What is a Moral Framework and System?

[psycho]

You assume the existence of moral inhibitors of biological origin (not cultural) but do not provide any justification for that assertion.

It's just a way our brains work. Various examples of interpersonal interaction will seem intuitively permissible or not to an individual, and these can be completely different than the norms in the culture the person is a part of. So they're not transmitted culturally (leaving aside just how that would work anyway without requiring particular brain phenomena) if they different from the norm in a culture.

The first cultural filter is the family, the second the close environment (school, social relationships, etc.) and the third is the society in which the individual lives.

Each of them is one of the cultural factors that modulate a person's responses.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your answers generate some doubts in me:

So, inhibitors are very ineffective. The two world wars prove, if your assumption is correct, that the number of humans with weak inhibitors is enormous.

The weakness of the inhibitors is only evident after the behavior has occurred or could one distinguish between the population, who will be able to kill and who will not be able to?

That is, people who do not kill prove the existence of the inhibitor and people who actually kill prove that the inhibitor is not effective in them.

The moral inhibitors of not-to-kill evolved later than the potential to kill in humans due to various circumstances.

However it is very evident there is a trend moral progress in the unfoldment and activeness of the 'ought-not-to-kill inhibitors since 100,000 or 10,000 years ago to the present.
Note the following;
Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

But that does not seem different from saying that people who have a clear heart do not kill, those whose hearts are not so clear sometimes kill following orders and those whose hearts are not clear at all, kill by choice.

What you are stating is merely in the form of a metaphor.
What is the reality is the neural mechanisms and activities of the moral inhibitors in the brain in connection with the body.

So I could argue that there are degrees of clarity in the heart and that a look at human behavior proves it.

Each moral fact has its own inhibitor or is this only given in the case of the possibility of killing humans?

There is a general core for all moral elements but each moral fact has its own specific inhibitor.
A person with active incest-deterring-inhibitors [inbreeding avoidance] may be a psychopathic serial killer, etc.

If the latter were so, what would be the justification?

As with all facts, they must be verified and justified within the moral FSK.

I cannot distinguish if there are a limited number of moral facts. If reality is made up of moral facts, non-moral facts and immoral facts. What would be the natural process by which each fact is created according to its type?

The natural process is natural selection and adaptation.

For example Inbreeding avoidance is driven by moral inhibitors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance
Those of our ancestors who avoided "Inbreeding avoidance " were more successful than those who did not, thus "Inbreeding avoidance " was adapted via natural selection.

You assume the existence of moral inhibitors of biological origin (not cultural) but do not provide any justification for that assertion.

It is too tedious for me to do detail justifications which involve psychology, neurosciences, etc. I had posted various points on this.
To save me the trouble, I agree the above is an assumption subject to justification.

You also assume that the ability to kill humans is an evolutionary trait developed by humans and that the biological limiter of that ability has a later origin.

First ALL humans are programmed 'to kill' i.e. end life [any sort], which is very self evident as from the start humans are programmed to kill for food thus survival, in addition to self-defense, etc.
From this 'to kill program' humans has the potential to kill humans which is very evident from the history of mankind.

I do not share with you that the "ability to kill humans" exists. The trait that generates these actions is aggression.

Aggression in a social context is a behavior that has developed in species prior to ours and from which we derive.

If the subject were aggression, I would consider like you, that species develop mechanisms that limit it.

"Aggression" is a common reason why people kill humans.
But that is not always the case because humans can kill humans for other reasons, even from love, ignorance, various mental illnesses, etc.

The mechanisms that limit aggression in relation to killing humans is from the inherent moral function.

But I don't agree with your idea that humans developed moral biological inhibitors for every possible immoral action.

This part of your assumption is absurd. Most human behaviors are not instinctive.

That is, Humans have preprogrammed (instinctive) behaviors such as "flee", "attack", etc. but the triggers of these behaviors are culturally adapted and become particular according to the experience of each individual.

What evolution provided us with is the ability to modulate aggression through cultural means. A new ability not shared by other species (that we know of).

Confusion occurs if one wants to equate "aggression" with "lying."

The biological trait that allows kills (even humans) is aggression.

