Philosophy Now Forum

In his book, A Theory of Justice, John Rawls postulated the existence of "a Moral Faculty" within the human brain that is analogous to the Language Faculty postulated by Chomsky;

A useful comparison here is with the problem of describing the sense of grammaticalness that we have for the sentences of our native language. [Chomsky: Aspects of the Theory of Syntax – 1965 pg 3-9 ]

In this case, the aim is to characterize the ability to recognize well-formed sentences by formulating clearly expressed principles which make the same discriminations as the native speaker.

This is a difficult undertaking which, although still unfinished, is known to require theoretical constructions that far outrun the ad hoc precepts of our explicit grammatical knowledge.

A similar situation presumably holds in moral philosophy.

There is no reason to assume that our sense of justice can be adequately characterized by familiar common sense precepts, or derived from the more obvious learning principles.

A correct account of moral capacities will certainly involve principles and theoretical constructions which go beyond the norms and standards cited in every day life.
(Rawls, 1971); pp. 46–47 A Theory of Justice.

If a Moral Faculty exists within the human brain and mind, I believe there are moral facts grounded on this empirical moral faculty just as how we infer the Language Faculty which is grounded on the Broca's Area of the brain.

Broca's area, or the Broca area is a region in the frontal lobe of the dominant hemisphere, usually the left, of the brain[5] with functions linked to speech production.
Language processing has been linked to Broca's area since Pierre Paul Broca reported impairments in two patients.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca%27s_area

Agree/Disagree?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 9:00 am In his book, A Theory of Justice, John Rawls postulated the existence of "a Moral Faculty" within the human brain that is analogous to the Language Faculty postulated by Chomsky;

A useful comparison here is with the problem of describing the sense of grammaticalness that we have for the sentences of our native language. [Chomsky: Aspects of the Theory of Syntax – 1965 pg 3-9 ]

In this case, the aim is to characterize the ability to recognize well-formed sentences by formulating clearly expressed principles which make the same discriminations as the native speaker.

This is a difficult undertaking which, although still unfinished, is known to require theoretical constructions that far outrun the ad hoc precepts of our explicit grammatical knowledge.

A similar situation presumably holds in moral philosophy.

There is no reason to assume that our sense of justice can be adequately characterized by familiar common sense precepts, or derived from the more obvious learning principles.

A correct account of moral capacities will certainly involve principles and theoretical constructions which go beyond the norms and standards cited in every day life.
(Rawls, 1971); pp. 46–47 A Theory of Justice.

If a Moral Faculty exists within the human brain and mind, I believe there are moral facts grounded on this empirical moral faculty just as how we infer the Language Faculty which is grounded on the Broca's Area of the brain.

Broca's area, or the Broca area is a region in the frontal lobe of the dominant hemisphere, usually the left, of the brain[5] with functions linked to speech production.
Language processing has been linked to Broca's area since Pierre Paul Broca reported impairments in two patients.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca%27s_area

Agree/Disagree?

If moral faculty is the same as the cooperative faculty, then the moral faculty is inherent not learned. However moral codes are learned. Moral codes and their tenets are not the moral faculty : languages and their lexicons are not the language instinct.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 9:00 am In his book, A Theory of Justice, John Rawls postulated the existence of "a Moral Faculty" within the human brain that is analogous to the Language Faculty postulated by Chomsky;

A useful comparison here is with the problem of describing the sense of grammaticalness that we have for the sentences of our native language. [Chomsky: Aspects of the Theory of Syntax – 1965 pg 3-9 ]

In this case, the aim is to characterize the ability to recognize well-formed sentences by formulating clearly expressed principles which make the same discriminations as the native speaker.

This is a difficult undertaking which, although still unfinished, is known to require theoretical constructions that far outrun the ad hoc precepts of our explicit grammatical knowledge.

A similar situation presumably holds in moral philosophy.

There is no reason to assume that our sense of justice can be adequately characterized by familiar common sense precepts, or derived from the more obvious learning principles.

A correct account of moral capacities will certainly involve principles and theoretical constructions which go beyond the norms and standards cited in every day life.
(Rawls, 1971); pp. 46–47 A Theory of Justice.

If a Moral Faculty exists within the human brain and mind, I believe there are moral facts grounded on this empirical moral faculty just as how we infer the Language Faculty which is grounded on the Broca's Area of the brain.

Broca's area, or the Broca area is a region in the frontal lobe of the dominant hemisphere, usually the left, of the brain[5] with functions linked to speech production.
Language processing has been linked to Broca's area since Pierre Paul Broca reported impairments in two patients.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca%27s_area

Agree/Disagree?

Morality is not a thing that exists but a belief about what one thinks is "correct" behavior under conditional circumstances. You keep begging something 'empirical' when you ignore that evidences regarding this issue is not relevant beyond superficial appeals. There is no "DNA" evidence of something atomic regarding morality.

