What is a Moral Framework and System?

[psycho]

Where is your counter claim?
I omitted to state, psychopathy can also happen after birth when there is brain damage or weakening.

note this link of psychopathy to birth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2-Re_Fl_L4

I guess that you have such an ID you would be very knowledgeable of what psychopathy is, BUT you cannot assume I am ignorant of it.

What is your references to support your claims [you have not provided any].

You propose that psychopathy is the condition suffered by some humans by possessing weak moral inhibitors that fail to prevent their programming from forcing them to kill.

I say that such a thing is not true.

It is up to you to provide the proof of your assertion.

Yes, there as individuals with weak sexual inhibitors who would rape and are sexual deviants, and many other aspects of life other than psychopathy.

It is not clear to me.

Psychopaths are individuals with weak inhibitors or they are not. Or is it another condition that is causing your psychopathy?

The human behaviors are not directly under the control of the will.
One need to will to control the inhibitors in the right degree to the specific conditions to generate the right behavior.

When one is fasting, one will have to use one's will to activate the respective inhibitors to inhibits hunger-pangs during the period of the fast.

That is, do inhibitors exist so that one can apply the will on them and they in turn prevent the program from running?

Do you have any reference (of any kind. Even from Google) that proposes that humans have moral biological inhibitors that are reinforced when human will is applied to them?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Where is your counter claim?
I omitted to state, psychopathy can also happen after birth when there is brain damage or weakening.

note this link of psychopathy to birth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2-Re_Fl_L4

I guess that you have such an ID you would be very knowledgeable of what psychopathy is, BUT you cannot assume I am ignorant of it.

What is your references to support your claims [you have not provided any].

You propose that psychopathy is the condition suffered by some humans by possessing weak moral inhibitors that fail to prevent their programming from forcing them to kill.

I say that such a thing is not true.

It is up to you to provide the proof of your assertion.

Why don't you admit your are ignorant due to laziness to research and explore.

I am very voracious and aggressive is researching, exploring for knowledge and information relevant to my interests. Thus when I assert something it is from what I have read or inferred from them, not picked from the air.

Here is one mentioned of the need to increase inhibiting strength to suppress psychopathic impulses;

One study has shown that psychopaths have a hyperactive reward system
involving the neurotransmitter dopamine [18]. This weakens inhibitory mechanisms
in prefrontal areas of their brains and contributes to their impulsive behavior.

The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) citalopram has been shown to promote prosocial behavior by enhancing harm aversion in healthy volunteers.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24381085/

There are loads of other research papers on the same point.

Yes, there as individuals with weak sexual inhibitors who would rape and are sexual deviants, and many other aspects of life other than psychopathy.

It is not clear to me.

Psychopaths are individuals with weak inhibitors or they are not. Or is it another condition that is causing your psychopathy?

There are many variables contributing to psychopathy but the critical variable are the weak inhibitors connected to those psychopathic variables.

The human behaviors are not directly under the control of the will.
One need to will to control the inhibitors in the right degree to the specific conditions to generate the right behavior.

When one is fasting, one will have to use one's will to activate the respective inhibitors to inhibits hunger-pangs during the period of the fast.

That is, do inhibitors exist so that one can apply the will on them and they in turn prevent the program from running?

Do you have any reference (of any kind. Even from Google) that proposes that humans have moral biological inhibitors that are reinforced when human will is applied to them?

It is not a point that the biological inhibitors are reinforced when human will is applied to them.

There are strong, weak, damaged inhibitors and at the same time strong and weak will and thus the possible combination between these range of variables.
One can apply the will on inhibitors to prevent bad consequences.
A Strong will on strong inhibitors will generate very good results, but a strong will and weak inhibitors will produce limited results.
Damaged inhibitors will not work even if the will is very strong.

You can infer from the article Iinked above, i.e.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24381085/
which states,

• Psychopaths are impaired in both cognitive and affective capacities and in practical and moral reasoning.

The article also assert the existence and the need for inhibitors to control the impulses of psychopathy.
In this article the reference is to rely on medical intervention to increase the strength of the biological inhibitors instead of using the will.

In the normal case, the average person will apply his will [if need to] or his inhibitors if average will spontaneously activate to inhibit the aggression and 'to kill' impulse.

I have not read of the scientific research yet, but there are loads of articles in the internet where psychopaths apply their will to inhibit their psychopathic impulses to stop them from causing harm to others.

[psycho]

Why don't you admit your are ignorant due to laziness to research and explore.

