Zak: The Moral Molecule

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Moral Molecule - Paul J. Zak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKRpUlF9HBE&t=49s
Renowned neuroscientist and economist Paul J. Zak reveals how a single chemical governs all of our morality and behaviour.

Paul J. Zak introduced the concept of The Moral Molecule which is "oxytocin" a neural chemical which can be verified and justified by the science-biology and science-neuroscience FS.
Oxytocin is a physical thing working within a physical process as a FS scientific fact.
Since scientific facts are FS-objective [not human-independent], when inputted into a moral FS, it is transmuted as an objective moral fact or element.

Since oxytocin is demonstrated to be an objective Moral Molecule, this give a lead to the fact that the strong possibility that "Morality is objective" [FS]; this is supported with research on neural based empathy, i.e. mirror neurons and other neural based moral elements.

There are objections and limitations to the theory of The Moral Molecule [as with mirror neurons]; however these objections are not significant and can be refuted easily when considered in the proper perspective.
The claim "governs ALL of our morality and behavior" it is a big stretch; oxytocin merely play a part and role within morality-proper.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Impenitent]

so much for free will

you must be moral - it's in your genes

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

The Moral Molecule - Paul J. Zak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKRpUlF9HBE&t=49s
Renowned neuroscientist and economist Paul J. Zak reveals how a single chemical governs all of our morality and behaviour.

Paul J. Zak introduced the concept of The Moral Molecule which is "oxytocin" a neural chemical which can be verified and justified by the science-biology and science-neuroscience FS.
Oxytocin is a physical thing working within a physical process as a FS scientific fact.
Since scientific facts are FS-objective [not human-independent], when inputted into a moral FS, it is transmuted as an objective moral fact or element.

Since oxytocin is demonstrated to be an objective Moral Molecule, this give a lead to the fact that the strong possibility that "Morality is objective" [FS]; this is supported with research on neural based empathy, i.e. mirror neurons and other neural based moral elements.

There are objections and limitations to the theory of The Moral Molecule [as with mirror neurons]; however these objections are not significant and can be refuted easily when considered in the proper perspective.
The claim "governs ALL of our morality and behavior" it is a big stretch; oxytocin merely play a part and role within morality-proper.

Discuss??
Views??

Well, let's assume that molecule has been producing all the behavior humans have exhibited since the dawn of homo sapians that we CALL moral. And no one is arguing that humans don't label behaviors moral or that they behave. Then humans, each in different versions, call some of this behavior moral. We haven't proved anything at all about objective morality. It might demonstrate that there are causal chains where social punishments and rewards (oxycontin invovled in the latter and absent in the former) lead to us viewing - in radically different ways - some behavior as moral and some as not. This is not objectivity, obviously, given the diversity of moral FSERCs we have out there.

[henry quirk]

so much for free will

you must be moral - it's in your genes

-Imp

Yep, that sums it up. Morality as neural architecture and feel good chemicals.

Soma, anyone? Lobotomies, on demand? An offshoot of NeuralLink? Gengineering, for a better you?

A lil G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate for what ails you?

[Veritas Aequitas]

so much for free will

you must be moral - it's in your genes

-Imp

There is a need for consideration of free will, i.e. one must be "absolutely" free to allow what is natural from the genes [its later physical expression of the moral function] to manifest without hindrance to the will.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Moral Molecule - Paul J. Zak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKRpUlF9HBE&t=49s
Renowned neuroscientist and economist Paul J. Zak reveals how a single chemical governs all of our morality and behaviour.

Paul J. Zak introduced the concept of The Moral Molecule which is "oxytocin" a neural chemical which can be verified and justified by the science-biology and science-neuroscience FS.
Oxytocin is a physical thing working within a physical process as a FS scientific fact.
Since scientific facts are FS-objective [not human-independent], when inputted into a moral FS, it is transmuted as an objective moral fact or element.

Since oxytocin is demonstrated to be an objective Moral Molecule, this give a lead to the fact that the strong possibility that "Morality is objective" [FS]; this is supported with research on neural based empathy, i.e. mirror neurons and other neural based moral elements.

There are objections and limitations to the theory of The Moral Molecule [as with mirror neurons]; however these objections are not significant and can be refuted easily when considered in the proper perspective.
The claim "governs ALL of our morality and behavior" it is a big stretch; oxytocin merely play a part and role within morality-proper.

Discuss??
Views??

