The Language Faculty Analogous to The Moral Faculty?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Note again,

• 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#

Note "certain mechanisms" mentioned above.

I understand the term 'algorithm' is commonly used within computer or mathematical perspective, but the term basically mean 'a set of procedures and processes' which I think can be easily be understood if used in relation to neural processes in the human brain. I used the term 'algorithm' in the biological and neural sense as a convenience instead wasting time to explain the neural connectivity and networks in the brain.

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.

It is insulting to use the term 'religion' here.
I stated this neural network or moral algorithm can be verified, justified and tested scientifically within a moral framework and system.

Note this clue re 'ought-not' to kill moral algorithm in the brain.
All humans are 'programmed' with the kill impulse, but yet the majority don't simply kill another human but regard such as evil.
As such it can be inferred there must be such inhibitory moral algorithm in the brain that inhibit one from killing another human which is yet to be mapped precisely.
However it is evident where there are damage to this network connectivity, e.g. as in psychopaths they are incline to simply [without justifiable reasons] kill other humans.
At present this fact is studied under the social sciences but it is moving towards the neurosciences.

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.

The default is all humans are 'programmed' with the interbreeding avoidance mechanism or algorithm.
However this algorithm works within certain conditions i.e. when parents and siblings grow up together. In such ordinary cases, the interbreeding avoidance algorithm will have inputs of data on who are their parents and who are their children or siblings.

This is why those adopted and eventually who meet up with their siblings or parents are likely to end up with incestuous relationships as evident. This is because the whole psyche of the distanced related persons were not registered in the interbreeding-avoidance system.

Btw, if the interbreeding-avoidance algorithm is weakened or damaged, even those who are well aware of who their parents, children and siblings are, they could also commit incest.

How come you do not think of the above before jumping to conclusion.

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.

Note the respective definitions of;

• Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.
  -wiki
  
  Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements.
  -wiki
  While religions do contain supposedly moral issues, the main focus of religion is on the soteriological issues, i.e. about death and the afterlife.
  
  Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.
  -wiki

It is obvious from the above morality has to be an independent issue because morality is also applicable to the non-theistic and non-religious.
When one researched deeply and extensively in the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics, religions and politics are merely matters of drops-in-an-ocean.

I am looking to science to back my moral facts because science is the most credible framework and system in terms of facts, truth and knowledge.

Your dismissal of science in this case only show you are the one who is incline to lesser truths. Are you anti-Science btw?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

[/quote]
I wonder you had even opened the links, i.e.

Chomsky on moral relativism, cultural relativism and innate moral values.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i63_kAw3WmE

Noam Chomsky - Innate Moral Principles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu_jOfPpiD0

or have listened carefully to the videos before you comment.

Basically Chompski believes there is an innate algorithm for grammar and language in all humans and this is embedded in the DNA/RNA.
He is using the above algorithm as an analogy for an innate moral function within the human brain.

He also mentioned about the innate visual system of humans where the fundamental structures and operations are the same and generic for all humans but there are variations in its adaptions to various environment and conditions.

[Skepdick]

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.

This is an analytical/reductionist rationalisation. Forget logic/formalities/linguistics/semantics.

Humans have an innate ability to learn/recognise language. Even if it is not a language you speak/understand the meaning of you can tell that people are speaking Russian (for example) just by listening to them speak. Your ability to do that cannot be boiled down to a "working definition of Russian" - your pattern-matching brain circuitry does it for you.

We are perfectly capable of speaking about such things coherently and holistically without the constant Philosophical idiocy of having to synthesise definitions for everything.

(blah blah blah)

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.

Your strawman is so far off the mark it gives away the fact you didn't watch either video.

[Scott Mayers]

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.

Note again,

• 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#

Note "certain mechanisms" mentioned above.

I understand the term 'algorithm' is commonly used within computer or mathematical perspective, but the term basically mean 'a set of procedures and processes' which I think can be easily be understood if used in relation to neural processes in the human brain. I used the term 'algorithm' in the biological and neural sense as a convenience instead wasting time to explain the neural connectivity and networks in the brain.