I am very voracious and aggressive is researching, exploring for knowledge and information relevant to my interests. Thus when I assert something it is from what I have read or inferred from them, not picked from the air.

I admit it! I am super ignorant of many things! And I also admit that I am sometimes lazy. But not so much.

But pointing out my ignorance does not resolve the contradictions in your theory.

One must not be so attached to a theory as to disregard its contradictions. The contradictions must be resolved or the theory must be abandoned.

It does not matter who points out the contradiction but whether such a contradiction exists.

Here is one mentioned of the need to increase inhibiting strength to suppress psychopathic impulses;
One study has shown that psychopaths have a hyperactive reward system
involving the neurotransmitter dopamine [18]. This weakens inhibitory mechanisms
in prefrontal areas of their brains and contributes to their impulsive behavior.

The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) citalopram has been shown to promote prosocial behavior by enhancing harm aversion in healthy volunteers.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24381085/
There are loads of other research papers on the same point.

Here it can be clearly seen that what is being tried is to find an effective neurotransmitter in attenuating aspects of psychopathic behavior. In no way is it justified to interpret this as justification for the existence of biological inhibitors that they prevent humans programmed to kill from running such a program. The fact that science looks for a palliative does not show that this palliative is part of a natural biological mechanism that inhibits certain behaviors.

"Abstract
Psychopathy is a disorder involving personality and behavioral features associated with a high rate of violent aggression and recidivism. This paper explores potential psychopharmacological therapies to modulate dysfunctional neural pathways in psychopaths and reduce the incidence of their harmful behavior, as well as the ethical and legal implications of offering these therapies as an alternative to incarceration. It also considers whether forced psychopharmacological intervention in adults and children with psychopathic traits manifesting in violent behavior can be justified. More generally, the paper addresses the question of how to weigh the psychopath's presumptive right to non-interference in his brain and mind against the public interest in avoiding harm."

There are many variables contributing to psychopathy but the critical variable are the weak inhibitors connected to those psychopathic variables.

I do not agree with you. The current scientific consensus interprets that psychopathy is the reflection of a neurological structure different from that of neurotypicals.

In a psychopath, certain parts of the brain have fewer connections to the frontal lobe.

Psychopathy is a spectrum and represents a difference in neurological wiring. Those structures are not correctable.

Psychopathy results in harmful behaviors if the individual does not have the opportunity to develop empathic relationships through learning.

It is not a point that the biological inhibitors are reinforced when human will is applied to them.

There are strong, weak, damaged inhibitors and at the same time strong and weak will and thus the possible combination between these range of variables.
One can apply the will on inhibitors to prevent bad consequences.
A Strong will on strong inhibitors will generate very good results, but a strong will and weak inhibitors will produce limited results.
Damaged inhibitors will not work even if the will is very strong.

You can infer from the article Iinked above, i.e.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24381085/
which states,
Psychopaths are impaired in both cognitive and affective capacities and in practical and moral reasoning.
The article also assert the existence and the need for inhibitors to control the impulses of psychopathy.
In this article the reference is to rely on medical intervention to increase the strength of the biological inhibitors instead of using the will.

In the normal case, the average person will apply his will [if need to] or his inhibitors if average will spontaneously activate to inhibit the aggression and 'to kill' impulse.

I have not read of the scientific research yet, but there are loads of articles in the internet where psychopaths apply their will to inhibit their psychopathic impulses to stop them from causing harm to others.

This is like walking through a swamp. Where you put your foot, you sink.

The alleged interaction between will and inhibitors does not result in an argument.

What percentage is attributed to the will (To determine what would be the will!) And what to the inhibitors? What are the ranges of variation in the supposed inhibitors? How are the different wills measured (!!!)?

In the abstract, no such possibility is named at all. Could you post the part where such a thing is postulated?

"Abstract
Psychopathy is a disorder involving personality and behavioral features associated with a high rate of violent aggression and recidivism. This paper explores potential psychopharmacological therapies to modulate dysfunctional neural pathways in psychopaths and reduce the incidence of their harmful behavior, as well as the ethical and legal implications of offering these therapies as an alternative to incarceration. It also considers whether forced psychopharmacological intervention in adults and children with psychopathic traits manifesting in violent behavior can be justified. More generally, the paper addresses the question of how to weigh the psychopath's presumptive right to non-interference in his brain and mind against the public interest in avoiding harm."

I have not read of the scientific research yet, but there are loads of articles in the internet where psychopaths apply their will to inhibit their psychopathic impulses to stop them from causing harm to others.

