Sociology of Morality

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sociology of morality is the branch of sociology that deals with the sociological investigation of the nature, causes, and consequences of people's ideas about morality.
Sociologists of morality ask questions on why particular groups of people have the moral views that they do, and what are the effects of these views on behavior, interaction, structure, change, and institutions.[1][2]

References
1. ^ Abend, Gabriel (2008). "Two Main Problems in the Sociology of Morality". Theory and Society. 37 (2): 87–125. doi:10.1007/s11186-007-9044-y. ISSN 1573-7853. JSTOR 40211030. S2CID 144315764.
2. ^ Hitlin, Steven; Vaisey, Stephen (2013). "The New Sociology of Morality". Annual Review of Sociology. 39 (1): 51–68. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145628.
• Society portal

External links
• Handbook of the Sociology of Morality
• Bibliography of Sociology of morality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_morality

.................
For Morality to progress in the future, the approach to morality has to be multi-disciplinary, so to include the sociological aspects of morality.
The Sociology of Morality is evidence that morality is inherent and pervasive within humanity, i.e. within human nature.
This open room for science to investigate the moral aspects of human nature in establishing the related scientific facts and therefrom the related coherent moral facts.
As such, there are potential objective moral facts and that morality is objective as grounded in its specific human-based moral FSERC.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Iwannaplato]

The Sociology of Morality is evidence that morality is inherent and pervasive within humanity, i.e. within human nature.

The Sociology of Morality provides evidence that morality is pervasive in humanity. Of course, no one contests this fact. The Sociology of Morality provides evidence that are a wide range of moralities with great diversity and then with subgroups having even more diversity.
Because of this sociologists are more likely than others to be moral relativists/moral antirealists.

And, hey, is morality proper observable?

Isn't it a noumenon?

Sure, we can try to ascertain what it might be with processes that add deduction to the parts of bodies we observe and behaviors. But can we directly observe morality proper and where should we look for it?

Where do we go to observe it?

If you want to say we can confirm it within, say, the science FSK, there's a problem. Scientific FSKs confirm the existence of all sorts of unobservables: from electrons to genes to gravitational waves to forces to planetary orbits and lunar orbits. And let's look at that last one. If the Moon does not exist when no one is watching it, the concept of its orbit is merely useful fiction. But at least you can look at it when you can.

morality proper is not observable, it is noumenon. Just as metphysical antirealists consider the above list.

Once you are inferring and deducing, it's about noumena.

[Impenitent]

where do we see morality? in the actions of others...

don't do that, it's inconvenient to my sensibilities - no, more than that- it's immoral...

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

where do we see morality? in the actions of others...

Then you are not an anti-realist. Antirealists can only see actions.

[Impenitent]

where do we see morality? in the actions of others...

Then you are not an anti-realist. Antirealists can only see actions.

fine. I'm not an anti-realist

I'm an uncle-realist.

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

where do we see morality? in the actions of others...

Then you are not an anti-realist. Antirealists can only see actions.

fine. I'm not an anti-realist

I'm an uncle-realist.

-Imp

They're the best. The presents are so tangible. I miss mine.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Generally, whatever is accepted as scientific, i.e. reality, facts, knowledge and truths, they are by default objective - scientific objectivity.

However there are two contentious perspectives to the reality of science, i.e.
1. The antirealist human-based FSERC perspective
2. The realist [p] human-mind independent perspective grounded on an illusion.

There are also two contentious perspectives to sociology of morality, i.e.
1. The antirealist human-based FSERC perspective
2. The realist [p] human-mind independent perspective grounded on an illusion.

The sociology of morality will revealed the diversification of moral practices which are social moral facts, thus objective.
However the above diversified facts can be further justified scientifically based on scientific antirealism.
It does not matter whether it is directly or indirectly observable, as long as it is contingent upon the antirealist scientific FSERC, it is a scientific fact and transmuted to be a moral fact via the human moral FSK or FSERC.

To be effective, the antirealist sociology of morality should be complemented with the scientific antirealism to present a realistic perspective of objective morality which will enable efficient moral progress within humanity in the future.

Moral progress would be hindered wherever there is,
-moral relativism, i.e. to each their own, must respect and tolerate the morality of others,
-moral skepticism and
-moral nihilism.