This topic is merely a political issue that has no relevance to nature outside of people convening to agree to a set of rules for conduct that involve consequences as set out in laws. "Etiquette" is an example ethic (system of morals) that people define artificially regarding superficial expectations between people. Some think that there is something universally applicable to how one is 'polite' or not. But this is still artificial, regardless of whether it has utility or not.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 9:25 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 9:00 am In his book, A Theory of Justice, John Rawls postulated the existence of "a Moral Faculty" within the human brain that is analogous to the Language Faculty postulated by Chomsky;

A useful comparison here is with the problem of describing the sense of grammaticalness that we have for the sentences of our native language. [Chomsky: Aspects of the Theory of Syntax – 1965 pg 3-9 ]

In this case, the aim is to characterize the ability to recognize well-formed sentences by formulating clearly expressed principles which make the same discriminations as the native speaker.

This is a difficult undertaking which, although still unfinished, is known to require theoretical constructions that far outrun the ad hoc precepts of our explicit grammatical knowledge.

A similar situation presumably holds in moral philosophy.

There is no reason to assume that our sense of justice can be adequately characterized by familiar common sense precepts, or derived from the more obvious learning principles.

A correct account of moral capacities will certainly involve principles and theoretical constructions which go beyond the norms and standards cited in every day life.
(Rawls, 1971); pp. 46–47 A Theory of Justice.

If a Moral Faculty exists within the human brain and mind, I believe there are moral facts grounded on this empirical moral faculty just as how we infer the Language Faculty which is grounded on the Broca's Area of the brain.

Broca's area, or the Broca area is a region in the frontal lobe of the dominant hemisphere, usually the left, of the brain[5] with functions linked to speech production.
Language processing has been linked to Broca's area since Pierre Paul Broca reported impairments in two patients.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca%27s_area

Agree/Disagree?

If moral faculty is the same as the cooperative faculty, then the moral faculty is inherent not learned. However moral codes are learned. Moral codes and their tenets are not the moral faculty : languages and their lexicons are not the language instinct.

As I had given the example of the generic human digestive system and the drive for hunger is inherent in ALL human but the types and ways they produce the food, prepare and eat them are different in variations with the environment and specific conditions the people are in.

Similarly there is only one generic moral faculty and its fundamental principles within all human but some of the moral codes will vary in accordance to the specific circumstances.

Note in the OP what Rawls implied is we have a generic language faculty [mainly located in the Broca's Area of the brain] but we ways we express the language and grammar structure is different depending on locations. With this language all humans infants pick up the basic elements [subject, object, predicates, conjunctions, etc.] of language easily but flexed in accordance to specific locations.

Similarly we have an inherent moral faculty with generic principles and processes, but the some moral codes output may vary due to specific conditions and constraints.
One difference with the moral faculty is, it will eventually all humans towards its basic principles.
I mentioned the rejection of "chattel slavery" where in the past 10,000 years chattel slavery was common, but since then to the present, all "chattel slavery' has been legally banned and eventually all human will naturally and spontaneous align with this moral impulse without the need for laws to enforce it.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 3:58 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 9:00 am In his book, A Theory of Justice, John Rawls postulated the existence of "a Moral Faculty" within the human brain that is analogous to the Language Faculty postulated by Chomsky;

A useful comparison here is with the problem of describing the sense of grammaticalness that we have for the sentences of our native language. [Chomsky: Aspects of the Theory of Syntax – 1965 pg 3-9 ]

In this case, the aim is to characterize the ability to recognize well-formed sentences by formulating clearly expressed principles which make the same discriminations as the native speaker.

This is a difficult undertaking which, although still unfinished, is known to require theoretical constructions that far outrun the ad hoc precepts of our explicit grammatical knowledge.

A similar situation presumably holds in moral philosophy.

There is no reason to assume that our sense of justice can be adequately characterized by familiar common sense precepts, or derived from the more obvious learning principles.

A correct account of moral capacities will certainly involve principles and theoretical constructions which go beyond the norms and standards cited in every day life.
(Rawls, 1971); pp. 46–47 A Theory of Justice.

If a Moral Faculty exists within the human brain and mind, I believe there are moral facts grounded on this empirical moral faculty just as how we infer the Language Faculty which is grounded on the Broca's Area of the brain.

Broca's area, or the Broca area is a region in the frontal lobe of the dominant hemisphere, usually the left, of the brain[5] with functions linked to speech production.
Language processing has been linked to Broca's area since Pierre Paul Broca reported impairments in two patients.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca%27s_area

Agree/Disagree?

Morality is not a thing that exists but a belief about what one thinks is "correct" behavior under conditional circumstances. You keep begging something 'empirical' when you ignore that evidences regarding this issue is not relevant beyond superficial appeals. There is no "DNA" evidence of something atomic regarding morality.