It is absurd that you suppose that psychopathy is corrected with the exercise of the person's will.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why don't you admit your are ignorant due to laziness to research and explore.

I am very voracious and aggressive is researching, exploring for knowledge and information relevant to my interests. Thus when I assert something it is from what I have read or inferred from them, not picked from the air.

I admit it! I am super ignorant of many things! And I also admit that I am sometimes lazy. But not so much.

But pointing out my ignorance does not resolve the contradictions in your theory.

One must not be so attached to a theory as to disregard its contradictions. The contradictions must be resolved or the theory must be abandoned.

It does not matter who points out the contradiction but whether such a contradiction exists.

I agree if there are contradictions they should be pointed out, e.g. if someone is claiming a square circle existing or in the likes of p and non-p existing in the same time and same sense.

If you admit you are ignorant in that specific areas, then you should not be insisting I am wrong or not correct but rather you don't know or not sure.

Here is one mentioned of the need to increase inhibiting strength to suppress psychopathic impulses;
One study has shown that psychopaths have a hyperactive reward system
involving the neurotransmitter dopamine [18]. This weakens inhibitory mechanisms
in prefrontal areas of their brains and contributes to their impulsive behavior.

The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) citalopram has been shown to promote prosocial behavior by enhancing harm aversion in healthy volunteers.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24381085/
There are loads of other research papers on the same point.

Here it can be clearly seen that what is being tried is to find an effective neurotransmitter in attenuating aspects of psychopathic behavior. In no way is it justified to interpret this as justification for the existence of biological inhibitors that they prevent humans programmed to kill from running such a program. The fact that science looks for a palliative does not show that this palliative is part of a natural biological mechanism that inhibits certain behaviors.

"Abstract
Psychopathy is a disorder involving personality and behavioral features associated with a high rate of violent aggression and recidivism.

This paper explores potential psychopharmacological therapies to modulate dysfunctional neural pathways in psychopaths and reduce the incidence of their harmful behavior, as well as the ethical and legal implications of offering these therapies as an alternative to incarceration.

It also considers whether forced psychopharmacological intervention in adults and children with psychopathic traits manifesting in violent behavior can be justified.
More generally, the paper addresses the question of how to weigh the psychopath's presumptive right to non-interference in his brain and mind against the public interest in avoiding harm."

Here is the point where you are ignorant and failed to infer from common knowledge.

Psychopaths in relation to morality [this OP] relate to their tendency to cause harm and to killing humans. See the bolded terms involved in the abstract.

Note the term "modulate" above is synonymous to 'inhibit' with control.
The rest of the paper [..I have downloaded it] also imply the existence of biological inhibitors and I quoted one point earlier.

There are many variables contributing to psychopathy but the critical variable are the weak inhibitors connected to those psychopathic variables.

I do not agree with you. The current scientific consensus interprets that psychopathy is the reflection of a neurological structure different from that of neurotypicals.

In a psychopath, certain parts of the brain have fewer connections to the frontal lobe.

Psychopathy is a spectrum and represents a difference in neurological wiring. Those structures are not correctable.

Psychopathy results in harmful behaviors if the individual does not have the opportunity to develop empathic relationships through learning.

Again you are ignorant here.
Psychopathy is more complex than what you stated above; it involves a complicated set of neural wirings and pathways.

Even when you use empathic relationship, the critical activity of empathy is to inhibit the psychopathic impulses that trigger the person to do harm or kill humans, i.e. it involves inhibitors.

It is not a point that the biological inhibitors are reinforced when human will is applied to them.

There are strong, weak, damaged inhibitors and at the same time strong and weak will and thus the possible combination between these range of variables.
One can apply the will on inhibitors to prevent bad consequences.
A Strong will on strong inhibitors will generate very good results, but a strong will and weak inhibitors will produce limited results.
Damaged inhibitors will not work even if the will is very strong.

You can infer from the article Iinked above, i.e.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24381085/
which states,
Psychopaths are impaired in both cognitive and affective capacities and in practical and moral reasoning.
The article also assert the existence and the need for inhibitors to control the impulses of psychopathy.
In this article the reference is to rely on medical intervention to increase the strength of the biological inhibitors instead of using the will.

In the normal case, the average person will apply his will [if need to] or his inhibitors if average will spontaneously activate to inhibit the aggression and 'to kill' impulse.

I have not read of the scientific research yet, but there are loads of articles in the internet where psychopaths apply their will to inhibit their psychopathic impulses to stop them from causing harm to others.

This is like walking through a swamp. Where you put your foot, you sink.