I already explained the 'algorithm' on a general basis I will re-express as:
(1) We are genetically born with a neural system that EVOLVES complex behaviors by first having a generic type mechanism that holds an empty variable space to act on.
(2) The variable to be filled into this mechanism requires an open period (window or interval of time) that enables the variables to change with ease up to some point that closes and fixes this variable as a relative 'constant'. This is the 'value' represening something the generic mechanism is assigning to. [...like an open sentence, "I like X", or "I dislike X", where X is defined by the environment.]
(3) Lock in the mechanism by pruning optional connections to make the behavior more automatic. [For "I like X", an X = "my caregiver/mother".] This could accidentally have an assignment that locks in a feeling that is countereffective within the present environment. [For "I like X" might be an X = "cutting myself"]

This suffices to express an 'algorithm' that assigns any value-based concept that includes physical sensation as well as internal logic regarding thought.

You reverse the means of understanding by presuming up front that the 'values' as pre-assigned, regardless of complexity and that you want to seek a process that leads to this as though you've established definitively that Nature has unique values, called morals, that are fixed prior to experience. I'm guessing you believe we can go against these fixed evaluations but then you'd have to accept my 'algorithm' above but with some means to knock out that pre-assigned value to change it. This would prove to reduce to assuming we are all born with 'good/bad moral rules' but may be able to undo them.

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.

It is insulting to use the term 'religion' here.
I stated this neural network or moral algorithm can be verified, justified and tested scientifically within a moral framework and system.

Note this clue re 'ought-not' to kill moral algorithm in the brain.
All humans are 'programmed' with the kill impulse, but yet the majority don't simply kill another human but regard such as evil.
As such it can be inferred there must be such inhibitory moral algorithm in the brain that inhibit one from killing another human which is yet to be mapped precisely.
However it is evident where there are damage to this network connectivity, e.g. as in psychopaths they are incline to simply [without justifiable reasons] kill other humans.
At present this fact is studied under the social sciences but it is moving towards the neurosciences.

I'm pointing out the 'religiousity' in this precisely because I see you thinking that we are born in a type of fixed way to complex behavior that lacks experience before hand. For instance, it might be true that I would like heroine if I took it. Since I have no direct experience of the drug, would it be appropriate to say that I'm pre-addicted to heroine as an internal value, where "addiction" here is understood to mean I necessarily require also it to be satisfied or prevent feeling sad or to be sick. To me arguing that morals are inbred in us is comparable to presuming someone can mind-read intuitively, an type of action-at-a-distance that might be considered dubious without proving it exists first.

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.

The default is all humans are 'programmed' with the interbreeding avoidance mechanism or algorithm.

This is your postulate that I don't accept. Let's assume 'God' as a postulate. Then your logic might be like expecting this unproven or unaccepted assumption to be true to begin with formulating a logical argument or supporting 'science' that supports the very postulate. If you begin with it the assumption, you aren't using the system of reasoning (logic/science/math) to prove that postulate because it is preassumed. You might use it to narrow down some other rational conclusion that follows conditionally but you can't expect the system of reasoning to circle around to prove it is true outside of this 'game'.

However this algorithm works within certain conditions i.e. when parents and siblings grow up together. In such ordinary cases, the interbreeding avoidance algorithm will have inputs of data on who are their parents and who are their children or siblings.

This is why those adopted and eventually who meet up with their siblings or parents are likely to end up with incestuous relationships as evident. This is because the whole psyche of the distanced related persons were not registered in the interbreeding-avoidance system.

Btw, if the interbreeding-avoidance algorithm is weakened or damaged, even those who are well aware of who their parents, children and siblings are, they could also commit incest.

How come you do not think of the above before jumping to conclusion.

The prior answers my concern. What you express here recognizes the environment as defining the roles as I did in my above 'algorithm'. If you accept this, you don't require actual universal rules that define 'morals', just the social conditioning that can enable the environment to assign the ones that are most desired by those in power to enforce them. This requires a social science, like politics, interpersonal psychology, sociology, and, of course, the forces needed to create and fix rules such as religion serves to do for many. [Without religion to assign fixed ideals, you need politics of some sort.]

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.

Note the respective definitions of;

• Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.
  -wiki
  
  Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements.
  -wiki
  While religions do contain supposedly moral issues, the main focus of religion is on the soteriological issues, i.e. about death and the afterlife.
  
  Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.
  -wiki

It is obvious from the above morality has to be an independent issue because morality is also applicable to the non-theistic and non-religious.
When one researched deeply and extensively in the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics, religions and politics are merely matters of drops-in-an-ocean.