This topic is merely a political issue that has no relevance to nature outside of people convening to agree to a set of rules for conduct that involve consequences as set out in laws. "Etiquette" is an example ethic (system of morals) that people define artificially regarding superficial expectations between people. Some think that there is something universally applicable to how one is 'polite' or not. But this is still artificial, regardless of whether it has utility or not.

Your views above are too archaic, old fashion and out of date, not only that, it is a hindrance to the progress of 'what is morality-proper' i.e. doing what is right for the progress of humanity.

Note this to get a clue to your archaic thinking;

A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents[6] found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

The views on the OP is that of Moral Realism. You don't seem to have understood the knowledge underlying the themes of the OP??

Your view is that of anti-realism and even then your specific views are very archaic. Most philosophers has abandoned your type of thinking against moral realism.
I agree if we are to abide with classical logic, we cannot derived 'ought' from 'is' deductively.

But Science having the highest credibility with objective facts with the greatest utility potentials don't give a damn with deduction but rather relies on induction.

It is the same with morality in my case. My approach to morality proper is the same with Science where whatever is justified moral facts must be justified empirically and philosophically. What is wrong with that?

The hypothesis above is the Moral Faculty is analogous to the Language Faculty.
Evidences collected has provided indications the hypothesis is true.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 7:21 am Your views above are too archaic, old fashion and out of date, not only that, it is a hindrance to the progress of 'what is morality-proper' i.e. doing what is right for the progress of humanity.

Note this to get a clue to your archaic thinking;

A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents[6] found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

The views on the OP is that of Moral Realism. You don't seem to have understood the knowledge underlying the themes of the OP??

'Archaic'? To me this is like saying that 2 + 2 = 4 can just become an old fashioned truth (in its understood meaning).

I find moral philosophical discussions, including political opinions, as intentionally expanding upon depth by the emotional/religious human mind where it doesn't exist. The hope you have is to FIND some 'Messianic' like resolution to an absolute moral construct by Nature (or God, if you're religious) that doesn't exist. While I understand the emotional trouble you and most speaking on this issue want to overcome, I don't think seeking absolution for a foundation like this will occur. This debate has gone on since the dawn of human civilization and IF there were some scientific and/or logical means to prove absolute morals, this would have been done by now.

Your view is that of anti-realism and even then your specific views are very archaic. Most philosophers has abandoned your type of thinking against moral realism.
I agree if we are to abide with classical logic, we cannot derived 'ought' from 'is' deductively.

But Science having the highest credibility with objective facts with the greatest utility potentials don't give a damn with deduction but rather relies on induction.

It is the same with morality in my case. My approach to morality proper is the same with Science where whatever is justified moral facts must be justified empirically and philosophically. What is wrong with that?

The hypothesis above is the Moral Faculty is analogous to the Language Faculty.
Evidences collected has provided indications the hypothesis is true.

I don't follow how Noam Chompski's language studies relate and knowing that he actually would share my opinion (being atheist), cannot see he would agree to whatever attempted use of his ideas on morality would relate either.

I've expressed before that what 'matters' to humanity regarding morality (and politics in general) is mere agreement. If society demands specific 'moral' rules, these are arbitrary and so requires setting them up by concerning oneself with early learning because we define 'good' and 'bad' ONLY from our own windows of development. That is, 'good' versus 'bad' is defined individually by how one associates ones emotional comforts with environmental factors. When the window closes, these internal assignments are relatively fixed emotionally and what one thinks is universal when it is not.

To be 'scientific' you would need to prove that there is such thing as real 'good' or 'bad' things to all possible observers, and then that this is not relative nor arbitrary to special observers. How you think this can be 'scientific' is itself flawed.

What you COULD try is to 'optimize' suggested consequences by setting conditions in a practical way to demonstrate efficiency according to people's intended goals. You cannot escape the dilemmas of any moral ideal. And THAT is more 'scientifically' valid that far outweighs trying to find some absolute appeal that is universal.

If you still want to find some literal brain area that deals with assignment of value, the closest you might get might be in reference to emotional mechanisms that deal with fight or flight, fear, and pleasure. Since human consciousness evolves to reward or penalize actions based on environmental cues, there is likely no brained being that lacks 'good/bad' assignments. For instance, to an ant, it is 'bad' should something approach it with quick sudden movements. The reaction of an ant to jump when startled this way and panic would be an example of an assigned response that an ant would interpret as relatively 'bad', a value that assigns its moral judgment about what causes it to react that way.

And since an ant has a more basic or simpler brain than us, I would imagine that the only possible brain area that would deal with what you might call, 'moral judgment', is the very germ cells that form the brain. For humans, this would have to be the older most primative areas dealing with emotive responses that direct whether one moves towards or away from something.

What one thinks is relatively safe or tends to draw one towards something, becomes a 'good' thing. Those that trigger one to move away from something, becomes assigned 'bad'.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:47 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 7:21 am Your views above are too archaic, old fashion and out of date, not only that, it is a hindrance to the progress of 'what is morality-proper' i.e. doing what is right for the progress of humanity.