The alleged interaction between will and inhibitors does not result in an argument.

What percentage is attributed to the will (To determine what would be the will!) And what to the inhibitors? What are the ranges of variation in the supposed inhibitors? How are the different wills measured (!!!)?

In the abstract, no such possibility is named at all. Could you post the part where such a thing is postulated?

"Abstract
Psychopathy is a disorder involving personality and behavioral features associated with a high rate of violent aggression and recidivism. This paper explores potential psychopharmacological therapies to modulate dysfunctional neural pathways in psychopaths and reduce the incidence of their harmful behavior, as well as the ethical and legal implications of offering these therapies as an alternative to incarceration. It also considers whether forced psychopharmacological intervention in adults and children with psychopathic traits manifesting in violent behavior can be justified. More generally, the paper addresses the question of how to weigh the psychopath's presumptive right to non-interference in his brain and mind against the public interest in avoiding harm."

As I had mentioned, I have downloaded the paper and read it thoroughly.
There is no mentioned of the will since it is dependent on chemicals.

I have not read of the scientific research yet, but there are loads of articles in the internet where psychopaths apply their will to inhibit their psychopathic impulses to stop them from causing harm to others.

It is absurd that you suppose that psychopathy is corrected with the exercise of the person's will.

I did not assert that psychopathy is corrected [cured, repaired] with the exercise of the person's will.
Once there are damage to the relevant part of the brain, then there is a 'permanent' state of psychopathy.
The degrees of damage will determine the person's psychopathy is malignant or benign, with variations in between the extremes.

What I implied is, a psychopath whose psychopathy is benign or of low malignancy can use his will to inhibit his psychopathic impulses. Thus when such a psychopath feel the tendency to kill or harm humans, he can use his will to activate the inhibitors to suppress those harmful impulses.

Note this article - there are loads of similar research papers;

• How psychopaths control their ‘dark impulses’
  The ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, which is related to self-control, could determine how well someone with psychopathic tendencies can control their impulses.
  https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/how-p ... -impulses/

The point with 'self-control' and 'control their impulses' is about using the will to activate inhibitors.

Here is another article re control by psychopaths:

• https://digest.bps.org.uk/2020/08/12/su ... -impulses/
  Lasko and Chester found that participants who’d initially scored highly for grandiose-manipulative psychopathic traits (traits associated with arrogance and self-centredness as well as manipulativeness) went on to show steeper increases over time in two forms of conscientiousness: impulse control and the suppression of aggression.
  
  Importantly, this effect was notably larger within the “successful” group. It seems, then, that successful psychopaths are those who show real improvements at controlling their impulses, to achieve their goals.
  “This exacerbated development of conscientiousness-defining traits is likely able to compensate for the heightened antisocial tendencies of these psychopathic individuals, bringing them into a self-regulatory balance that enables them to function in society,” the researchers write.

Though the term 'will' was not used,
how can these psychopaths are able to control, suppress and regulate, their psychopathy towards "success" if they do not use their will.
Note the term "conscientiousness" above also imply 'will-power'.

[Belinda]

Psycho wrote to Veritas Aequitas:

It is absurd that you suppose that psychopathy is corrected with the exercise of the person's will.

It is pretty well certain that some brain tissue is plastic but other brain tissue is not.
Psychopath A's psychopathic status is caused by irreversible damage to neural tissue whereas psychopath B's psychopathic status can be reversed by altering his brain chemicals.

There is no such entity, no such anatomical tissue, no such biochemical state as 'will'.

If a so-called "psychopath" knows they are irrational then they are no longer psychopathic but neurotic, and their behaviour can be normalised at least in theory.

[psycho]

I agree if there are contradictions they should be pointed out, e.g. if someone is claiming a square circle existing or in the likes of p and non-p existing in the same time and same sense.

If you admit you are ignorant in that specific areas, then you should not be insisting I am wrong or not correct but rather you don't know or not sure.

Hahaha!

No. My ignorance on certain issues does not save the contradictions of your theory.

- Humans are programmable.

- Humans are programmed to kill congeners.

- Humanity has biological inhibitors that prevent the execution of this program and that is reinforced with the use of the will.

- Humanity, in its beginnings, was made up of a majority of individuals with strong inhibitors.

- The program was activated to a greater extent in the past.

- During the last 100,000 years these inhibitors were reinforced and this generated a moral improvement of the population.

- The increase in human population is due to the fact that humanity is reinforcing these inhibitors.

- The existence of a type of neurotransmitter proves the existence of inhibitors.