I am looking to science to back my moral facts because science is the most credible framework and system in terms of facts, truth and knowledge.

Your dismissal of science in this case only show you are the one who is incline to lesser truths. Are you anti-Science btw?

I understand the distinction of the words. But morality without religion requires a social appeal to those who are not religious regardless. This is what is meant by politics. The 'decisions' (to use the term in the definition of "politics" you give) to declare some moral belief can only be negotiated upon and then enforced when you deal with more than one or two people. That is why I think you'd have to do that.

You can use science at best to demonstrate effectiveness to the goals you politically/socially/pychologically decided upon for setting up a standard of conduct. You might try to find some scientific means to say, calm someone down in a volitile situation by a chemical or drug. You can use it to show effectiveness of some conditional expectation of etiquette: perhaps for instance you want to show how touch affects a change in behavior in some significant way that could alter how some communication is or is not effective.

The 'science' here would be more social than anything and so still entails politics.

Religion and politics are not mere drops of water in an ocean. They are the two mechanisms to negotiate (where possible) and enforce which behaviors will be defined as 'moral' versus 'immoral' conduct. You assume rules of conduct (as morals) are still 'rules' by some Nature that independently derives regardless of negotiating and enforcing. The religious treat the rule's Nature as set in stone where politics permits inclusion of people to freely negotiate and create the rules. Both enforce them in some way.

[ "Anti-science"? No, I'm for appropriate categorization. Morality is just an artifact of culture and is thus relatively arbitrary to conditional circumstances. I also interpret 'science' to mean the logic of observations and, with respect to this topic, it is limited to strict induction for issues of social factors, especially statistical and INEXACT with respect to the hard sciences like physics and chemistry, etc.]

[Scott Mayers]

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.

I wonder you had even opened the links, i.e.

Chomsky on moral relativism, cultural relativism and innate moral values.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i63_kAw3WmE

Noam Chomsky - Innate Moral Principles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu_jOfPpiD0

or have listened carefully to the videos before you comment.

Basically Chompski believes there is an innate algorithm for grammar and language in all humans and this is embedded in the DNA/RNA.
He is using the above algorithm as an analogy for an innate moral function within the human brain.

He also mentioned about the innate visual system of humans where the fundamental structures and operations are the same and generic for all humans but there are variations in its adaptions to various environment and conditions.

I listened a few minutes of one. But I mentioned that this topic goes beyond what he is credited for. I actually read on his linguistic area of expertise and he often goes beyond it more often than not. I demonstrated what his contribution related to by his generative grammar/syntax formulation that argued how to use a type of scientific process to attempt to determine universal structures of language. Note that if he assumes innate moral principles, I disagree. If he is suggesting that one can use his process for language as a tool, I believe you can. But it cannot determine THAT some universal moral 'faculty' (meaning a literal functioning place) in the brain holds information about 'morals'. There is a complex set of brain functions that operate more generally that deals with assignments. Because this 'assigning' process is universal without concern to some fixed standard of morals that are complex and related to data from higher parts of our brain dealing with particular experiences, the area of concern would be the primative (non-cortex) areas that Broca's language area has.

The difference is between higher software languages versus hardwired machine language. You are seeking a low-order machine-like language that is actually about the higher-order software languages of which these are potentially unlimited on a universal hardware of one specific architecture. Broca's area is more like an input cartridge slot in something like a game console. The hardware of that area deals with a common interface of software regarding SOME significant aspects of language, but not all. Nor does it require being where it is for all possible animals that could evolve. The hypocampus and other core areas that deal with feelings used to motivate fight-or-flight responses is more of what deals with conducting arbitrary environmental factors that open, assign, and fix those feelings, where the higher cortex is the storage space. Particular areas of the cortex are likely assigned BY those lower order brain funtions to separate the memory space into 'segments' , like program space, data, and stack (for computers). The areas that get assigned to language doesn't care WHICH language, such as French or English, are involved. So given this, the nature of particular morals, IF given its own segment, would still not demonstrate particularmoral conduct rules universally, like whether it might be considered appropriate to use your right hand for shaking a person's hand or not when greeting someone in a business meet. The logic of some form of greeting versus none as a code of conduct might be environmentally effective. But the cortex takes information about the environment, not some fixed hardware logic genetically set from birth.

