are separate matters.)

There is no morality if there is no moral principle. People who are not aware of a moral principle normally follow their feeling or belief.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is your definition of mental content?

Anything that's at all in the vein of thoughts, ideas, concepts, judgments, desires, feelings, urges, imaginings, etc. etc.

If you're considering all brain phenomena, period, to be "mental" okay. The question then is whether you'd be saying that there can be unconscious or subconscious phenomena anything like thoughts, ideas, concepts, desires, etc.

Normal usage in psychology and psychiatry of the terms "unconscious mind" and "subconscious mind" do posit things like thoughts, ideas, concepts, desires, etc. that we're not aware of.

So there is no issue with using the terms 'unconscious mind' or 'subconscious mind' as long as we qualify the context, e.g. per psychology and psychiatry which FSKs are reasonably credible.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Genuine question. What bearing does whether people can have things in their minds of which they're not aware have on the question 'what is a right action'?

Could you please elaborate?

Does the rightness or wrongness of an action have anything to do with what is or isn't going on in people's minds when they act? (I take it that responsibility and therefore praise and blame are separate matters.)

There is no morality if there is no moral principle. People who are not aware of a moral principle normally follow their feeling or belief.

What is morality-proper is inherent in all humans.

Thus even if people who are not aware of the inherent principles of morality-proper, most are driven by their instincts and intuition to align with the inherent moral principles.

That is why we have the subject of moral intuitionism or ethical intuitionism.

The reality of inherent moral fact is that 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' in the brain which the main driver supporting the GLARING evidence there is an increasing trend of human populations since humans emerged.

[Peter Holmes]

Genuine question. What bearing does whether people can have things in their minds of which they're not aware have on the question 'what is a right action'?

Could you please elaborate?

Well, the OP question is 'What is a right action?' And I'm asking if the answer to that question involves what's 'going on' in people's brains, and whether they're aware of it. In other words: is what's going on in people's brains the thing that makes an action right or wrong? And if so, how does that work?(I think this line of argument is nonsensical, because nothing 'makes' an action right or wrong.

Does the rightness or wrongness of an action have anything to do with what is or isn't going on in people's minds when they act? (I take it that responsibility and therefore praise and blame are separate matters.)

There is no morality if there is no moral principle. People who are not aware of a moral principle normally follow their feeling or belief.

But who decides which moral principle is the right one? 'What is a right principle?' is as stupid a question as 'What is a right action?'

[Terrapin Station]

What is your definition of mental content?

Anything that's at all in the vein of thoughts, ideas, concepts, judgments, desires, feelings, urges, imaginings, etc. etc.

If you're considering all brain phenomena, period, to be "mental" okay. The question then is whether you'd be saying that there can be unconscious or subconscious phenomena anything like thoughts, ideas, concepts, desires, etc.

Normal usage in psychology and psychiatry of the terms "unconscious mind" and "subconscious mind" do posit things like thoughts, ideas, concepts, desires, etc. that we're not aware of.

So there is no issue with using the terms 'unconscious mind' or 'subconscious mind' as long as we qualify the context, e.g. per psychology and psychiatry which FSKs are reasonably credible.

Your comment makes zero sense after I had just typed, and you had just quoted, "Normal usage in psychology and psychiatry of the terms 'unconscious mind' and 'subconscious mind' does posit things like thoughts, ideas, concepts, desires, etc. that we're not aware of."

[bahman]

Genuine question. What bearing does whether people can have things in their minds of which they're not aware have on the question 'what is a right action'?

Could you please elaborate?

Does the rightness or wrongness of an action have anything to do with what is or isn't going on in people's minds when they act? (I take it that responsibility and therefore praise and blame are separate matters.)

There is no morality if there is no moral principle. People who are not aware of a moral principle normally follow their feeling or belief.

What is morality-proper is inherent in all humans.

Thus even if people who are not aware of the inherent principles of morality-proper, most are driven by their instincts and intuition to align with the inherent moral principles.

That is why we have the subject of moral intuitionism or ethical intuitionism.

