psycho wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 8:29 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:10 am
Note I stated "programmed" in " " which relevant in the context of evolution.
Re 'programmer,' in the case of deliberate brainwashing, there is a programmer and the person being programmed.
What is critical here is the end result is a 'program' comprising codes of 'if x, then Y.'
Associating is not programming or "programming".
Nobody can program a human. One can change the associations that a certain human uses. But that is not programming. It is like changing the contents of a box. The human reacted according to the content of a box and when you change it now he has the same reaction but with respect to the new content.
That is associating, not programming.
One can use associations and triggers to try to manage human behavior. It is like guiding a cow through a maze.
Associating is rewiring the neural connections in the brain and that is programming.
You need to do a search in google re human programming, e.g.
https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-divisio ... rogramming
Do more research in google and show me why what is commonly term "human-programming" is not a case of 'programming'.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:10 am
Wrong comparison.
If you kill someone, that is primarily due to the 'weakening of your moral inhibitors' whether you were aggressive in that murder or not is secondary. There are cases where humans kill humans out of love, duty, etc.
In my opinion you are very confused about what Aggression is.
All murder is an aggressive act.
Your clarification that the motive for killing can be love proves my point that aggression is not a factor in killing but the reaction that executes it.
You were the one who insist all murder is an aggressive act.
The killing due to 'love' is also murder, e.g. there are a lot of cases, i.e. the killing of one's children and spouse when one's life has failed to support them due to financial troubles and other reasons. This is due to desperation and stupidity, not aggression as defined.
You are the one who is confused about what Aggression is,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression
In an interdisciplinary perspective, aggression is regarded as “an ensemble of mechanism formed during the course of evolution in order to assert oneself, relatives or friends against others, to gain or to defend resources (ultimate causes) by harmful damaging means [...] These mechanisms are often motivated by
emotions like fear, frustration, anger, feelings of stress, dominance or pleasure (proximate causes) [...] Sometimes aggressive behavior serves as a stress relief or a subjective feeling of power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression
There is no mention of 'love' in the above.
There are many other reasons other than aggression as defined above, on why someone killed humans which is legally murder.
What you repeat many times is something other than the subject of my question.
I am not asking why society should consider that its members should be seen as moral entities (I hope it is not attributed to me again that I ask such a thing!).
I ask (fourth or fifth time I express it!)
Why should one himself consider himself morally responsible for his actions if he is not fully aware of the factors that form the will that generated that action
(Here, although it is difficult, must It should be understood that I am not referring to how the rest of society considers whoever performs the action, but how the agent who performed the action himself considers that these actions have a moral connotation given the aforementioned circumstances).
Don't feel obligated to answer this question. But if you do, don't give it a different meaning than my question implies.
The phrase "he has to understand the unconscious variables within himself" is absurd! If he was aware of these variables before deciding to commit the immoral action, those variables would not be unconscious. If he notices these variables after the action is committed, it is ridiculous to assume that he was in complete control of his will.
I don't understand your question.
To me, re the subject of morality, there is no question of any individual needing to feel morally responsible for his actions.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:10 am
This is not relevant to my point. I did not refer to any ethical decision nor evaluation.
That is, do you think people do not morally evaluate their actions before doing them?
There is some degrees of evaluation in the moral sense or morality proper, but that is secondary.
In morality-proper what is primary is a moral competent person's action is activated
spontaneously without evaluation.
It is just like a highly skilled professional tennis player who had trained for years and repeated his actions a million times in training that when he compete on the tennis court his actions to win are done spontaneously.
But a moral competent person do evaluate the consequences of his actions against the moral standard and take preventive steps of correct and improve upon future actions which are to be activated spontaneously.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:10 am
What I have implied is 'the killing of humans by humans' is a moral issue.
Do you agree with this?
Thus the moral issue is to reduce the number of humans killed.
Therefore it is logical the reduction in the number of humans killed is equivalent to a progress in morality.
The moral function and system within all humans is represented by a complex set of neural mechanisms. I will not go into the precise details of this complex set up.
However as I had mentioned earlier, the empathy system is one of the part of the moral system.
This empathy function is driven by mirror neurons which exist only in the higher animals, some apes and humans, i.e. evidence of evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron
No. That is fallacious. The reduction in the number of murders does not imply a moral improvement in society.
That is:
- Killing humans is a moral issue
- The objective of morality is to reduce the number of humans killed
- If fewer humans are killed, morality must have improved
Aristotle must have rolled his eyes.
You are the one who present the above syllogistically, I did not.
I presented the above in narrative form and each premise require more detailed explanations,
- - Killing humans is a moral issue [as verified and justified within a moral FSK]
- The objective of morality is to reduce the number of humans killed to ZERO
- If fewer humans are killed, morality must have improved
You did not explain why the above do not follow.
If prior to 1950, 500 million humans were killed via violence,
in the period, 1900-1950, 100 million humans were killed via violence,
then in the period 1951 to 2021, 20 million humans were killed via violence,
surely there is improvements in terms of numbers killed,
because killing is a moral element [verified and justified], thus morality has improved.
Morality in this case can be measured via the average Moral Quotient [MQ] as in IQ.
I think I have misunderstood you. I had understood that in your opinion, humans choose their actions according to a moral framework .
Do you consider that what improves is the moral framework? Or is it in compliance with the moral framework where you notice progress?
What has improved is the increasing activeness of the inherent moral function 'programmed' within the average person worldwide.
As mentioned we can roughly measure his via the MQ which must be represented by changes in the neural wirings in the brain.
If you consider that the human nervous system has built in inhibitors of certain behaviors, it is absurd that later you suppose that humans have free will and have the ability to choose morally.
You misunderstood my point on the above.
What I stated is the moral inhibitors increased in strength and thus spontaneously inhibit evil actions.
There is no question of deliberately making choice before moral actions, like those of the Trolley Problems, i.e. killing one or 10.
I stated above moral actions are to be made spontaneously and ad hoc consideration are taken to drive improvements for future actions.
What is incomprehensible to me is that your position implies that whoever abides by his neurological restrictions is moral and whoever does not abide by them is immoral. Presenting as possible a scenario where the human will can choose to respect or not its neurological restrictions.
Calling moral those who respect their neurological restrictions and immoral those who do not respect them is only possible if one completely changes the meaning of "moral".
Again you misunderstood my point.
My point is those with stronger inhibitors [after taking steps to strengthen them] has higher moral competences [moral quotient] which can be roughly estimated.
You can feel for yourself [assuming it is true], that you don't go about killing humans is indication that your moral inhibitors re killing are reasonably strong at present.
However, your moral inhibitors re killing can be weakened via programming, e.g. brainwashing, drugs, stress, etc. thence you may kill some one or others.
Meaning of words are relative to consensus and popularity.
Yes, since morality is such a loose term, we need to have a precise meaning of what is morality-proper.
I have defined morality-in-general as 'that which is to do 'good' and avoid 'evil'.
Both 'good' and 'evil' must also be defined precisely.