In fact, if the window of development discovers no use of some particular function, it would reassign that segment for some other use. For instance, if you are blinded during the devoloment period, when closed, that part of the brain that normally gets used for sight would adapt to be used for other data.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

Note again,

• 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#

Note "certain mechanisms" mentioned above.

I understand the term 'algorithm' is commonly used within computer or mathematical perspective, but the term basically mean 'a set of procedures and processes' which I think can be easily be understood if used in relation to neural processes in the human brain. I used the term 'algorithm' in the biological and neural sense as a convenience instead wasting time to explain the neural connectivity and networks in the brain.

I already explained the 'algorithm' on a general basis I will re-express as:
(1) We are genetically born with a neural system that EVOLVES complex behaviors by first having a generic type mechanism that holds an empty variable space to act on.
(2) The variable to be filled into this mechanism requires an open period (window or interval of time) that enables the variables to change with ease up to some point that closes and fixes this variable as a relative 'constant'. This is the 'value' represening something the generic mechanism is assigning to. [...like an open sentence, "I like X", or "I dislike X", where X is defined by the environment.]
(3) Lock in the mechanism by pruning optional connections to make the behavior more automatic. [For "I like X", an X = "my caregiver/mother".] This could accidentally have an assignment that locks in a feeling that is countereffective within the present environment. [For "I like X" might be an X = "cutting myself"]

This suffices to express an 'algorithm' that assigns any value-based concept that includes physical sensation as well as internal logic regarding thought.

You reverse the means of understanding by presuming up front that the 'values' as pre-assigned, regardless of complexity and that you want to seek a process that leads to this as though you've established definitively that Nature has unique values, called morals, that are fixed prior to experience. I'm guessing you believe we can go against these fixed evaluations but then you'd have to accept my 'algorithm' above but with some means to knock out that pre-assigned value to change it. This would prove to reduce to assuming we are all born with 'good/bad moral rules' but may be able to undo them.

So we agree there is an algorithm as stated above.

'Value' is a very loose term, so I would prefer to leave it aside for the moment.

Note the analogy of the algorithm 'all human ought to breathe' which is undeniable, else they will die.
Here we have the generic mechanism of the 'ought to breathe' [to get in oxygen and expelling CO2] but human can vary the ways and techniques of breathing. There hundreds of techniques on how to breathe most efficiently.
But what is the core and fundamental is the need to breathe for oxygen and expelling CO2.

Whilst breathing is very obvious [that is why i used it as an analogy], what is not obvious is human has evolved with the moral algorithm that has its fundamental core as represented by an algorithm.
Like that of the algorithm of breathing the basic structure and principles of the moral algorithm is embedded prior to experience [a posteriori] but emerged upon a priori from past collective experiences of the species and imperative necessities of human nature.

"Interbreeding avoidance" is one example of a moral fact represented by a network of neurons, but what is more critical are those related to killing, rape, violence and other terrible evil acts.

Note ALL humans by nature are born with the very necessary algorithm of the instinct to kill for food and security, and this program is very primal thus cannot be changed [at least till another 500 years if there is any possibility] since it is embedded in the DNA. Surely you are not going to deny this fact?

All living non-humans are also programmed to kill for food and security but they are driven by instincts thus their killing is restricted by instincts [with exceptions].
BUT humans are endowed with self-consciousness and freewill for good reasons but this freewill if not effectively inhibited can let loose the inherent 'to kill' algorithm, thus this is a potential evil within humans which is so evident in reality.
Thus Nature has triggered via evolution the emergence of the moral faculty to modulate the freewill with an algorithmic subroutine of 'ought-not to kill another human' for food, security and when triggered by other reasons [rage, jealousy, greed, etc.].

This moral faculty is not very active in the majority of people, thus so many killings and evil acts are being committed by people, but the trend is this moral faculty is unfolding and progressing slowly as evident in reality.

Thus the task of humanity is to facilitate people like you who are ignorant of the inherent moral faculty to be more knowledgeable of it so that together humanity can expedite the progress of the moral competence of the average person.

It is insulting to use the term 'religion' here.
I stated this neural network or moral algorithm can be verified, justified and tested scientifically within a moral framework and system.