Aggression itself cannot be morally valued. That is just one tool.

But it is different from the social tool "lie". This is a behavior whose utility is to reduce aggression in a social context.

What is your source for assuring that the murder rate is lower today than 100,000 years ago?

According to your interpretation, Evolution determines the morality of events?

The evolutionary process filters out traits and behaviors that prevent individuals from reproducing effectively.

Immoral actions do not prevent effective reproduction. In many cases they favor it. That is the reason why evolution cannot be a factor in determining moral facts.

We are not going to evolve into more moral beings as a result of biological evolution. We will do it as a result of cultural development.

The answer to immoral behavior in humanity is not biological evolution.

Note this;

• The Moral Life of Babies
  Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
  
  Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

All human actions and thoughts are traceable to Nature and/or Nurture.
There are a patterns of actions and thoughts that can be categorized as 'moral' [i.e. morality as defined].

What is your source for assuring that the murder rate is lower today than 100,000 years ago?

I stated there is a trend decreasing numbers of people killed from violence from since 100,000 to the present.
This is very obvious if you just compare number of humans killed the last 50 years to the two World Wars and prior.

I had also posted this research by Steven Pinker;
The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,
in this thread;
Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

[psycho]

I agree the above is an assumption subject to justification.

True.

First ALL humans are programmed 'to kill' i.e. end life [any sort], which is very self evident as from the start humans are programmed to kill for food thus survival, in addition to self-defense, etc.
From this 'to kill program' humans has the potential to kill humans which is very evident from the history of mankind.

Such a claim needs a lot of backing.

No. Humans are not programmed to kill. That's just an argument in some low-quality movies.

"Aggression" is a common reason why people kill humans.
But that is not always the case because humans can kill humans for other reasons, even from love, ignorance, various mental illnesses, etc.

Aggression is not a reason. It is a reaction.

The mechanisms that limit aggression in relation to killing humans is from the inherent moral function.

No. The regulatory mechanisms of aggression occur in all social species.

Note this;

• The Moral Life of Babies
  Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
  
  Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

All human actions and thoughts are traceable to Nature and/or Nurture.
There are a patterns of actions and thoughts that can be categorized as 'moral' [i.e. morality as defined].

There is a serious logical flaw in assuming that empathy is a characteristic capable of distinguishing good from bad behavior and that this would be a biological basis for morality.

Empathy allows me to experience part of the suffering of others. It does not determine anything about the morality of my feelings.

I can empathize with the suffering that my brother suffers from not being able to continue killing indiscriminately because he was caught by the police.

It is wrong to interpret that if the baby calms his neighbor, that is an action generated because the baby determined that it was bad not to calm him or that it was bad for the baby to cry.

If you calm him so that he does not cry, that would threaten the baby's health. He cries since that is his only way of expressing any need.

Having good behaviors says nothing about the morality of the acts.

You propose that babies with strong morals have an inhibitor that prevents them from leaving unattended humans in disgrace?

I stated there is a trend decreasing numbers of people killed from violence from since 100,000 to the present.
This is very obvious if you just compare number of humans killed the last 50 years to the two World Wars and prior.

I had also posted this research by Steven Pinker;
The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,
in this thread;
Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

I don't see any information. Only the chapter titles of a book. You can still see that the data (apparently) begin in the year 1200 and it seems to correspond mainly to England and the United States.

Likewise, in your comment you say that Pinker refers to these last years!

[Veritas Aequitas]

I agree the above is an assumption subject to justification.

True.

Personally, to me it is not an assumption as I have the justifications.
I only agree it is an assumption for our discussion since I don't want to waste time on the tedious justification process with you.

First ALL humans are programmed 'to kill' i.e. end life [any sort], which is very self evident as from the start humans are programmed to kill for food thus survival, in addition to self-defense, etc.
From this 'to kill program' humans has the potential to kill humans which is very evident from the history of mankind.

Such a claim needs a lot of backing.
No. Humans are not programmed to kill. That's just an argument in some low-quality movies.

I implied ALL humans are 'programmed' with the potential to kill, i.e. end life in killing plants, animals for food and self-defense. The expression of this potential to kill is so evident where humans had killed all sort of animals and also humans.