- Psychopathy is the result of weak inhibitors.

- A programmed individual does not necessarily have to obey his program.

- The reinforcement of inhibitors is the result of biological evolution.

- The reinforcement of inhibitors is the result of the individual will of each individual.

- One can determine that moral behavior is the result of the interaction between the different types of wills and the different types of reinforcement of inhibitors.

- Etc.

There is more but I am naturally lazy

Most contradict what is known to science and a few of them are mutually exclusive.

Here is the point where you are ignorant and failed to infer from common knowledge.

Psychopaths in relation to morality [this OP] relate to their tendency to cause harm and to killing humans. See the bolded terms involved in the abstract.

Note the term "modulate" above is synonymous to 'inhibit' with control.
The rest of the paper [..I have downloaded it] also imply the existence of biological inhibitors and I quoted one point earlier.

- Some psychopaths show violent behaviors and when they receive a certain chemical, in some of them, those behaviors decrease.

This does not prove the existence of biological inhibitors that block programs in humans.

And above all it is irrelevant because you clarified that the majority of humans were not psychopaths in the origins of the species and because there is no reason to believe that today there is a lower proportion of psychopaths than in ancient times. This contradicts the idea that the human will and evolution are correcting psychopathy in the population.

Again you are ignorant here.
Psychopathy is more complex than what you stated above; it involves a complicated set of neural wirings and pathways.

Even when you use empathic relationship, the critical activity of empathy is to inhibit the psychopathic impulses that trigger the person to do harm or kill humans, i.e. it involves inhibitors.

A psychopath is not someone who most often resorts to aggressive solutions.

A psychopath is someone who does not have the same emotional reactions as you, for neurological reasons.

He will not understand why someone is sad or why a behavior will have negative social consequences.

He consciously learns the subtleties of human reactions and how to mask himself.

It is true that a psychopath reacts angrily if frustrated. But not all of them react violently.

He is very dependent on his victims and is normally controlled as needed.

Psychopaths have a very narrow range of emotional reactions. Generally, they are not afraid and it is striking to them to see that someone is afraid.

A psychopath does not have natural empathy but at a certain stage of his development he can learn what social consequences are.

But this is a far cry from the subject itself and also is not even related to morality from a philosophical point of view.

If someone wants to, they can open a thread and we will deal with it there (in the corresponding section).

As I had mentioned, I have downloaded the paper and read it thoroughly.
There is no mentioned of the will since it is dependent on chemicals.

I mean, it doesn't prove your point.

I did not assert that psychopathy is corrected [cured, repaired] with the exercise of the person's will.
Once there are damage to the relevant part of the brain, then there is a 'permanent' state of psychopathy.
The degrees of damage will determine the person's psychopathy is malignant or benign, with variations in between the extremes.

What I implied is, a psychopath whose psychopathy is benign or of low malignancy can use his will to inhibit his psychopathic impulses. Thus when such a psychopath feel the tendency to kill or harm humans, he can use his will to activate the inhibitors to suppress those harmful impulses.

Note this article - there are loads of similar research papers;
How psychopaths control their ‘dark impulses’
The ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, which is related to self-control, could determine how well someone with psychopathic tendencies can control their impulses.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/how-p ... -impulses/
The point with 'self-control' and 'control their impulses' is about using the will to activate inhibitors.

Here is another article re control by psychopaths:
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2020/08/12/su ... -impulses/
Lasko and Chester found that participants who’d initially scored highly for grandiose-manipulative psychopathic traits (traits associated with arrogance and self-centredness as well as manipulativeness) went on to show steeper increases over time in two forms of conscientiousness: impulse control and the suppression of aggression.

Importantly, this effect was notably larger within the “successful” group. It seems, then, that successful psychopaths are those who show real improvements at controlling their impulses, to achieve their goals.
“This exacerbated development of conscientiousness-defining traits is likely able to compensate for the heightened antisocial tendencies of these psychopathic individuals, bringing them into a self-regulatory balance that enables them to function in society,” the researchers write.
Though the term 'will' was not used,
how can these psychopaths are able to control, suppress and regulate, their psychopathy towards "success" if they do not use their will.
Note the term "conscientiousness" above also imply 'will-power'.

The answer to your question is that these individuals have a greater operational capacity to process consequences derived from their behavior.

Psychopathy is a spectrum.

I mean, consciousness and will are related? A greater consciousness, greater will and vice versa?

[psycho]

Psycho wrote to Veritas Aequitas:

It is absurd that you suppose that psychopathy is corrected with the exercise of the person's will.