The reality of inherent moral fact is that 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' in the brain which the main driver supporting the GLARING evidence there is an increasing trend of human populations since humans emerged.

There are many other things which inhereted to humans, such as self interests, love toward familly, love toward country, etc. and that is a barrier against what you called morality proper which is supposed to provide an answer to whether killing is good or evil. It is good if you kill for your country when your country is at war it is evil otherwise. One action two situations. I am afraid that we cannot depend on human heritage.

[bahman]

Genuine question. What bearing does whether people can have things in their minds of which they're not aware have on the question 'what is a right action'?

Could you please elaborate?

Well, the OP question is 'What is a right action?' And I'm asking if the answer to that question involves what's 'going on' in people's brains, and whether they're aware of it. In other words: is what's going on in people's brains the thing that makes an action right or wrong?

They strive to moral principle and act accordingly.

And if so, how does that work? (I think this line of argument is nonsensical, because nothing 'makes' an action right or wrong.

If there is a moral principle then it separates right from wrong. We already discussed that the principle of similarity leads to fairness in action.

Does the rightness or wrongness of an action have anything to do with what is or isn't going on in people's minds when they act? (I take it that responsibility and therefore praise and blame are separate matters.)

There is no morality if there is no moral principle. People who are not aware of a moral principle normally follow their feeling or belief.

But who decides which moral principle is the right one?

If there is a moral principle then it talks on its behalf.

'What is a right principle?' is as stupid a question as 'What is a right action?'

It is not stupid.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Could you please elaborate?


There is no morality if there is no moral principle. People who are not aware of a moral principle normally follow their feeling or belief.

What is morality-proper is inherent in all humans.

Thus even if people who are not aware of the inherent principles of morality-proper, most are driven by their instincts and intuition to align with the inherent moral principles.

That is why we have the subject of moral intuitionism or ethical intuitionism.

The reality of inherent moral fact is that 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' in the brain which the main driver supporting the GLARING evidence there is an increasing trend of human populations since humans emerged.

There are many other things which inhereted to humans, such as self interests, love toward familly, love toward country, etc. and that is a barrier against what you called morality proper which is supposed to provide an answer to whether killing is good or evil. It is good if you kill for your country when your country is at war it is evil otherwise. One action two situations. I am afraid that we cannot depend on human heritage.

Generally ALL humans are "programmed" with the potential for evil and for good which both are necessary for survival under various conditions. In the absence of food, it may be necessary to be cannibals and eat the weakest, note the case of the plane crash in the Peruvian mountains.

It is evident evil was prevalent and optimal in the past and its remnants are still necessary currently, e.g. wars, but the inherent moral function is slowly unfolding towards the future to modulate and control the inherent evil.
This is evident as in;

• In his 2011 book,
  The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,
  Steven Pinker argued with relevant data and posited violence has declined significantly at Present since from the past years.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

That is why humanity must research more deeply in the underlying moral mechanism that is driving the reducing trend in violence, killings, rapes, slavery, etc. so that humanity can expedite the moral processes.
To do so, we need to establish the moral facts within a moral FSK.

Your indifference and resistance to morality-proper means you are complicit in sustaining the current level of evil within the world.

[Peter Holmes]

...the inherent moral function is slowly unfolding towards the future to modulate and control the inherent evil.

P1: Everyone used to think slavery is not morally wrong. (Because of inherent evil.)
P2: Most people now think slavery is morally wrong. (Because the inherent moral function is slowly unfolding...)
Conclusion: Therefore, slavery is morally wrong.

This argument is invalid and unsound. It's total shite.

[Skepdick]

...the inherent moral function is slowly unfolding towards the future to modulate and control the inherent evil.

P1: Everyone used to think slavery is not morally wrong. (Because of inherent evil.)
P2: Most people now think slavery is morally wrong. (Because the inherent moral function is slowly unfolding...)
Conclusion: Therefore, slavery is morally wrong.

This argument is invalid and unsound. It's total shite.

Fallacy fallacy.

[Advocate]

Before any of y'all can discuss what is right action you have to agree whether you're discussing the buddhist idea or your own.