Note this clue re 'ought-not' to kill moral algorithm in the brain.
All humans are 'programmed' with the kill impulse, but yet the majority don't simply kill another human but regard such as evil.
As such it can be inferred there must be such inhibitory moral algorithm in the brain that inhibit one from killing another human which is yet to be mapped precisely.
However it is evident where there are damage to this network connectivity, e.g. as in psychopaths they are incline to simply [without justifiable reasons] kill other humans.
At present this fact is studied under the social sciences but it is moving towards the neurosciences.

I'm pointing out the 'religiousity' in this precisely because I see you thinking that we are born in a type of fixed way to complex behavior that lacks experience before hand. For instance, it might be true that I would like heroine if I took it. Since I have no direct experience of the drug, would it be appropriate to say that I'm pre-addicted to heroine as an internal value, where "addiction" here is understood to mean I necessarily require also it to be satisfied or prevent feeling sad or to be sick. To me arguing that morals are inbred in us is comparable to presuming someone can mind-read intuitively, an type of action-at-a-distance that might be considered dubious without proving it exists first.

You got it wrong.
Religiousity and theism refer to those detailed commands and precepts handed down from a God [illusory] and all believers must comply or else they will go to hell.
The other fixed moral values are those from Plato.
I DON'T BELIEVE in any of these.

Like the analogy of 'ought to breathe, else die' the moral faculty with its structures and principles and core moral standards which are primal and evolved out of necessity of being human.
Note my explanation above.

The default is all humans are 'programmed' with the interbreeding avoidance mechanism or algorithm.

This is your postulate that I don't accept. Let's assume 'God' as a postulate. Then your logic might be like expecting this unproven or unaccepted assumption to be true to begin with formulating a logical argument or supporting 'science' that supports the very postulate. If you begin with it the assumption, you aren't using the system of reasoning (logic/science/math) to prove that postulate because it is preassumed. You might use it to narrow down some other rational conclusion that follows conditionally but you can't expect the system of reasoning to circle around to prove it is true outside of this 'game'.

God is a bad example to justify your point.
God is an impossibility to be real thus cannot be verified empirically nor philosophically. Note my thread;
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

The interbreeding avoidance algorithm had been recognized intuitively and is empirically based and had been verified with evidences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance#
It is a matter of time humanity will be able to map the neurons for this algorithm and demonstrate it with more convincing tests and results.

However this algorithm works within certain conditions i.e. when parents and siblings grow up together. In such ordinary cases, the interbreeding avoidance algorithm will have inputs of data on who are their parents and who are their children or siblings.

This is why those adopted and eventually who meet up with their siblings or parents are likely to end up with incestuous relationships as evident. This is because the whole psyche of the distanced related persons were not registered in the interbreeding-avoidance system.

Btw, if the interbreeding-avoidance algorithm is weakened or damaged, even those who are well aware of who their parents, children and siblings are, they could also commit incest.

How come you do not think of the above before jumping to conclusion.

The prior answers my concern. What you express here recognizes the environment as defining the roles as I did in my above 'algorithm'.
If you accept this, you don't require actual universal rules that define 'morals', just the social conditioning that can enable the environment to assign the ones that are most desired by those in power to enforce them.
This requires a social science, like politics, interpersonal psychology, sociology, and, of course, the forces needed to create and fix rules such as religion serves to do for many. [Without religion to assign fixed ideals, you need politics of some sort.]

You seem to be in the mold of trying to revert Science back into Philosophy whence once they were the same eons ago.
The Philosophy of Morality and Ethics has long been recognized as a very specialized field and a human function. Do a deeper research into it.

Note my discussion of specific Framework and System of Knowledge producing specific facts.
Morality and Ethics is a very serious field [in a quagmire at present] that has to be dealt within its own Framework and System of Knowledge, i.e. the Moral Framework and System that provide the necessary organization, structure, processes, principles, assumptions, limitations, etc. just like how the Scientific Framework and System is working to such high efficiency in terms of degrees of veracity.

I understand the distinction of the words. But morality without religion requires a social appeal to those who are not religious regardless. This is what is meant by politics. The 'decisions' (to use the term in the definition of "politics" you give) to declare some moral belief can only be negotiated upon and then enforced when you deal with more than one or two people. That is why I think you'd have to do that.

You can use science at best to demonstrate effectiveness to the goals you politically/socially/pychologically decided upon for setting up a standard of conduct. You might try to find some scientific means to say, calm someone down in a volitile situation by a chemical or drug. You can use it to show effectiveness of some conditional expectation of etiquette: perhaps for instance you want to show how touch affects a change in behavior in some significant way that could alter how some communication is or is not effective.