Note veganism where some groups of humans are trying to suppress this potential to kill.

"Aggression" is a common reason why people kill humans.
But that is not always the case because humans can kill humans for other reasons, even from love, ignorance, various mental illnesses, etc.

Aggression is not a reason. It is a reaction.

You have a weird way with meanings.
Obviously a reaction is a reason for its related effect.

The mechanisms that limit aggression in relation to killing humans is from the inherent moral function.

No. The regulatory mechanisms of aggression occur in all social species.

That is off topic.
Morality is one aspect of human behavior.
The limiting of aggression related to kill or other moral elements is related to morality.

Note this;

• The Moral Life of Babies
  Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
  
  Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

All human actions and thoughts are traceable to Nature and/or Nurture.
There are a patterns of actions and thoughts that can be categorized as 'moral' [i.e. morality as defined].

There is a serious logical flaw in assuming that empathy is a characteristic capable of distinguishing good from bad behavior and that this would be a biological basis for morality.

Empathy allows me to experience part of the suffering of others. It does not determine anything about the morality of my feelings.

I can empathize with the suffering that my brother suffers from not being able to continue killing indiscriminately because he was caught by the police.

It is wrong to interpret that if the baby calms his neighbor, that is an action generated because the baby determined that it was bad not to calm him or that it was bad for the baby to cry.

If you calm him so that he does not cry, that would threaten the baby's health. He cries since that is his only way of expressing any need.

Having good behaviors says nothing about the morality of the acts.

You propose that babies with strong morals have an inhibitor that prevents them from leaving unattended humans in disgrace?

I did not propose babies has or with 'strong' morals.
The above research point to the evidence that morality is inherent with reference to empathy.

Empathy [related to compassion] is a significant and criterial element of morality as recognized by most moral philosophers, e.g. from since Hume.
In one way, when you have sufficient degrees of empathy [driven by mirror neurons], you will not kill another because whatever sufferings associated with the killing of others will mirror and be triggered within you.

I stated there is a trend decreasing numbers of people killed from violence from since 100,000 to the present.
This is very obvious if you just compare number of humans killed the last 50 years to the two World Wars and prior.

I had also posted this research by Steven Pinker;
The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,
in this thread;
Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

I don't see any information. Only the chapter titles of a book. You can still see that the data (apparently) begin in the year 1200 and it seems to correspond mainly to England and the United States.

Likewise, in your comment you say that Pinker refers to these last years!

You are expecting too much. At least I provided some notes and the chapters of the book. In any typical referencing of a philosophical thesis, paper or article, only the Title, Author, Years, Publishers is provided. The onus is on the reader to read the book.

Point is there is a decreasing trend or murder, killing and violence toward the present in correlation [cause to be justified] to the unfoldment of the inherent moral function within humans.

Re the back to 100,000 years ago, I was referring to the decreasing raw impulse of aggression and passion related to killing humans. Humans are now more aware of the immorality of killing humans as reflected in the actions [protest, laws, self-awareness, etc.] taken to mitigate killing of humans.

Here is some relevant notes to your question re time period of the book,

The discussions that try to do justice to these questions add up to a big book—big enough that it won’t spoil the story if I preview its major conclusions.
The Better Angels of Our Nature is a tale of
• Six Trends,
• Five Inner Demons,
• Four Better Angels, and
• Five Historical Forces.

Six Trends (chapters 2 through 7).
To give some coherence to the many developments that make up our species’ retreat from violence, I group them into six major trends.

The first, which took place on the scale of millennia, was the transition from the anarchy of the hunting, gathering, and horticultural societies in which our species spent most of its evolutionary history to the first agricultural civilizations with cities and governments, beginning around five thousand years ago.
With that change came a reduction in the chronic raiding and feuding that characterized life in a state of nature and a more or less fivefold decrease in rates of violent death.
I call this imposition of peace the Pacification Process.