[Iwannaplato]

Generally, whatever is accepted as scientific, i.e. reality, facts, knowledge and truths, they are by default objective - scientific objectivity.

But once you get into the noumena/phenomenon distinction and the antirealist critique of unobserables what those objective conclusions are are very very different. Useful fictions about the unknowlable or in the more radical antirealist position that posits that noumean do not exist and we know this (which goes beyond Kant) then things like electrons and morality proper do not exist.

It does not matter whether it is directly or indirectly observable, as long as it is contingent upon the antirealist scientific FSERC, it is a scientific fact and transmuted to be a moral fact via the human moral FSK or FSERC.

No, you don't understand antirealism combined with your stance that noumena do not exist.

-moral relativism, i.e. to each their own, must respect and tolerate the morality of others,

Must respect and tolerate the morality of others - which by the way is very common in both sociology and anthropology - is an objectivist moral stance. Some people who think they are moral relativists don't notice that problem. Despite that they are moral realists. In fact they are deontologists: it's a rule with provisos to consequences.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Generally, whatever is accepted as scientific, i.e. reality, facts, knowledge and truths, they are by default objective - scientific objectivity.

But once you get into the noumena/phenomenon distinction and the antirealist critique of unobserables what those objective conclusions are are very very different. Useful fictions about the unknowlable or in the more radical antirealist position that posits that noumean do not exist and we know this (which goes beyond Kant) then things like electrons and morality proper do not exist.

It does not matter whether it is directly or indirectly observable, as long as it is contingent upon the antirealist scientific FSERC, it is a scientific fact and transmuted to be a moral fact via the human moral FSK or FSERC.

No, you don't understand antirealism combined with your stance that noumena do not exist.

I don't understand the above points fully.

Physics is the natural science of matter, involving the study of matter, its fundamental constituents, its motion and behavior through space and time, and the related entities of energy and force. WIKI

Within scientific realism [philosophical realism],
Physics recognized whatever it study and justify is physical and as such exists as real regardless it is observable or not.
Thus the scientific realism of philosophical realism [mind-independent reality] includes all that are not directly observable [gravity, quarks] but justified within Physics.
These indirectly observable are facts i.e. facts of Physics.
Scientific realists grounded on philosophical realism claims all facts of physics [directly observable or indirectly observable] are objective facts that exist regardless whether there are humans or not.

The antirealists [Kantian] do not agree with the scientific realists [p-realists] there are facts of physics [directly observable or indirectly observable] existing regardless whether there are humans or not.
So, they termed the supposedly real facts of physics claimed by scientific realists [p-realists] as a noumena [op phenomena] to facilitate their counter argument.

This is how the term 'noumena' was coined by Kant, i.e. to expose the point that the scientific realists [p-realists] are chasing and reifying an illusion as real.

Moral facts as objective as contingent within a moral framework and system [FS-ERC] with inputs of scientific facts from the scientific FSERC.

-moral relativism, i.e. to each their own, must respect and tolerate the morality of others,

Must respect and tolerate the morality of others - which by the way is very common in both sociology and anthropology - is an objectivist moral stance. Some people who think they are moral relativists don't notice that problem. Despite that they are moral realists. In fact they are deontologists: it's a rule with provisos to consequences.

?? Moral Relativism is Moral Realism or Moral Objectivism???

Moral relativism or ethical relativism (often reformulated as relativist ethics or relativist morality) is used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different peoples and cultures. An advocate of such ideas is often referred to as a relativist.

Descriptive moral relativism holds that people do, in fact, disagree fundamentally about what is moral, without passing any evaluative or normative judgments about this disagreement.
Meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong.[1]
Normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist.[2]
Said concepts of the different intellectual movements involve considerable nuance and aren't absolute descriptions.
Descriptive relativists do not necessarily adopt meta-ethical relativism.
Moreover, not all meta-ethical relativists adopt normative relativism.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Most of those who argued against Moral Realism and Moral Objectivism belong to the Normative moral relativism camp.