Well, let's assume that molecule has been producing all the behavior humans have exhibited since the dawn of homo sapians that we CALL moral. And no one is arguing that humans don't label behaviors moral or that they behave. Then humans, each in different versions, call some of this behavior moral. We haven't proved anything at all about objective morality. It might demonstrate that there are causal chains where social punishments and rewards (oxycontin invovled in the latter and absent in the former) lead to us viewing - in radically different ways - some behavior as moral and some as not. This is not objectivity, obviously, given the diversity of moral FSERCs we have out there.

We can [ONLY] assume that molecule is responsible for ALL moral behaviors.

I stated above this critical point; the objective physical moral system within all humans is represented by many sub-systems, e.g. mirror neurons, and others; the oxytocin system is merely one of the sub-system, could even be a sub-sub-system.

Analogy:
Take for example, crocodiles which will kill & eat anything that is moving including their very young ones.
However, a mother crocodile is programmed to be endowed with oxytocin for some time upon hearing the crocodiles babies cries in the egg. As long as the oxytocin is present in the mother crocodile it will not eat its youngs which is at least for a period till they are capable of surviving on their own which by then the oxytocin would have stopped flowing.

'Not killing' is a moral element. If supposed 'morality' is relevant to crocodiles, then there are objective moral facts which is represented by the factual physical existence of oxytocin in all mother crocodiles upon hearing the cries of baby crocodile where they do not eat their newly born.
Since this is universal within the crocodile species, it is an objective biological fact transmuted as an objective moral fact within a moral FSERC.

In the real case [not assumption] of humans, the presence of oxytocin in the human system generate a sense of love and bonding which inhibit the 'killing potential' in all humans.
Since this is universal in all* humans independent of one's subjective view, it is by definition as objective moral fact within the moral FSERC.

* there are exceptions, but this does not obviate the physical oxytocin potential that inhibit the 'killing of humans by humans" system that exists within all humans in varying degrees.
That there are loads of killing of humans by humans is due to the weak or damaged oxytocin system which nevertheless exists as an objective biological and moral FS-fact in all humans in varying degrees.

It is when we recognized the existence of this objective biological and moral fact, that humanity can then proceed effectively to strengthen the oxytocin system in all, if not majority of humans at a progressive rate.

Moral relativists, moral skeptics, moral nihilists and amoralists, don't give a damn with the above, thus are indifferent to moral progress and facilitating evil and immorality to fester. This attitude and take of indifference is in some way maintaining a state of evil within themselves.

[Iwannaplato]

Analogy:
Take for example, crocodiles which will kill & eat anything that is moving including their very young ones.
However, a mother crocodile is programmed to be endowed with oxytocin for some time upon hearing the crocodiles babies cries in the egg. As long as the oxytocin is present in the mother crocodile it will not eat its youngs which is at least for a period till they are capable of surviving on their own which by then the oxytocin would have stopped flowing.

'Not killing' is a moral element.

It's behavioral. Not moral. And in fact you yourself have said that animals are not moral agents, yet here you are making an argument that they are.

The problem with this is that crocodile is simply compelled to behave by the genese controlling production of this chemical to allow for a greater liklihood that their genes will get carried forward. The Selfish Gene one could argue. Or it is practical behavior selected via natural selection. You're, so far, just adding a label. You are calling something moral, that can be explained utterly in causal terms, chemical terms, leading to certain behaviors that lead to the continued existence of certain batches of genes.

Parsimony would lead one not to add 'moral' on. There is nothing in all that you've described that is not covered by genes and chemicals. You can have a perfectly full neo-darwinian explanation, bolstered by physiology and zoology - and those FSERCs. Those FSERCS cover EVERY SINGLE FACET of what crocodile mothers do. Every behavior, every nuance of it, All the physiology.

Parsimony would lead to not adding yet another FSERC and other language for what is already covered completely by physiology, animal behavior sciences and genetic science.

IOW fuck you you ignorant, strawman flinging asshole - that's for being a dick in the other thread. Totally had it with your inability ever admit you are wrong about anything even slightly significant, your inablity to openly learn from anyone, your never quite responding to what is being written by others and your unearned condescension. I'll never be polite with you again, turd.

[Veritas Aequitas]

IOW fuck you you ignorant, strawman flinging asshole - that's for being a dick in the other thread. Totally had it with your inability ever admit you are wrong about anything even slightly significant, your inablity to openly learn from anyone, your never quite responding to what is being written by others and your unearned condescension. I'll never be polite with you again, turd.

In the first place I have never given any credibility to your posts.
Carry on with your vulgarities .. and I will report you to the moderator.
It is pathetic one cannot keep one's cool and keep to arguments or just ignore.