Note this to get a clue to your archaic thinking;

A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents[6] found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

The views on the OP is that of Moral Realism. You don't seem to have understood the knowledge underlying the themes of the OP??

'Archaic'? To me this is like saying that 2 + 2 = 4 can just become an old fashioned truth (in its understood meaning).

I find moral philosophical discussions, including political opinions, as intentionally expanding upon depth by the emotional/religious human mind where it doesn't exist. The hope you have is to FIND some 'Messianic' like resolution to an absolute moral construct by Nature (or God, if you're religious) that doesn't exist. While I understand the emotional trouble you and most speaking on this issue want to overcome, I don't think seeking absolution for a foundation like this will occur. This debate has gone on since the dawn of human civilization and IF there were some scientific and/or logical means to prove absolute morals, this would have been done by now.

I have stated many times [all over] I am not seeking moral ideals that are absolutely absolute that is from a God or Platonic universals.

What I am seeking are relative absolutes like those of Science, e.g. absolute temperature. absolute Zero,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero
and the likes.

I believe seeking relative absolute moral facts just like how Science establish its relative absolute are possible.

Btw, these moral absolutes are not to be enforced upon any individual.
Instead the individual need to understand they are within his own nature and thus allow them to unfold naturally within his actions.

Your view is that of anti-realism and even then your specific views are very archaic. Most philosophers has abandoned your type of thinking against moral realism.
I agree if we are to abide with classical logic, we cannot derived 'ought' from 'is' deductively.

But Science having the highest credibility with objective facts with the greatest utility potentials don't give a damn with deduction but rather relies on induction.

It is the same with morality in my case. My approach to morality proper is the same with Science where whatever is justified moral facts must be justified empirically and philosophically. What is wrong with that?

The hypothesis above is the Moral Faculty is analogous to the Language Faculty.
Evidences collected has provided indications the hypothesis is true.

I don't follow how Noam Chompski's language studies relate and knowing that he actually would share my opinion (being atheist), cannot see he would agree to whatever attempted use of his ideas on morality would relate either.

I don't agree with Noam Chompski totally, but in this case agree with him that there is something innate with language and grammar. This meant that there is something generic about language and grammar in all humans despite the differences the use language. You need to read him up on this.

Similarly there is also an innate moral faculty and moral 'grammar' [moral realism] which are basic moral principles for individuals to act in accordance to their environment.
This basic moral principles [moral realism] when applied to different environments generate moral relativism within different cultures.

I've expressed before that what 'matters' to humanity regarding morality (and politics in general) is mere agreement. If society demands specific 'moral' rules, these are arbitrary and so requires setting them up by concerning oneself with early learning because we define 'good' and 'bad' ONLY from our own windows of development. That is, 'good' versus 'bad' is defined individually by how one associates ones emotional comforts with environmental factors. When the window closes, these internal assignments are relatively fixed emotionally and what one thinks is universal when it is not.

To be 'scientific' you would need to prove that there is such thing as real 'good' or 'bad' things to all possible observers, and then that this is not relative nor arbitrary to special observers. How you think this can be 'scientific' is itself flawed.

What you COULD try is to 'optimize' suggested consequences by setting conditions in a practical way to demonstrate efficiency according to people's intended goals. You cannot escape the dilemmas of any moral ideal. And THAT is more 'scientifically' valid that far outweighs trying to find some absolute appeal that is universal.

That all humans has to breathe is not a matter of agreement, this is an inherent nature of humans. Isn't this an universal, albeit relative universal or relative absolute?

Similarly, that "humans ought-not to kill another human" is not based on agreement, but like breathing it is an inherent inhibition "programmed" within all human brains.
That some humans had killed other humans is due to defects from the norm.
Despite the killings, we cannot deny the fact the "ought-not to kill another human" "program" is innate in all human beings.

• Example all humans are programmed to hear via their auditory system, but exceptions as in Synaethesia occur where people see images upon listening to sounds.
  Despite this exception we cannot deny the fact of the inherent auditory system programmed within all human beings.

As explained above, there are relative moral universals such as "humans ought-not to kill another human" that exists inherently with the brain of all humans and they are represented by a neural algorithm.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:42 am

Scott Mayers wrote:I've expressed before that what 'matters' to humanity regarding morality (and politics in general) is mere agreement. If society demands specific 'moral' rules, these are arbitrary and so requires setting them up by concerning oneself with early learning because we define 'good' and 'bad' ONLY from our own windows of development. That is, 'good' versus 'bad' is defined individually by how one associates ones emotional comforts with environmental factors. When the window closes, these internal assignments are relatively fixed emotionally and what one thinks is universal when it is not.

To be 'scientific' you would need to prove that there is such thing as real 'good' or 'bad' things to all possible observers, and then that this is not relative nor arbitrary to special observers. How you think this can be 'scientific' is itself flawed.