It is pretty well certain that some brain tissue is plastic but other brain tissue is not.
Psychopath A's psychopathic status is caused by irreversible damage to neural tissue whereas psychopath B's psychopathic status can be reversed by altering his brain chemicals.

There is no such entity, no such anatomical tissue, no such biochemical state as 'will'.

If a so-called "psychopath" knows they are irrational then they are no longer psychopathic but neurotic, and their behaviour can be normalised at least in theory.

A psychopath is not irrational as a result of psychopathy.

He is no more irrational than any of us. He bases his behavior on the resources he has.

If something damages the articulation between different areas and the sectors that process social consequences or these latter parts, the resulting behavior is referred to as psychopathic.

But the highest percentage of psychopaths with harmful behaviors results in people who have a type of neuro diversity and were exposed to a negative or aggressive environment.

[Skepdick]

Most contradict what is known to science and a few of them are mutually exclusive.

Non-contradiction is prescriptive, not descriptive.

Here is a logical universe in which a proposition and its negation are true and the "law" of identity doesn't even hold.

crazy-universe.png (15.15 KiB) Viewed 1338 times

So what do you do when everything you were taught about logic was a lie?

[bahman]

Psycho wrote to Veritas Aequitas:

It is absurd that you suppose that psychopathy is corrected with the exercise of the person's will.

It is pretty well certain that some brain tissue is plastic but other brain tissue is not.
Psychopath A's psychopathic status is caused by irreversible damage to neural tissue whereas psychopath B's psychopathic status can be reversed by altering his brain chemicals.

There is no such entity, no such anatomical tissue, no such biochemical state as 'will'.

If a so-called "psychopath" knows they are irrational then they are no longer psychopathic but neurotic, and their behaviour can be normalised at least in theory.

A psychopath is not irrational as a result of psychopathy.

He is no more irrational than any of us. He bases his behavior on the resources he has.

If something damages the articulation between different areas and the sectors that process social consequences or these latter parts, the resulting behavior is referred to as psychopathic.

But the highest percentage of psychopaths with harmful behaviors results in people who have a type of neuro diversity and were exposed to a negative or aggressive environment.

I agree.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I agree if there are contradictions they should be pointed out, e.g. if someone is claiming a square circle existing or in the likes of p and non-p existing in the same time and same sense.

If you admit you are ignorant in that specific areas, then you should not be insisting I am wrong or not correct but rather you don't know or not sure.

Hahaha!

No. My ignorance on certain issues does not save the contradictions of your theory.

- Humans are programmable.

- Humans are programmed to kill congeners.

- Humanity has biological inhibitors that prevent the execution of this program and that is reinforced with the use of the will.

- Humanity, in its beginnings, was made up of a majority of individuals with strong inhibitors.

- The program was activated to a greater extent in the past.

- During the last 100,000 years these inhibitors were reinforced and this generated a moral improvement of the population.

- The increase in human population is due to the fact that humanity is reinforcing these inhibitors.

- The existence of a type of neurotransmitter proves the existence of inhibitors.

- Psychopathy is the result of weak inhibitors.

- A programmed individual does not necessarily have to obey his program.

- The reinforcement of inhibitors is the result of biological evolution.

- The reinforcement of inhibitors is the result of the individual will of each individual.

- One can determine that moral behavior is the result of the interaction between the different types of wills and the different types of reinforcement of inhibitors.

- Etc.

There is more but I am naturally lazy

Most contradict what is known to science and a few of them are mutually exclusive.

You are wrong on the following which are not my views, i.e.

• - Humanity, in its beginnings, was made up of a majority of individuals with strong inhibitors.
  
  - The program was activated to a greater extent in the past.

My point is,
ALL humans are 'programmed' with a POTENTIAL moral function with its respective moral inhibitors.
The moral inhibitors are not very active [strong] in the majority but in the course of evolution the moral inhibitors are getting more active and stronger in the average person.

• Psychopathy is the result of weak inhibitors.

NOPE!
Psychopathy is due damage to and abnormality of some part of the brain.
If a psychopath is of the malignant sort, has weak will, or weak inhibitors, then he is likely to commit evil, e.g. harm, violence and kill other humans. If otherwise, then he is not like to do evil.

Other than that [if I had not missed any], I don't see there are any contradictions to the above. I can explain them logically and rationally.

Show me a precise contradiction like;

• You [VA] say X ......
  then you say Y ......
  X and Y are contradicting because ...

I note it is your shallow & narrow thinking that is responsible for your mis-perceived contradictions.