The second transition spanned more than half a millennium and is best documented in Europe.
Between the late Middle Ages and the 20th century, European countries saw a tenfold-to fiftyfold decline in their rates of homicide.
In his classic book The Civilizing Process, the sociologist Norbert Elias attributed this surprising decline to the consolidation of a patchwork of feudal territories into large kingdoms with centralized authority and an infrastructure of commerce.
With a nod to Elias, I call this trend the Civilizing Process.

The third transition unfolded on the scale of centuries and took off around the time of the Age of Reason and the European Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries (though it had antecedents in classical Greece and the Renaissance, and parallels elsewhere in the world).
It saw the first organized movements to abolish socially sanctioned forms of violence like despotism, slavery, dueling, judicial torture, superstitious killing, sadistic punishment, and cruelty to animals, together with the first stirrings of systematic pacifism.
Historians sometimes call this transition the Humanitarian Revolution.

The fourth major transition took place after the end of World War II.
The two-thirds of a century since then have been witness to a historically unprecedented development: the great powers, and developed states in general, have stopped waging war on one another.
Historians have called this blessed state of affairs the Long Peace.2

The fifth trend is also about armed combat but is more tenuous.
Though it may be hard for news readers to believe, since the end of the Cold War in 1989, organized conflicts of all kinds— civil wars, genocides, repression by autocratic governments, and terrorist attacks—have declined throughout the world.
In recognition of the tentative nature of this happy development, I will call it the New Peace.

Finally, the postwar era, symbolically inaugurated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, has seen a growing revulsion against aggression on smaller scales, including violence against ethnic minorities, women, children, homosexuals, and animals.
These spin-offs from the concept of human rights—civil rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, gay rights, and animal rights—were asserted in a cascade of movements from the late 1950s to the present day which I will call the Rights Revolutions.

[Terrapin Station]

You assume the existence of moral inhibitors of biological origin (not cultural) but do not provide any justification for that assertion.

It's just a way our brains work. Various examples of interpersonal interaction will seem intuitively permissible or not to an individual, and these can be completely different than the norms in the culture the person is a part of. So they're not transmitted culturally (leaving aside just how that would work anyway without requiring particular brain phenomena) if they different from the norm in a culture.

The first cultural filter is the family, the second the close environment (school, social relationships, etc.) and the third is the society in which the individual lives.

Each of them is one of the cultural factors that modulate a person's responses.

Family, the "close environment," society, etc. all can have an influence on someone's moral views. But moral views can and sometimes do differ from all of those things. Hence, we can't say that they're simply transmitted by those things. They're mental (brain) dispositions that individuals have.

This isn't the only reason that moral views can't be simply transmitted by environment, but I'm trying to avoid a big tangent on the ontology of meaning (in the semantic sense).

[Skepdick]

This isn't the only reason that moral views can't be simply transmitted by environment, but I'm trying to avoid a big tangent on the ontology of meaning (in the semantic sense).

You cannot avoid it, because you have to account for the meaning of "morality" and navigate the value-ladden nature of language.

If you were to say "Morality exists ontologically" in a vocabulary/world-view/mindset in which you are ALSO allowed to say "Immorality exists ontologically" then using the words "morality" is tantamount to begging the question.

And if you are using the word "morality" and you insist to have successfully navigated "begging the question", then you must be using the word morality in the amoral sense.

Awkward.

[psycho]

Personally, to me it is not an assumption as I have the justifications.
I only agree it is an assumption for our discussion since I don't want to waste time on the tedious justification process with you.

I implied ALL humans are 'programmed' with the potential to kill, i.e. end life in killing plants, animals for food and self-defense. The expression of this potential to kill is so evident where humans had killed all sort of animals and also humans.

Note veganism where some groups of humans are trying to suppress this potential to kill.

No. The quotes do not accommodate that idea enough. That something kills does not in the least show that it is programmed to kill. If you get a coconut on your head and it kills you, that says nothing about programmed palm trees.

You have a weird way with meanings.
Obviously a reaction is a reason for its related effect.

Speaking of weird ways of understanding meanings. The phrase "Obviously a reaction is a reason for its related effect." it is absurd.

The reason people kill is their motive for doing it. Aggression is the reaction that causes that motive.

The strange thing is that your interpretation takes away the possibility of morally evaluating the act of killing.