The 'science' here would be more social than anything and so still entails politics.

Religion and politics are not mere drops of water in an ocean. They are the two mechanisms to negotiate (where possible) and enforce which behaviors will be defined as 'moral' versus 'immoral' conduct. You assume rules of conduct (as morals) are still 'rules' by some Nature that independently derives regardless of negotiating and enforcing. The religious treat the rule's Nature as set in stone where politics permits inclusion of people to freely negotiate and create the rules. Both enforce them in some way.

[ "Anti-science"? No, I'm for appropriate categorization. Morality is just an artifact of culture and is thus relatively arbitrary to conditional circumstances. I also interpret 'science' to mean the logic of observations and, with respect to this topic, it is limited to strict induction for issues of social factors, especially statistical and INEXACT with respect to the hard sciences like physics and chemistry, etc.]

You mean, if morality not in religion, then should be in Politics?
Nazism, communism, fascism, democracy, socialism are the real politics with their inherent elements of evils. Politics is by default dirty.

Morality and Ethics are solely about 'good' which mean avoiding all evils.
Morality and Evil cannot be politicized with politics and get itself entangled with evil.

Like the independence of Science from Philosophy, it is critical and urgent to ensure Morality & Ethics stand on their own feet/grounds and Framework and System. Surely this would be a sign of progress for humanity but you seem to prefer the status quo and regress.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I listened a few minutes of one. But I mentioned that this topic goes beyond what he is credited for. I actually read on his linguistic area of expertise and he often goes beyond it more often than not. I demonstrated what his contribution related to by his generative grammar/syntax formulation that argued how to use a type of scientific process to attempt to determine universal structures of language. Note that if he assumes innate moral principles, I disagree. If he is suggesting that one can use his process for language as a tool, I believe you can. But it cannot determine THAT some universal moral 'faculty' (meaning a literal functioning place) in the brain holds information about 'morals'. There is a complex set of brain functions that operate more generally that deals with assignments. Because this 'assigning' process is universal without concern to some fixed standard of morals that are complex and related to data from higher parts of our brain dealing with particular experiences, the area of concern would be the primative (non-cortex) areas that Broca's language area has.

The difference is between higher software languages versus hardwired machine language. You are seeking a low-order machine-like language that is actually about the higher-order software languages of which these are potentially unlimited on a universal hardware of one specific architecture. Broca's area is more like an input cartridge slot in something like a game console. The hardware of that area deals with a common interface of software regarding SOME significant aspects of language, but not all. Nor does it require being where it is for all possible animals that could evolve. The hypocampus and other core areas that deal with feelings used to motivate fight-or-flight responses is more of what deals with conducting arbitrary environmental factors that open, assign, and fix those feelings, where the higher cortex is the storage space. Particular areas of the cortex are likely assigned BY those lower order brain funtions to separate the memory space into 'segments' , like program space, data, and stack (for computers). The areas that get assigned to language doesn't care WHICH language, such as French or English, are involved. So given this, the nature of particular morals, IF given its own segment, would still not demonstrate particularmoral conduct rules universally, like whether it might be considered appropriate to use your right hand for shaking a person's hand or not when greeting someone in a business meet. The logic of some form of greeting versus none as a code of conduct might be environmentally effective. But the cortex takes information about the environment, not some fixed hardware logic genetically set from birth.

In fact, if the window of development discovers no use of some particular function, it would reassign that segment for some other use. For instance, if you are blinded during the devoloment period, when closed, that part of the brain that normally gets used for sight would adapt to be used for other data.

As I had stated I don't agree with Chomspky totally especially the details of it but merely that language and grammar is somewhat innate.

Haven't you read of The Broca's Area in 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

You dispute the above??

I believe there are other inherent parts related to language acquisition and efficiency that all humans are born with a priori.

Some parts of the brain belong to the same senses or basic functions are pliable and flexible i.e. can interchange if one part is weakened or damage.
This is why synaethesia happens where the neurons of the different senses can connect with each other.

But inter-crossings cannot happen with the major parts of the brain, e.g. if the prefrontal cortex [for planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making, and moderating social behaviour] is damage seriously, that's it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex
One cannot expect the primal brain of primal instincts and primal emotions to take over its function.