If anyone is a moral realist, then he ought to believe in objective moral facts, i.e. they exist independent of the human conditions, i.e. mind-independent.
There are two senses of moral realism, i.e.
1. FSERC- human-based
2. Absolute mind-independent based.

E.g. PH is a moral relativist in sense 2 grounded upon an absolute mind/human independent basis.
PH is also a moral antirealist but I prefer not to use this term because it is confusing and mess up with what is typical antirealism of the non-moral kind.

[Iwannaplato]

I don't understand the above points fully.

ExceIIent that you say this. Iet me see if I can be more cIear or at least present it another way.

If noumena are false and not real, it doesn't matter if the conclusions are conditioned on an FSERC. The conclusions are instrumental. The 'objects' that are posited, in this case moral law or in other threads 'freedom' - are not real. If you are a kind of agnostic antirealist (I don't mean this in relation to belief in God, but as a general we don't know position, here in relation to noumena) then the 'things' that are not observed are considered useful fictions. The conclusions are useful, but that kind of anti-realist takes no stand in relation to the truth of noumena or the reality of noumena. But your antirealism has been characterized by a strong postion that noumena are false/not real.

That means that the unobservable objects 'things' 'processes' are not real.

If you can show that morality proper, the one morality that is true and real is observable, the please do that. If you can show that freedom is observable - Kant specifically said it was not - please do that.

If not, then these terms are about noumena. And thus according to you, not Kant, they are unreal and false, as the title of one of your threads says about noumena.

Physics is the natural science of matter, involving the study of matter, its fundamental constituents, its motion and behavior through space and time, and the related entities of energy and force. WIKI

Within scientific realism [philosophical realism],
Physics recognized whatever it study and justify is physical and as such exists as real regardless it is observable or not.

and so they would be necessarily wrong in that conclusion, which is a realist one, if the metaphysical anti realists are correct.

Thus the scientific realism of philosophical realism [mind-independent reality] includes all that are not directly observable [gravity, quarks] but justified within Physics.
These indirectly observable are facts i.e. facts of Physics.

But now you are calling Physics realism, while at the same time you have threads arguing that really physics is starting to realize it should be antirealist.

Scientific realists grounded on philosophical realism claims all facts of physics [directly observable or indirectly observable] are objective facts that exist regardless whether there are humans or not.

Right that's scientific realism. If you are saying physics is one kind of scientific realism, then y ou consider it false and positing unreal entities.

The antirealists [Kantian] do not agree with the scientific realists [p-realists] there are facts of physics [directly observable or indirectly observable] existing regardless whether there are humans or not.
So, they termed the supposedly real facts of physics claimed by scientific realists [p-realists] as a noumena [op phenomena] to facilitate their counter argument.

Well, not observables, or as Kant would think of them sensory or phenomena as opposed to noumena. Noumena, some, are intelligible, to Kant.

This is how the term 'noumena' was coined by Kant, i.e. to expose the point that the scientific realists [p-realists] are chasing and reifying an illusion as real.

My point exactly.

Moral facts as objective as contingent within a moral framework and system [FS-ERC] with inputs of scientific facts from the scientific FSERC.

And if that FSERC is scientific realist then if must, according to your own arguments be false, because it treats noumena as real and true.

-moral relativism, i.e. to each their own, must respect and tolerate the morality of others,

Must respect and tolerate the morality of others - which by the way is very common in both sociology and anthropology - is an objectivist moral stance. Some people who think they are moral relativists don't notice that problem. Despite that they are moral realists. In fact they are deontologists: it's a rule with provisos to consequences.

?? Moral Relativism is Moral Realism or Moral Objectivism???

No, not all moral relativisms, but you gave a moral relativism with a deontologicaI rule that one must respect other moralities. And there are moral relativists or people who call themselves that without realizing they are contradicting themselves.

For example, it leads to a paradox. You must respect other moralities even those that do not respect other moraIities. Which many moral realists, obviously, do not do.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If noumena are false and not real, it doesn't matter if the conclusions are conditioned on an FSERC. The conclusions are instrumental.

My FSERC is a human-based framework and system of emergence and realization of reality [things] [FSER], which is subsequently perceived, cognized and described [FSC or FSK].
The noumena which is 'false' and not real [illusory] has nothing to do with my FSERC [real] at all.