What you COULD try is to 'optimize' suggested consequences by setting conditions in a practical way to demonstrate efficiency according to people's intended goals. You cannot escape the dilemmas of any moral ideal. And THAT is more 'scientifically' valid that far outweighs trying to find some absolute appeal that is universal.

That all humans has to breathe is not a matter of agreement, this is an inherent nature of humans. Isn't this an universal, albeit relative universal or relative absolute?

Similarly, that "humans ought-not to kill another human" is not based on agreement, but like breathing it is an inherent inhibition "programmed" within all human brains.
That some humans had killed other humans is due to defects from the norm.
Despite the killings, we cannot deny the fact the "ought-not to kill another human" "program" is innate in all human beings.

• Example all humans are programmed to hear via their auditory system, but exceptions as in Synaethesia occur where people see images upon listening to sounds.
  Despite this exception we cannot deny the fact of the inherent auditory system programmed within all human beings.

As explained above, there are relative moral universals such as "humans ought-not to kill another human" that exists inherently with the brain of all humans and they are represented by a neural algorithm.

I think you are biasing how you feel NOW as an adult without recognizing that we learn signifcant 'feelings' about things in our early life. We don't know what death means as a child and so in given circumstances, we may actually kill something without moral concern prior to some period of development that makes us reflect upon it.

Note that supposed psychopaths have a history of killing animals in their youth, for instance. If a child had done this before learning of anything reflective about his behavior AND the parents are either unaware or do nothing to penalize the child, they can internalize this activity (killing) as trivial to their concern regarding themselves. In fact, often these kids are not 'abused' physically but are often left without careful observation moer often than not in their play. In fact, even more supporting to lock in this behavior is if the parents are very loving but unaware. If they do not learn the reflective meaning of this as it might occur to them, then the window of development closes and they may assign 'killing' as emotionally satisfying. They can later 'learn' that society frowns upon this but their internal 'feeling' about it is opposite to convention.

This simple example should hint at how even 'killing' is not internally interpreted as 'bad'.

You aare advocating that we are BORN with moral beliefs. How do you propose this could be even tested 'scientifically' when you don't recognize the most obvious of observations (ie,....science) about real behaviors that occur between people? Why would we have wars at all if you were correct? Would you not recognize that you may be defining OUT the multitude of behaviors that involve 'killing' by begging them as irrelevant?

AND...if you were correct...what test could you give to determine if the example kids who kill animals are actually genetic. And if you could identify some 'gene', would you KILL the child to foster the evolution against those 'relative absolute' behaviors? Is there NO environmental behaviors that can alter these?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:33 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:42 am

Scott Mayers wrote:I've expressed before that what 'matters' to humanity regarding morality (and politics in general) is mere agreement. If society demands specific 'moral' rules, these are arbitrary and so requires setting them up by concerning oneself with early learning because we define 'good' and 'bad' ONLY from our own windows of development. That is, 'good' versus 'bad' is defined individually by how one associates ones emotional comforts with environmental factors. When the window closes, these internal assignments are relatively fixed emotionally and what one thinks is universal when it is not.

To be 'scientific' you would need to prove that there is such thing as real 'good' or 'bad' things to all possible observers, and then that this is not relative nor arbitrary to special observers. How you think this can be 'scientific' is itself flawed.

What you COULD try is to 'optimize' suggested consequences by setting conditions in a practical way to demonstrate efficiency according to people's intended goals. You cannot escape the dilemmas of any moral ideal. And THAT is more 'scientifically' valid that far outweighs trying to find some absolute appeal that is universal.

That all humans has to breathe is not a matter of agreement, this is an inherent nature of humans. Isn't this an universal, albeit relative universal or relative absolute?

Similarly, that "humans ought-not to kill another human" is not based on agreement, but like breathing it is an inherent inhibition "programmed" within all human brains.
That some humans had killed other humans is due to defects from the norm.
Despite the killings, we cannot deny the fact the "ought-not to kill another human" "program" is innate in all human beings.

• Example all humans are programmed to hear via their auditory system, but exceptions as in Synaethesia occur where people see images upon listening to sounds.
  Despite this exception we cannot deny the fact of the inherent auditory system programmed within all human beings.

As explained above, there are relative moral universals such as "humans ought-not to kill another human" that exists inherently with the brain of all humans and they are represented by a neural algorithm.

I think you are biasing how you feel NOW as an adult without recognizing that we learn signifcant 'feelings' about things in our early life. We don't know what death means as a child and so in given circumstances, we may actually kill something without moral concern prior to some period of development that makes us reflect upon it.

Note that supposed psychopaths have a history of killing animals in their youth, for instance. If a child had done this before learning of anything reflective about his behavior AND the parents are either unaware or do nothing to penalize the child, they can internalize this activity (killing) as trivial to their concern regarding themselves. In fact, often these kids are not 'abused' physically but are often left without careful observation moer often than not in their play. In fact, even more supporting to lock in this behavior is if the parents are very loving but unaware. If they do not learn the reflective meaning of this as it might occur to them, then the window of development closes and they may assign 'killing' as emotionally satisfying. They can later 'learn' that society frowns upon this but their internal 'feeling' about it is opposite to convention.