Here is the point where you are ignorant and failed to infer from common knowledge.

Psychopaths in relation to morality [this OP] relate to their tendency to cause harm and to killing humans. See the bolded terms involved in the abstract.

Note the term "modulate" above is synonymous to 'inhibit' with control.
The rest of the paper [..I have downloaded it] also imply the existence of biological inhibitors and I quoted one point earlier.

- Some psychopaths show violent behaviors and when they receive a certain chemical, in some of them, those behaviors decrease.

This does not prove the existence of biological inhibitors that block programs in humans.

And above all it is irrelevant because you clarified that the majority of humans were not psychopaths in the origins of the species and because there is no reason to believe that today there is a lower proportion of psychopaths than in ancient times.
This contradicts the idea that the human will and evolution are correcting psychopathy in the population.

When a diagnosed malignant psychopath do not follow up with his psychopathic impulses to kill or harm, then it is implied there are neural inhibitors at work.

Generally the current accepted statistics is appx 1% of people has psychopathic tendencies ranging from strong to weak and from benign to malignant.
I did not state evolution is correcting psychopathy in the population, since the 1% is the norm at present.

What I did state was, for those psychopaths who do not have serious brain damage to the effect, they can use their human will to control their psychopathy impulses only. They cannot use their human will to cure their inherent psychopathy.

Get it! You are messing up all my points and coming up with straw-man[s].

Again you are ignorant here.
Psychopathy is more complex than what you stated above; it involves a complicated set of neural wirings and pathways.

Even when you use empathic relationship, the critical activity of empathy is to inhibit the psychopathic impulses that trigger the person to do harm or kill humans, i.e. it involves inhibitors.

A psychopath is not someone who most often resorts to aggressive solutions.
A psychopath is someone who does not have the same emotional reactions as you, for neurological reasons.
He will not understand why someone is sad or why a behavior will have negative social consequences.
He consciously learns the subtleties of human reactions and how to mask himself.
It is true that a psychopath reacts angrily if frustrated. But not all of them react violently.
He is very dependent on his victims and is normally controlled as needed.
Psychopaths have a very narrow range of emotional reactions. Generally, they are not afraid and it is striking to them to see that someone is afraid.
A psychopath does not have natural empathy but at a certain stage of his development he can learn what social consequences are.

I can agree with the above features of a psychopath in general. There are more to say about psychopaths than the above.

But this is a far cry from the subject itself and also is not even related to morality from a philosophical point of view.

If someone wants to, they can open a thread and we will deal with it there (in the corresponding section).

Note my original point in referring to psychopath is this;

• 1. There are moral facts which are represented in one way by moral inhibitors in the brain.
  2. One of the most glaring example in demonstrating the existence of moral inhibitors is the reference to the absence, damage or weakness of moral-inhibitors in a malignant psychopaths.

I did not assert that psychopathy is corrected [cured, repaired] with the exercise of the person's will.
Once there are damage to the relevant part of the brain, then there is a 'permanent' state of psychopathy.
The degrees of damage will determine the person's psychopathy is malignant or benign, with variations in between the extremes.

What I implied is, a psychopath whose psychopathy is benign or of low malignancy can use his will to inhibit his psychopathic impulses. Thus when such a psychopath feel the tendency to kill or harm humans, he can use his will to activate the inhibitors to suppress those harmful impulses.

Note this article - there are loads of similar research papers;
How psychopaths control their ‘dark impulses’
The ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, which is related to self-control, could determine how well someone with psychopathic tendencies can control their impulses.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/how-p ... -impulses/
The point with 'self-control' and 'control their impulses' is about using the will to activate inhibitors.

Here is another article re control by psychopaths:
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2020/08/12/su ... -impulses/
Lasko and Chester found that participants who’d initially scored highly for grandiose-manipulative psychopathic traits (traits associated with arrogance and self-centredness as well as manipulativeness) went on to show steeper increases over time in two forms of conscientiousness: impulse control and the suppression of aggression.

Importantly, this effect was notably larger within the “successful” group. It seems, then, that successful psychopaths are those who show real improvements at controlling their impulses, to achieve their goals.
“This exacerbated development of conscientiousness-defining traits is likely able to compensate for the heightened antisocial tendencies of these psychopathic individuals, bringing them into a self-regulatory balance that enables them to function in society,” the researchers write.
Though the term 'will' was not used,
how can these psychopaths are able to control, suppress and regulate, their psychopathy towards "success" if they do not use their will.
Note the term "conscientiousness" above also imply 'will-power'.