The 'objects' that are posited, in this case moral law or in other threads 'freedom' - are not real.
If you are a kind of agnostic antirealist (I don't mean this in relation to belief in God, but as a general we don't know position, here in relation to noumena) then the 'things' that are not observed are considered useful fictions.
The conclusions are useful, but that kind of anti-realist takes no stand in relation to the truth of noumena or the reality of noumena.
But your antirealism has been characterized by a strong postion that noumena are false/not real.

That means that the unobservable objects 'things' 'processes' are not real.

If you can show that morality proper, the one morality that is true and real is observable, the please do that. If you can show that freedom is observable - Kant specifically said it was not - please do that.

If not, then these terms are about noumena. And thus according to you, not Kant, they are unreal and false, as the title of one of your threads says about noumena.

The above points are messy.
I agree with Kant, freedom is noumenal [thing-in-itself].
For Kant, freedom as thing-in-itself is necessary for his morality.
I did not claim freedom is observable.
My morality-proper do not focus on 'noumenal freedom'.

Rather, my Morality-proper-FSERC is based on empirical evidence 'supervened' upon the scientific FSERC.
As I had claimed there is an inherent moral function within the brain that is supported by its physical neurons in process and actions.
The existence of mirror neurons is one clue to that.

Physics is the natural science of matter, involving the study of matter, its fundamental constituents, its motion and behavior through space and time, and the related entities of energy and force. WIKI

Within scientific realism [philosophical realism],
Physics recognized whatever it study and justify is physical and as such exists as real regardless it is observable or not.

and so they would be necessarily wrong in that conclusion, which is a realist one, if the metaphysical anti realists are correct.

Yes, the philosophical realists relying on scientific realism are wrong in chasing for something that is absolute and beyond the empirical world.

Thus the scientific realism of philosophical realism [mind-independent reality] includes all that are not directly observable [gravity, quarks] but justified within Physics.
These indirectly observable are facts i.e. facts of Physics.

But now you are calling Physics realism, while at the same time you have threads arguing that really physics is starting to realize it should be antirealist.

I am merely describing [not agreeing] the philosophical realist version of what they claim to be Physics.
As an antirealist I do not agree with that.

Scientific realists grounded on philosophical realism claims all facts of physics [directly observable or indirectly observable] are objective facts that exist regardless whether there are humans or not.

Right that's scientific realism. If you are saying physics is one kind of scientific realism, then y ou consider it false and positing unreal entities.

Philosophical realists claim Physic on the basis of scientific realism.
I do not agree with it.

The antirealists [Kantian] do not agree with the scientific realists [p-realists] there are facts of physics [directly observable or indirectly observable] existing regardless whether there are humans or not.
So, they termed the supposedly real facts of physics claimed by scientific realists [p-realists] as a noumena [op phenomena] to facilitate their counter argument.

Well, not observables, or as Kant would think of them sensory or phenomena as opposed to noumena. Noumena, some, are intelligible, to Kant.

??? pass.

Moral facts as objective as contingent within a moral framework and system [FS-ERC] with inputs of scientific facts from the scientific FSERC.

And if that FSERC is scientific realist then if must, according to your own arguments be false, because it treats noumena as real and true.

FSERC is scientific realist is an oxymoron.
FSERC by definition cannot be scientific realist

-moral relativism, i.e. to each their own, must respect and tolerate the morality of others,

Must respect and tolerate the morality of others - which by the way is very common in both sociology and anthropology - is an objectivist moral stance. Some people who think they are moral relativists don't notice that problem. Despite that they are moral realists. In fact they are deontologists: it's a rule with provisos to consequences.

?? Moral Relativism is Moral Realism or Moral Objectivism???

No, not all moral relativisms, but you gave a moral relativism with a deontologicaI rule that one must respect other moralities. And there are moral relativists or people who call themselves that without realizing they are contradicting themselves.

For example, it leads to a paradox. You must respect other moralities even those that do not respect other moraIities. Which many moral realists, obviously, do not do.

Moral Relativism by definition leads to 'to each their own' either they are indifferent or they respect/tolerate the differences.
If a Hitler insist it is within his morality to commit genocide on race-X, the moral relativist would either be indifferent or will respect/tolerate it.