That is off topic.
Morality is one aspect of human behavior.
The limiting of aggression related to kill or other moral elements is related to morality.

My clarification points out that the limitations of aggression do not constitute a basis for morality. Unless you consider that there is morality in other species.

I did not propose babies has or with 'strong' morals.
The above research point to the evidence that morality is inherent with reference to empathy.

Empathy [related to compassion] is a significant and criterial element of morality as recognized by most moral philosophers, e.g. from since Hume.
In one way, when you have sufficient degrees of empathy [driven by mirror neurons], you will not kill another because whatever sufferings associated with the killing of others will mirror and be triggered within you.

Avoiding killing another human because it makes us feel bad is not an example of moral behavior. Instead that proves my point that humans act according to their convenience.

You are expecting too much. At least I provided some notes and the chapters of the book. In any typical referencing of a philosophical thesis, paper or article, only the Title, Author, Years, Publishers is provided. The onus is on the reader to read the book.

Point is there is a decreasing trend or murder, killing and violence toward the present in correlation [cause to be justified] to the unfoldment of the inherent moral function within humans.

Re the back to 100,000 years ago, I was referring to the decreasing raw impulse of aggression and passion related to killing humans. Humans are now more aware of the immorality of killing humans as reflected in the actions [protest, laws, self-awareness, etc.] taken to mitigate killing of humans.

Here is some relevant notes to your question re time period of the book,

Your clarification is equally flawed. You do not provide something solid that relates decrease in violent solutions to human conflicts with an undoubted "moral advance". That it rains does not justify thinking that the clouds cry.

[psycho]

It's just a way our brains work. Various examples of interpersonal interaction will seem intuitively permissible or not to an individual, and these can be completely different than the norms in the culture the person is a part of. So they're not transmitted culturally (leaving aside just how that would work anyway without requiring particular brain phenomena) if they different from the norm in a culture.

The first cultural filter is the family, the second the close environment (school, social relationships, etc.) and the third is the society in which the individual lives.

Each of them is one of the cultural factors that modulate a person's responses.

Family, the "close environment," society, etc. all can have an influence on someone's moral views. But moral views can and sometimes do differ from all of those things. Hence, we can't say that they're simply transmitted by those things. They're mental (brain) dispositions that individuals have.

This isn't the only reason that moral views can't be simply transmitted by environment, but I'm trying to avoid a big tangent on the ontology of meaning (in the semantic sense).

In other words, one is born with a certain moral disposition?

[Terrapin Station]

The first cultural filter is the family, the second the close environment (school, social relationships, etc.) and the third is the society in which the individual lives.

Each of them is one of the cultural factors that modulate a person's responses.

Family, the "close environment," society, etc. all can have an influence on someone's moral views. But moral views can and sometimes do differ from all of those things. Hence, we can't say that they're simply transmitted by those things. They're mental (brain) dispositions that individuals have.

This isn't the only reason that moral views can't be simply transmitted by environment, but I'm trying to avoid a big tangent on the ontology of meaning (in the semantic sense).

In other words, one is born with a certain moral disposition?

Right

[psycho]

Family, the "close environment," society, etc. all can have an influence on someone's moral views. But moral views can and sometimes do differ from all of those things. Hence, we can't say that they're simply transmitted by those things. They're mental (brain) dispositions that individuals have.

This isn't the only reason that moral views can't be simply transmitted by environment, but I'm trying to avoid a big tangent on the ontology of meaning (in the semantic sense).

In other words, one is born with a certain moral disposition?

Right

Would this predispose me to act in a certain way? I could be predisposed to act correctly or incorrectly for reasons outside my domain?

[Terrapin Station]

In other words, one is born with a certain moral disposition?

Right

Would this predispose me to act in a certain way? I could be predisposed to act correctly or incorrectly for reasons outside my domain?

Sure, it's going to predispose you to certain views and behavior. Those can be influenced/modified by environmental factors, of course--including experience, other predispositions, reasoning, etc., but you'll be predisposed towards certain things.

Re "acting correctly/incorrectly for reasons outside your domain," I'm not sure what you have in mind there.

"Acting correctly/incorrectly" is a judgment that individuals make, of course, and different individuals make different judgments.

