psycho wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 9:53 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:32 am
Point is humans evolved early on 'like other higher animals' with a "program" of the potential-to-kill, i.e. especially for food, then self-defense.
The potential to kill in non-human animals is mitigated as an instinct, thus animals only kill on a need basis.
However humans for various reasons are driven to evolve to act beyond their instincts and endowed with limited
free will and
self-consciousness.
Accordingly to limit the above, NATURE
subsequently endowed humans with the
moral function to inhibit the potential to kill based on an uncontrollable free will.
Because the moral function is a later and newer function, it is not very active in all humans to have full control of the potential-to-kill.
This is why humans are still killing humans and killing is still acceptable in certain circumstances.
But the later moral function inherent in humans is unfolding albeit slowly and is getting more active. This is evident by the decreasing trend of humans killing humans since from long ago to the present.
Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995
This is why we must recognize the moral function as a moral fact and from there find strategies to expedite its efficiency so that there will be lesser and lesser killings of humans by humans and other evil acts.
On the other hand, you have not reflect deep enough and is indifferent to any progress of morality and letting things be as they are and relying on merely laws to restraint killings of humans.
Animals do not kill for basic needs. Animals kill because it is convenient for them to kill. When a male lion defeats a pack leader, he eats his predecessor's cubs. That is not a basic need. At least not to my understanding. (Maybe we should clarify that you consider basic needs in animals)
The point is, no animals will kill like humans killing humans for pleasure, and other frivolous reasons.
I stated animal killed on a need basis, i.e. need for food when hungry [which is a basic need], self-defense, some for the optimality of survival [killing cubs which are not theirs] and the likes.
I don't see how you conclude that humans have a basic instinct that prevents them from killing. What makes you think such a thing?
Again I did not state the above.
All humans has the basic instinct to kill for food to sustain survival.
Morality is not a basic instinct, rather in later evolution phases all humans are
subsequently endowed with the
moral function to inhibit and modulate this basic instinct to kill so that humans do not kill humans.
I still don't see what you call limited free will. And your concept of uncontrollable free will catches my attention.
If you reflect on your own self, you will note you have the free will to do many things without hindrance [thus uncontrollable in a sense], but you also restraint from many things that you may wish you want or dreamt to do. [thus that freewill is limited].
- For example, a person may have thoughts and impulse to commit suicide, but just cannot carried it out.
We often read of many people having the impulse of wishing and wanting to kill another human[s] who had done evil to them [rape, torture, suppress, stress, etc.] but they do not carry out their wish and intents.
Instead some humans even forgive those who commit evil on them.
When I think that I begin to understand your position and then I see that you interpret that morality is a biological function but at the same time it is determined by philosophical considerations, I am once again intrigued about what your idea will be on the subject.
In my opinion you should not trust that humanity is developing effective morality. Human aggressiveness diminishes with the stability of societies and is activated by scarcity of resources, catastrophes and perceived chaos.
One mechanism that denies our possible moral evolution is genocide.
Within this phenomenon, individuals correctly formed intellectually and morally, act with the greatest cruelty and lethality. An interesting case is the Rwanda massacre. To name a not so distant example. This is notable for the enthusiastic participation of Christian priests and nuns in that genocide.
Yes morality is an inherent biological and psychological function that is "programmed" and adapted within the brain of all humans.
However, as a later evolved function, the moral function is quite dormant and not so active in the majority of humans since it emerged and even at present.
Because the moral function is a 'Johnny comes lately' and not so active YET, the more older 'kill' program is more active, thus we have humans killing humans and violence since human emerged till the present.
BUT there are evidence of an increasing trend the moral function is unfolding to be more active in the average of all humans. The evidence is presented in the thread below -have a look;
Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995
- Note the trend of the decrease in slavery since 500-3000 years ago to the present.
It is also evident there are lesser genocides at present [preventive measures taken ] as compared to the last 25 years back to the 3000 years ago.
Since the moral function is inherent in all humans and progressing as evident, we should
make the effort to understand it more thoroughly and expedite the average moral competence.
Your [& the majority's] indifference or ignorance of this inherent moral function is the biggest hurdle in activating the moral function to be more active.
It is not a question of 'trust' rather humanity must
put in the effort to be knowledgeable and practical in expediting the progress of the inherent moral function within all humans.
Once there is progress and increase in the average moral competence of humanity, then there will lesser and lesser evil and violence, including genocides, etc.