A Moral Realist by definition imply all moral elements are universal thus applicable to all humans [without exception] as inherent in their human nature.
Analogy: All humans are embedded or hardwired with the inherent oughtness-to-breathe without exceptions.
Similarly, moral realists believe for example all humans are embedded or hardwired with the inherent oughtnot-ness to kill humans, and will take steps to strive toward this moral standard with the best of their abilities.

[Iwannaplato]

My FSERC is a human-based framework and system of emergence and realization of reality [things] [FSER], which is subsequently perceived, cognized and described [FSC or FSK].
The noumena which is 'false' and not real [illusory] has nothing to do with my FSERC [real] at all.

Your FSERC may well be real, but the 'things' it is drawing conclusions about are noumena, which in your system means they are illusory.

The 'objects' that are posited, in this case moral law or in other threads 'freedom' - are not real.
If you are a kind of agnostic antirealist (I don't mean this in relation to belief in God, but as a general we don't know position, here in relation to noumena) then the 'things' that are not observed are considered useful fictions.
The conclusions are useful, but that kind of anti-realist takes no stand in relation to the truth of noumena or the reality of noumena.
But your antirealism has been characterized by a strong postion that noumena are false/not real.

That means that the unobservable objects 'things' 'processes' are not real.

If you can show that morality proper, the one morality that is true and real is observable, the please do that. If you can show that freedom is observable - Kant specifically said it was not - please do that.

If not, then these terms are about noumena. And thus according to you, not Kant, they are unreal and false, as the title of one of your threads says about noumena.

The above points are messy.
I agree with Kant, freedom is noumenal [thing-in-itself].

Then it is, according to you, false and not real. There is a thread title with that exact assertion about noumena.

For Kant, freedom as thing-in-itself is necessary for his morality.
I did not claim freedom is observable.
My morality-proper do not focus on 'noumenal freedom'.

Lovely. So, you do not agree with Kant on what is necessary for morality. He sees freedom as noumenal, which you acknowledge above, and you consider the noumenal false and unreal. So, this is a core difference from Kant.

Rather, my Morality-proper-FSERC is based on empirical evidence 'supervened' upon the scientific FSERC.
As I had claimed there is an inherent moral function within the brain that is supported by its physical neurons in process and actions.
The existence of mirror neurons is one clue to that.

Though there is nothing so far discovered by science that entails that it is moral. It affects behavior and attitudes. You are calling it moral. Further you focus on the one part of the neuronal patterns that support your morality. You do not focus on the other parts of the brain. Current brains have patterns or neuronal firing (and actually glial and endocrine involvement, heck even postural and other involvement). These are associate with current behaviors and attitudes. If you think brains should be different, which you have asserted, then science is not leading to this conclusion. Currently brain physiology and neuronal patterns is not leading to this conclusion. Something outside of science is leading to this conclusion.

Physics is the natural science of matter, involving the study of matter, its fundamental constituents, its motion and behavior through space and time, and the related entities of energy and force. WIKI

Within scientific realism [philosophical realism],
Physics recognized whatever it study and justify is physical and as such exists as real regardless it is observable or not.

and so they would be necessarily wrong in that conclusion, which is a realist one, if the metaphysical anti realists are correct.

Yes, the philosophical realists relying on scientific realism are wrong in chasing for something that is absolute and beyond the empirical world.

Then 1) so was Kant for thinking that morality was possible, given that he thought freedom, which he considered noumenal and which you also think, was necessary for morality. 2) Other minds, which are not empirical, but deduced and inferred, and unreal. We cannot direcly experience (iow they are not empirical) other minds. 3) morality proper is not empirical. If it is, please tell me where to look/listen/feel to experience it.

Thus the scientific realism of philosophical realism [mind-independent reality] includes all that are not directly observable [gravity, quarks] but justified within Physics.
These indirectly observable are facts i.e. facts of Physics.

But now you are calling Physics realism, while at the same time you have threads arguing that really physics is starting to realize it should be antirealist.

I am merely describing [not agreeing] the philosophical realist version of what they claim to be Physics.
As an antirealist I do not agree with that.