This simple example should hint at how even 'killing' is not internally interpreted as 'bad'.

You aare advocating that we are BORN with moral beliefs. How do you propose this could be even tested 'scientifically' when you don't recognize the most obvious of observations (ie,....science) about real behaviors that occur between people? Why would we have wars at all if you were correct? Would you not recognize that you may be defining OUT the multitude of behaviors that involve 'killing' by begging them as irrelevant?

AND...if you were correct...what test could you give to determine if the example kids who kill animals are actually genetic. And if you could identify some 'gene', would you KILL the child to foster the evolution against those 'relative absolute' behaviors? Is there NO environmental behaviors that can alter these?

It is not about belief but about the existence the factual existence of the moral fact.

Note the concept and fact of 'inbreeding avoidance' is inherent as a mental state within all humans and in most animals.

Inbreeding avoidance, or the inbreeding avoidance hypothesis, is a concept in evolutionary biology that refers to the prevention of the deleterious effects of inbreeding.
The inbreeding avoidance hypothesis posits that certain mechanisms develop within a species, or within a given population of a species, as a result of assortative mating, natural and sexual selection in order to prevent breeding among related individuals in that species or population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance

The above certain mechanisms are represented by a neural algorithm that maintain such inhibitory impulses to incest.

This is why incest is a moral issue, i.e. "no human ought to produce children with their closest kin".

Humans being human and nature being not perfect will trigger incestuous relations in SOME people due to defects from the norm.
Despite defects in some people, we cannot deny the inherent a neural algorithm that maintain such inhibitory impulses to incest exists inherent within the brain of all humans.

I am not going into gene that effect one to kill.
Like the 'inbreeding avoidance' inhibitory mental program, there is an inherent inhibitory program to ensure humans do not kill other humans.
Humanity have not mapped this mental program yet, but could do so in the future given the trend of improvements within the Human Connectome Project.

But we can infer the workings of this inhibitory programs from its defects in those suffering from psychopathy and other illness that weaken the inherent inhibition to kill.
Neuroscientist at present used the diagnostic methods to infer the existence of such an inhibitory program and note its defects based on damage to certain parts of the brain.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:38 am It is not about belief but about the existence the factual existence of the moral fact.

Note the concept and fact of 'inbreeding avoidance' is inherent as a mental state within all humans and in most animals.

Inbreeding avoidance, or the inbreeding avoidance hypothesis, is a concept in evolutionary biology that refers to the prevention of the deleterious effects of inbreeding.
The inbreeding avoidance hypothesis posits that certain mechanisms develop within a species, or within a given population of a species, as a result of assortative mating, natural and sexual selection in order to prevent breeding among related individuals in that species or population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance

The above certain mechanisms are represented by a neural algorithm that maintain such inhibitory impulses to incest.

This is why incest is a moral issue, i.e. "no human ought to produce children with their closest kin".

Humans being human and nature being not perfect will trigger incestuous relations in SOME people due to defects from the norm.
Despite defects in some people, we cannot deny the inherent a neural algorithm that maintain such inhibitory impulses to incest exists inherent within the brain of all humans.

I am not going into gene that effect one to kill.
Like the 'inbreeding avoidance' inhibitory mental program, there is an inherent inhibitory program to ensure humans do not kill other humans.
Humanity have not mapped this mental program yet, but could do so in the future given the trend of improvements within the Human Connectome Project.

But we can infer the workings of this inhibitory programs from its defects in those suffering from psychopathy and other illness that weaken the inherent inhibition to kill.
Neuroscientist at present used the diagnostic methods to infer the existence of such an inhibitory program and note its defects based on damage to certain parts of the brain.

This is just untrue. The ONLY reason incest is tabooed is due to our intellectual knowledge of genetic defects of offspring and to our evolved social structure that demands mental stability to children in a world that goes against Nature when we were in the wild. Incest is also only a relatively recent phenomena for humanity [ie, human settled populations (civilization)]. But even closer relations were the norm up to the 20th Century. The play MacBeth by Shakespear was actually based upon a real King who had literal defects due to just such inbreeding. Also animals inbreed where their normal groups are localized in regions the species are dying out.

Another point: if one is adopted outside of their genetic family, even siblings have been discovered to have sexually mated!

As to how we are constantly raising the age of sexual consent more and more, this too is only about our cultural adaptations to civilization.


I think you still would be best to try to argue for the practical consequences rather than directly try to target the supposed genetic issues you think exist that are impossible to prove nor disprove directly. At least for your intent to find resolution to ethical dilemmas, you could still reach your goal AND use science regarding relative effectiveness and optimization. The areas of the social sciences (not exact 'sciences') would be more appropriate. Issues of morality are political. Anything else is just an expression of some religious preferences.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:46 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:38 am It is not about belief but about the existence the factual existence of the moral fact.