The answer to your question is that these individuals have a greater operational capacity to process consequences derived from their behavior.

Psychopathy is a spectrum.

I mean, consciousness and will are related? A greater consciousness, greater will and vice versa?

My points are to support my original point in referring to psychopath is this; [repeat]

• 1. There are moral facts which are represented in one way by moral inhibitors in the brain.
  2. One of the most glaring example in demonstrating the existence of moral inhibitors is the reference to the absence, damage or weakness of moral-inhibitors in a malignant psychopaths.

If you have read enough of papers related to morality, you will note 'psychopath' are a commonly referenced to support various moral points like above.

[Peter Holmes]

• 1. There are moral facts which are represented in one way by moral inhibitors in the brain.
  2. One of the most glaring example in demonstrating the existence of moral inhibitors is the reference to the absence, damage or weakness of moral-inhibitors in a malignant psychopaths.

If you have read enough of papers related to morality, you will note 'psychopath' are a commonly referenced to support various moral points like above.

Same mistake, as ever.

Factual assertion: the human brain has features that inhibit certain behaviour. But if they exist, these are not 'moral inhibitors', and their existence is not a 'moral fact'. To say it is is to project a moral opinion about the inhibited behaviour onto the neurological inhibition. And the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The very noun phrase 'moral fact' is just such a projection. There are no 'moral facts'. The expression is incoherent - a grammatical misattribution. There are just facts about which there can be moral opinions. It really is very simple.

[Veritas Aequitas]

• 1. There are moral facts which are represented in one way by moral inhibitors in the brain.
  2. One of the most glaring example in demonstrating the existence of moral inhibitors is the reference to the absence, damage or weakness of moral-inhibitors in a malignant psychopaths.

If you have read enough of papers related to morality, you will note 'psychopath' are a commonly referenced to support various moral points like above.

Same mistake, as ever.

Factual assertion: the human brain has features that inhibit certain behaviour. But if they exist, these are not 'moral inhibitors', and their existence is not a 'moral fact'. To say it is is to project a moral opinion about the inhibited behaviour onto the neurological inhibition. And the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The very noun phrase 'moral fact' is just such a projection. There are no 'moral facts'. The expression is incoherent - a grammatical misattribution. There are just facts about which there can be moral opinions. It really is very simple.

I have demonstrated your sense of fact is groundless.
Fact [re Analytic] [re Morality]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32031
You cannot conflate 'what is moral fact to you' with 'what is moral fact to me'.
Therefore it is groundless for you to claim my 'moral facts' in your 'sense of fact' do not exists.

What I claimed as moral facts are in a different sense of 'what is fact' from your bastardized sense of 'what is fact'.

Note my sense of "what is fact";

• What is a Fact?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

and from that there are moral facts;

• There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

Note in my perspective,
any decision and judgement apparently related to morality is not morality per se.

• Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615

Your sense of what is fact is groundless,
thus your above counter is toothless.

[Belinda]

Psycho wrote to Veritas Aequitas:

It is absurd that you suppose that psychopathy is corrected with the exercise of the person's will.

It is pretty well certain that some brain tissue is plastic but other brain tissue is not.
Psychopath A's psychopathic status is caused by irreversible damage to neural tissue whereas psychopath B's psychopathic status can be reversed by altering his brain chemicals.

There is no such entity, no such anatomical tissue, no such biochemical state as 'will'.

If a so-called "psychopath" knows they are irrational then they are no longer psychopathic but neurotic, and their behaviour can be normalised at least in theory.

A psychopath is not irrational as a result of psychopathy.

He is no more irrational than any of us. He bases his behavior on the resources he has.

If something damages the articulation between different areas and the sectors that process social consequences or these latter parts, the resulting behavior is referred to as psychopathic.

But the highest percentage of psychopaths with harmful behaviors results in people who have a type of neuro diversity and were exposed to a negative or aggressive environment.

'Rational' refers to an implied standard of rationality. For instance if I suffered from bipolar disorder , unless my brain chemistry was controlled, I'd sometimes be manic and sometimes suicidal. When controlled I'd be hypomanic and less urgently suicidal. If I also happen to be very clever and intelligent i.e. rational these qualities will thrive unless my mania or my death wish prevent their thriving.

If I suffer from paranoid schizophrenia I am more likely to kill someone in perceived self defence than, all else being equal, if my delusion is not a paranoid one.

It is unhelpful to brand all psychopaths as a more violent group than , say, right wing capitalist politicians, or greedy plutocrats.