OK, but then we cannot assume that things physics says are real, are real.

Moral facts as objective as contingent within a moral framework and system [FS-ERC] with inputs of scientific facts from the scientific FSERC.

And if that FSERC is scientific realist then if must, according to your own arguments be false, because it treats noumena as real and true.

FSERC is scientific realist is an oxymoron.
FSERC by definition cannot be scientific realist

OK, I have not kept up with your terminology. I thought it was simply a new version of FSK. So, physics is not an FSERC, unless it is the physics practiced and thought of by an antirealist physicist.

Must respect and tolerate the morality of others - which by the way is very common in both sociology and anthropology - is an objectivist moral stance. Some people who think they are moral relativists don't notice that problem. Despite that they are moral realists. In fact they are deontologists: it's a rule with provisos to consequences.

?? Moral Relativism is Moral Realism or Moral Objectivism???

No, not all moral relativisms, but you gave a moral relativism with a deontologicaI rule that one must respect other moralities. And there are moral relativists or people who call themselves that without realizing they are contradicting themselves.

For example, it leads to a paradox. You must respect other moralities even those that do not respect other moraIities. Which many moral realists, obviously, do not do.

Moral Relativism by definition leads to 'to each their own' either they are indifferent or they respect/tolerate the differences.
If a Hitler insist it is within his morality to commit genocide on race-X, the moral relativist would either be indifferent or will respect/tolerate it.

Nope, that's a false conclusion. It's also not quite relevant to what I quoted. A moral relativist can hate what Hitler does and join the resistance or sign up for the army. They simply need not think of their hatred of his goals as an objective morality. One can have, for example, empathy regardless of one's metaethical position.

A Moral Realist by definition imply all moral elements are universal thus applicable to all humans [without exception] as inherent in their human nature.

It's a metaethical position.

Analogy: All humans are embedded or hardwired with the inherent oughtness-to-breathe without exceptions.

Similarly, moral realists believe for example all humans are embedded or hardwired with the inherent oughtnot-ness to kill humans, and will take steps to strive toward this moral standard with the best of their abilities.

No, it depends on what moral realism they believe in. There are all sorts of attitudes and behavioral tendencies in brains and humans. You don't get to cherry pick.

If you think moral realists can't condone killing on moral grounds, you need to study history. Most humans have been killed, when killed intentionally by other humans, on moral realist grounds. The overwhelming majority of human killing of other humans has been justified on moral realist grounds.

And the brains that did this had structures and patterns. If we can look at brains and decide what is morality proper, then what they had in their brains MUST have led to morality proper and shown itself in their behavior.

If we don't like their behavior, then the structure of their brains had a problem with something outside the fields of brain science has decide on non-scientific grounds.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My FSERC is a human-based framework and system of emergence and realization of reality [things] [FSER], which is subsequently perceived, cognized and described [FSC or FSK].
The noumena which is 'false' and not real [illusory] has nothing to do with my FSERC [real] at all.

Your FSERC may well be real, but the 'things' it is drawing conclusions about are noumena, which in your system means they are illusory.

My FSERC deals only with real things.
Noumena are not real things, they are illusory.
Therefore my FSERC do not draw conclusions that are about noumena [aka thing-in-itself].

The above points are messy.
I agree with Kant, freedom is noumenal [thing-in-itself].

Then it is, according to you, false and not real. There is a thread title with that exact assertion about noumena.
......
Lovely. So, you do not agree with Kant on what is necessary for morality. He sees freedom as noumenal, which you acknowledge above, and you consider the noumenal false and unreal. So, this is a core difference from Kant.

Yes, I believe as Kant proved, freedom is false and not real relative to the empirical FSERC.
Kant may state 'Freedom is real' not with absoluteness but that is qualified to his Moral Framework and System. I can accept this view of Kant with its qualification but I do not promote it.
As I had stated I do not agree with Kant totally especially on his final moral system.
For Kant moral system to work, he asserted, "I have to give up knowledge for faith" and he has to bring in the 'idea of God' even though to him is illusory in another sense.
I have my own version of a moral-FSERC.