[psycho]

Right

Would this predispose me to act in a certain way? I could be predisposed to act correctly or incorrectly for reasons outside my domain?

Sure, it's going to predispose you to certain views and behavior. Those can be influenced/modified by environmental factors, of course--including experience, other predispositions, reasoning, etc., but you'll be predisposed towards certain things.

Re "acting correctly/incorrectly for reasons outside your domain," I'm not sure what you have in mind there.

"Acting correctly/incorrectly" is a judgment that individuals make, of course, and different individuals make different judgments.

So:

- I was born with a moral predisposition and later this was modified by the environment.

- I did not have the possibility of choosing a special predisposition, which will be the basis of my morality.

- I have no choice about the environment that influences me while I am educated. I do not choose place or time, the values ​​and ideas of my society, my intelligence, etc.

Why could I be held morally responsible?

[Terrapin Station]

Would this predispose me to act in a certain way? I could be predisposed to act correctly or incorrectly for reasons outside my domain?

Sure, it's going to predispose you to certain views and behavior. Those can be influenced/modified by environmental factors, of course--including experience, other predispositions, reasoning, etc., but you'll be predisposed towards certain things.

Re "acting correctly/incorrectly for reasons outside your domain," I'm not sure what you have in mind there.

"Acting correctly/incorrectly" is a judgment that individuals make, of course, and different individuals make different judgments.

So:

- I was born with a moral predisposition and later this was modified by the environment.

- I did not have the possibility of choosing a special predisposition, which will be the basis of my morality.

- I have no choice about the environment that influences me while I am educated. I do not choose place or time, the values ​​and ideas of my society, my intelligence, etc.

Why could I be held morally responsible?

For one, you're not forced to act in line with any dispositions you have. You make a choice to act.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Personally, to me it is not an assumption as I have the justifications.
I only agree it is an assumption for our discussion since I don't want to waste time on the tedious justification process with you.

I implied ALL humans are 'programmed' with the potential to kill, i.e. end life in killing plants, animals for food and self-defense. The expression of this potential to kill is so evident where humans had killed all sort of animals and also humans.

Note veganism where some groups of humans are trying to suppress this potential to kill.

No. The quotes do not accommodate that idea enough. That something kills does not in the least show that it is programmed to kill. If you get a coconut on your head and it kills you, that says nothing about programmed palm trees.

Note it's "programmed" in ".." in relation to evolution.
Why not, the coconut tree is 'programmed' naturally in a way that its ripen coconuts will fall. But obviously coconut trees are not programmed to kill anyone.
The term "program" is relevant for human beings as the equivalent of
program = "a precise sequence of instructions enabling a computer to perform a task; a piece of software."

You can in fact "program" your brain to be spontaneous in some actions just as people can be programmed as in brainwashing.

As such there is an organic 'program' within ALL humans of a potential "to kill" where humans will end the life of animals for food.
This 'program' to kill is modulated by a 'program' of 'humans ought not to kill humans' which is categorized within the subject of morality.

You have a weird way with meanings.
Obviously a reaction is a reason for its related effect.

Speaking of weird ways of understanding meanings. The phrase "Obviously a reaction is a reason for its related effect." it is absurd.

The reason people kill is their motive for doing it. Aggression is the reaction that causes that motive.

The strange thing is that your interpretation takes away the possibility of morally evaluating the act of killing.

A reaction can be a reason [may not be the proximate reason] and the reason for the reaction is another reaction, and so forth.

Note, my 'no human ought to kill humans' is already justified as a moral fact to be used as a moral standard which is effective to evaluate any act of killing [humans].

That is off topic.
Morality is one aspect of human behavior.
The limiting of aggression related to kill or other moral elements is related to morality.

My clarification points out that the limitations of aggression do not constitute a basis for morality. Unless you consider that there is morality in other species.

Aggression is merely one cause of killing of humans.
Aggression itself do not lead to killing of humans.
Yes, limiting aggression do not directly relate to morality.

What is morality is based on the moral fact and moral inhibitor- "no human ought to kill humans" arising from a moral FSK.
It is the weakening of this moral inhibitor first that allow aggression to catalyze the killing of humans.