Note the concept and fact of 'inbreeding avoidance' is inherent as a mental state within all humans and in most animals.

Inbreeding avoidance, or the inbreeding avoidance hypothesis, is a concept in evolutionary biology that refers to the prevention of the deleterious effects of inbreeding.
The inbreeding avoidance hypothesis posits that certain mechanisms develop within a species, or within a given population of a species, as a result of assortative mating, natural and sexual selection in order to prevent breeding among related individuals in that species or population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance

The above certain mechanisms are represented by a neural algorithm that maintain such inhibitory impulses to incest.

This is why incest is a moral issue, i.e. "no human ought to produce children with their closest kin".

Humans being human and nature being not perfect will trigger incestuous relations in SOME people due to defects from the norm.
Despite defects in some people, we cannot deny the inherent a neural algorithm that maintain such inhibitory impulses to incest exists inherent within the brain of all humans.

I am not going into gene that effect one to kill.
Like the 'inbreeding avoidance' inhibitory mental program, there is an inherent inhibitory program to ensure humans do not kill other humans.
Humanity have not mapped this mental program yet, but could do so in the future given the trend of improvements within the Human Connectome Project.

But we can infer the workings of this inhibitory programs from its defects in those suffering from psychopathy and other illness that weaken the inherent inhibition to kill.
Neuroscientist at present used the diagnostic methods to infer the existence of such an inhibitory program and note its defects based on damage to certain parts of the brain.

This is just untrue. The ONLY reason incest is tabooed is due to our intellectual knowledge of genetic defects of offspring and to our evolved social structure that demands mental stability to children in a world that goes against Nature when we were in the wild. Incest is also only a relatively recent phenomena for humanity [ie, human settled populations (civilization)]. But even closer relations were the norm up to the 20th Century. The play MacBeth by Shakespear was actually based upon a real King who had literal defects due to just such inbreeding. Also animals inbreed where their normal groups are localized in regions the species are dying out.

Another point: if one is adopted outside of their genetic family, even siblings have been discovered to have sexually mated!

As to how we are constantly raising the age of sexual consent more and more, this too is only about our cultural adaptations to civilization.

Are you saying that the majority of the 7+ billion on Earth do not f..k around with their mother, sisters, siblings, have orgies and other sexual incestuous relationship is because in your words;

• Scott Mayers wrote:The ONLY reason incest is tabooed is due to our intellectual knowledge of genetic defects of offspring and to our evolved social structure that demands mental stability to children in a world that goes against Nature when we were in the wild.

Obviously your point indicate a lack of knowledge.

By default humans are naturally and unconsciously be indifferent to sex with one's parents, children or siblings. Incest only happened due to some defects in the interbreeding-avoidance algorithm or forced into it due to circumstances, e.g. when the tribe is too small to optimize survival. In certain circumstances it due to traditions which originated from various selfish reasons, e.g. marrying of cousins to keep landed properties within a clan or the security of royalties.

I think you still would be best to try to argue for the practical consequences rather than directly try to target the supposed genetic issues you think exist that are impossible to prove nor disprove directly. At least for your intent to find resolution to ethical dilemmas, you could still reach your goal AND use science regarding relative effectiveness and optimization. The areas of the social sciences (not exact 'sciences') would be more appropriate. Issues of morality are political. Anything else is just an expression of some religious preferences.

Whatever reference to consequences [effects], it is only rational to seek root causes and grounds to support whatever the knowledge claims.

By default, whilst there are some overlapping, morality is independent of politics and religion.

Note the following threads on the fundamentals of morality and ethics;

Why Morality? Free Will and Self-Consciousness
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30287

All Moral State-of-affairs are Mental States which are all Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30285

My points on morality are not confined to genetics but derived from a convergence of multi-disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, psychiatry, biology, neurociences, evolutionary psychology, socio-biology, social science, cognitive science, moral psychology, neuro-psychology, linguistics, philosophy [critical], even artificial intelligence and others.

Whatever the resulting claims, they all must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:47 am I don't follow how Noam Chompski's language studies relate and knowing that he actually would share my opinion (being atheist), cannot see he would agree to whatever attempted use of his ideas on morality would relate either.

He does, in fact, agree. Chomsky has argued for innate morality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i63_kAw3WmE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu_jOfPpiD0

The relevance follows from the Universal grammar. Trivially - nobody can define language but everybody can recognise language.

Philosophers keep confusing undefinability with non-existence.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:45 am Are you saying that the majority of the 7+ billion on Earth do not f..k around with their mother, sisters, siblings, have orgies and other sexual incestuous relationship is because in your words;

• Scott Mayers wrote:The ONLY reason incest is tabooed is due to our intellectual knowledge of genetic defects of offspring and to our evolved social structure that demands mental stability to children in a world that goes against Nature when we were in the wild.