Rather, my Morality-proper-FSERC is based on empirical evidence 'supervened' upon the scientific FSERC.
As I had claimed there is an inherent moral function within the brain that is supported by its physical neurons in process and actions.
The existence of mirror neurons is one clue to that.

Though there is nothing so far discovered by science that entails that it is moral. It affects behavior and attitudes. You are calling it moral. Further you focus on the one part of the neuronal patterns that support your morality. You do not focus on the other parts of the brain. Current brains have patterns or neuronal firing (and actually glial and endocrine involvement, heck even postural and other involvement). These are associate with current behaviors and attitudes. If you think brains should be different, which you have asserted, then science is not leading to this conclusion. Currently brain physiology and neuronal patterns is not leading to this conclusion. Something outside of science is leading to this conclusion.

Note my thread of the supervenience of moral facts on natural facts.
viewtopic.php?t=42565
Science and morality are independent.
Also note:
The Science of Morality
viewtopic.php?t=42569

Yes, there is little at present where science can point directly to morality. One clue is related mirror neurons - empathy- and some others.
But the trend toward the future is what are moral facts, they do supervene on natural facts as explained by science.

Then
1) so was Kant for thinking that morality was possible, given that he thought freedom, which he considered noumenal and which you also think, was necessary for morality.
2) Other minds, which are not empirical, but deduced and inferred, and unreal. We cannot directly experience (iow they are not empirical) other minds. 3) morality proper is not empirical. If it is, please tell me where to look/listen/feel to experience it.

You can test it on yourself:

Images of prisoners’ brains show important differences between those who are diagnosed as psychopaths and those who aren’t, according to a study led by University of Wisconsin–Madison researchers.
https://www.med.wisc.edu/news/psychopat ... -function/

The test:
1. Record [over a certain period] your present feelings about if you are to kill humans.
2. get a neuroscientist and damage the parts of the brain to be the same as those who are malignant psychopaths.
3. then record the feelings on the thoughts of killing humans after the surgery.

As a the sort of psychopaths in 3, you will be feeling with urges and impulse to kill humans especially if provoked.

In addition, the feelings in 1 above is evident your 'oughtnotness to kill humans' is working a moral facts supervened on the natural biological fact is existing empirically within you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Moral Relativism by definition leads to 'to each their own' either they are indifferent or they respect/tolerate the differences.
If a Hitler insist it is within his morality to commit genocide on race-X, the moral relativist would either be indifferent or will respect/tolerate it.

Nope, that's a false conclusion. It's also not quite relevant to what I quoted. A moral relativist can hate what Hitler does and join the resistance or sign up for the army. They simply need not think of their hatred of his goals as an objective morality. One can have, for example, empathy regardless of one's metaethical position.[/quote]

A Moral Realist by definition imply all moral elements are universal thus applicable to all humans [without exception] as inherent in their human nature.

It's a metaethical position.

Analogy: All humans are embedded or hardwired with the inherent oughtness-to-breathe without exceptions.

Similarly, moral realists believe for example all humans are embedded or hardwired with the inherent oughtnot-ness to kill humans, and will take steps to strive toward this moral standard with the best of their abilities.

No, it depends on what moral realism they believe in. There are all sorts of attitudes and behavioral tendencies in brains and humans. You don't get to cherry pick.

If you think moral realists can't condone killing on moral grounds, you need to study history. Most humans have been killed, when killed intentionally by other humans, on moral realist grounds. The overwhelming majority of human killing of other humans has been justified on moral realist grounds.

And the brains that did this had structures and patterns. If we can look at brains and decide what is morality proper, then what they had in their brains MUST have led to morality proper and shown itself in their behavior.

If we don't like their behavior, then the structure of their brains had a problem with something outside the fields of brain science has decide on non-scientific grounds.
[/quote]
A Moral Relativist is a Moral Realist is an oxymoron.
A moral relativist by definition do not have a moral-say on the morality of others.

A moral relativist [then] may hate what Hitler does and join the resistance or sign up for the army, but that has nothing to do with morality since he is morally indifferent or tolerate the morality of others.
If his empathy is triggered and hate Hitler, that is for personal reason not for moral reasons, if he sign up with an army to fight Hitler, that is a political move, not a moral move.

A moral relativist is merely a moral stooge.