I did not propose babies has or with 'strong' morals.
The above research point to the evidence that morality is inherent with reference to empathy.

Empathy [related to compassion] is a significant and criterial element of morality as recognized by most moral philosophers, e.g. from since Hume.
In one way, when you have sufficient degrees of empathy [driven by mirror neurons], you will not kill another because whatever sufferings associated with the killing of others will mirror and be triggered within you.

Avoiding killing another human because it makes us feel bad is not an example of moral behavior. Instead that proves my point that humans act according to their convenience.

It is not primarily about consciously feeling bad, rather the activities are spontaneous at the unconscious levels of the mind.

Do you understand what are mirror neurons and that they are a feature of empathy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron#:

Empathy is a part and plays a role in the set of moral inhibitors and they activate at the unconscious level spontaneously.
In the case of killing humans, all the possible and known sufferings of humans being killed are mirrored in any potential killer.
This is why you are ignorant of what is going on inside your and the majority brain on why they don't go about killing humans upon impulse.

You are expecting too much. At least I provided some notes and the chapters of the book. In any typical referencing of a philosophical thesis, paper or article, only the Title, Author, Years, Publishers is provided. The onus is on the reader to read the book.

Point is there is a decreasing trend or murder, killing and violence toward the present in correlation [cause to be justified] to the unfoldment of the inherent moral function within humans.

Re the back to 100,000 years ago, I was referring to the decreasing raw impulse of aggression and passion related to killing humans. Humans are now more aware of the immorality of killing humans as reflected in the actions [protest, laws, self-awareness, etc.] taken to mitigate killing of humans.

Here is some relevant notes to your question re time period of the book,

Your clarification is equally flawed. You do not provide something solid that relates decrease in violent solutions to human conflicts with an undoubted "moral advance". That it rains does not justify thinking that the clouds cry.

You are not perceptive in this case.

The moral fact and moral standard is,
'no human ought to kill humans'
this mean that there should be ZERO killing of humans as the standard.
Therefore, if there are a trend of decreasing killing towards ZERO killing, then there would be moral advance or progress.

It is very obvious there is lesser killing of humans via violence since the last two world wars to the present.
Therefore there is moral advance and progress which is reflected upon the increasing activeness of the moral inhibitors re killing within the brains of the average moral agent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Would this predispose me to act in a certain way? I could be predisposed to act correctly or incorrectly for reasons outside my domain?

Sure, it's going to predispose you to certain views and behavior. Those can be influenced/modified by environmental factors, of course--including experience, other predispositions, reasoning, etc., but you'll be predisposed towards certain things.

Re "acting correctly/incorrectly for reasons outside your domain," I'm not sure what you have in mind there.

"Acting correctly/incorrectly" is a judgment that individuals make, of course, and different individuals make different judgments.

So:

- I was born with a moral predisposition and later this was modified by the environment.

- I did not have the possibility of choosing a special predisposition, which will be the basis of my morality.

- I have no choice about the environment that influences me while I am educated. I do not choose place or time, the values ​​and ideas of my society, my intelligence, etc.

Why could I be held morally responsible?

Morally responsible to who?
It is likely you are caught in the very common pseudo-sense or morality where you can be held to be morally responsible to others. That is not what is morality-proper is about.

In morality-proper you are only held morally responsible to yourself and never to any others nor authorities.
If you are responsible to any authority, that would be politics [laws] and that is independent of morality-proper. It is the same with rules of any group - that is not morality-proper.

In morality-proper, the moral standards are inherent within your own brain/mind and it is natural to align and flow with them spontaneously.
In this case, one has to activate one's moral function and competence progressively.

In a way, within natural morality-proper each individual are their own legislature, police, prosecutor, jury, and judge to facilitate your own progress.
The collective will facilitate and assist in the above.

The above is a totally contrasting paradigm to what the majority understood as what is morality which is pseudo-morality which in a way was corrupted by Hume.
Do you have any idea of the history of the subject of morality since Hume or prior?
If not, I suggest you do research on it, else we will keep talking pass each other till the cows come home.