Obviously your point indicate a lack of knowledge.

By default humans are naturally and unconsciously be indifferent to sex with one's parents, children or siblings. Incest only happened due to some defects in the interbreeding-avoidance algorithm or forced into it due to circumstances, e.g. when the tribe is too small to optimize survival. In certain circumstances it due to traditions which originated from various selfish reasons, e.g. marrying of cousins to keep landed properties within a clan or the security of royalties.

You make up a lot of 'proprietary' phrases that don't make sense. "Interbreeding-avoidance algorithm"? An algorithm is a mechanical mechanism.

It is as I said. You are attempting to install religion without using the word and falsely making out that there is something 'scientific' to your endeavor.

Ask yourself this: If you are adopted, do you believe that you KNOW by some magical intuition THAT some stranger is your relative? Furthermore, if your adopted parents didn't inform you of being adopted, do you have some internal mechanism to KNOW they are NOT?

You are blind to the power of one's environment. You require proving how an adopted person (an environmental factor) necessarily 'feels' their genetic siblings out without knowing them first. For some stranger without environmental input, how otherwise can you 'know' it is not right to sleep with them unless you are proposing magical intuition and mind reading into anothers genes.

I think you still would be best to try to argue for the practical consequences rather than directly try to target the supposed genetic issues you think exist that are impossible to prove nor disprove directly. At least for your intent to find resolution to ethical dilemmas, you could still reach your goal AND use science regarding relative effectiveness and optimization. The areas of the social sciences (not exact 'sciences') would be more appropriate. Issues of morality are political. Anything else is just an expression of some religious preferences.

Whatever reference to consequences [effects], it is only rational to seek root causes and grounds to support whatever the knowledge claims.

By default, whilst there are some overlapping, morality is independent of politics and religion.

Says you. You are begging this disconnection where it suits your beliefs. "Politics" is the behavior of one or more persons to propose rules of conduct among them by debating, negiating, and enforcing the agreed-to proposals. "Religion" is purely motivated by the recognition that morals cannot exist without some higher authority by Nature. This is why they fear NOT being religious. The reason for their institution is all about the belief that morals ARE inbred in us by some Nature (ie, God) and that if you are not willing to accept moral conducts passed through their religion and god, you would have no means to prevent ANY behavior.

You are begging that if one disagrees with your idea of universal morality, that they can't possibly have any counter beliefs that are sane enough to be included and so is safe to dismiss. But this is counter to the idea of 'science' because you are only looking at the science that would support your view.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:39 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:47 am I don't follow how Noam Chompski's language studies relate and knowing that he actually would share my opinion (being atheist), cannot see he would agree to whatever attempted use of his ideas on morality would relate either.

He does, in fact, agree. Chomsky has argued for innate morality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i63_kAw3WmE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu_jOfPpiD0

The relevance follows from the Universal grammar. Trivially - nobody can define language but everybody can recognise language.

Philosophers keep confusing undefinability with non-existence.

You are granting Chompski's authority beyond his credit. The 'generative grammar/syntax' method is what he is qualified on that deals only with taking arbitrary sentences by people's use to induce by a trial and error process what is common to all languages. This has nothing whatsoever to do with specific meanings of sentences but of determining whether all languages share a logical foundation to each other. His concept of 'generation' is to set up working definitions and/or postulates based on particular sentences, then, if he finds that something doesn't work, he UPDATES (regenerates) those definitions and axioms in the way laws are now formally created.

If you were to apply this to morality, you might begin with a statement like,

(Moral 1.0) Everyone knows that it is wrong to kill.

Then you seek counter evidence by asking people if they agree. If you find ONE such person, then this statement is falsified and you must restate (regenerate) the presumed moral by changing it then upgrade it. So, pretending this was a test case, you might discover some person who does not think it wrong to kill and thus makes this statement not universally agreed to by meaning. Then you update it:

(Moral 1.1) Some people know that it is wrong to kill.

Then you investigate the meaning. Do some people actually 'not know' that it is wrong to kill and WHO gets to decide the validity of what is or is not wrong without convening to discuss. If one kills, are THEY the ones who don't 'know'? Given this statement is a proposed (tested) moral law, what relevance is this as a 'moral'? That is, this statement appears not to suggest what is right or wrong as a 'moral' but to state something about knowlege capacity. This sentence is at least not agreed to universally and thus we must again change the statement.

This is what Chompski would be referring to as a means to apply a method to narrow down what may POSSIBLY be unversal about morality. And it is a great idea. But you wouldn't be able to eliminate those who have different counter opintion on what they believe is or is not 'mora'. The mere disagreement suffices to demonstrate that whatever rule of conduct proposed is non-universal CANNOT be one of these supposed 'universal' standards of morality.

But his method was an adaptation from how politics makes laws and suggests then, counter to the proposal about universality, that rules of conduct are 'political', not universal.