What is a Moral Framework and System?

[Skepdick]

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?

Because your society will make the exact same counter-argument.

You were programmed by circumstance to behave the way you did (act immorally)

We were programmed by circumstance to behave the way you did (hold you responsible)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy- ... g_argument

[psycho]

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.

No. One cannot program or "program" a human brain. That's just a commonly used metaphor that produces confusion.

To suppose that a program to kill exists in humans (unfounded) implies that there is a program for each of human actions. Turn your head, think about morals, insult the sky, etc.

It still seems strange to me that you propose that human actions are programmed and at the same time think that human morality exists.

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.

You said that in the case of a murder, aggression may be the reason for that action. Now you clarify to me that aggression could be the reason for its consequences.

Aggression is not a factor in a murder. Aggression is one of the tools (behaviors) that a human (or any agent) uses to solve a problem.

Aggression is used to defend territory, protect young, determine social hierarchies, etc.

It is not a factor from the point of view of the individual who uses it.

To consider it the cause of its consequences is tautological.

Your clarification did not correct the absurdity of that idea.

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.

Any unconscious factor in human decisions voids those decisions of moral responsibility.

If the factors of the human will are unconscious all the Ethics treads can be erased.

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.

Noticing a decrease in violent solutions since World War II is not the same as assuming that Humanity evolves morally.

If the process that produces that idea is to compare the deaths that occurred by the hand of man during the deadliest wars in history with the time after them and to conclude that this proves moral evolution is very naive and almost funny.

[psycho]

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.

It is my soul who makes the decision!

[psycho]

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.

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 should I consider myself a morally responsible being?

[Terrapin Station]

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.

It is my soul who makes the decision!

The only sort of soul I acknowledge is the James Brown sort.

[psycho]

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?

Because your society will make the exact same counter-argument.

You were programmed by circumstance to behave the way you did (act immorally)

We were programmed by circumstance to behave the way you did (hold you responsible)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy- ... g_argument

That's absurd.

- I do not know what are the factors that form my will.

- Society does not know what are the factors that form its will.

Then society decides that there is something called morality that implies that wills know the factors of their decisions and that is why each individual is responsible for their actions.

[Skepdick]

That's absurd.

Making the exact same argument you are making is absurd?

Ok! Then stop making absurd arguments!

- I do not know what are the factors that form my will.

Neither does anybody in society!

- Society does not know what are the factors that form its will.

See... you even agree with me.

Then society decides that there is something called morality that implies that wills know the factors of their decisions and that is why each individual is responsible for their actions.

No! Society doesn't know what the factors are and why they want to hold you responsible for your actions. They just do!

You can't hold them responsible for holding you responsible. They are victims of circumstance - exactly like you.

[psycho]

That's absurd.

Making the exact same argument you are making is absurd?

Ok! Then stop making absurd arguments!

- I do not know what are the factors that form my will.

Neither does anybody in society!

- Society does not know what are the factors that form its will.

See... you even agree with me.

Then society decides that there is something called morality that implies that wills know the factors of their decisions and that is why each individual is responsible for their actions.

No! Society doesn't know what the factors are and why they want to hold you responsible for your actions. They just do!

You can't hold them responsible for holding you responsible. They are victims of circumstance - exactly like you.

At no time did I hold society responsible for assuming me responsible. You interpreted that and then attributed it to me.

You should point out which of my arguments was absurd.

I say that it is irrational to attribute moral responsibility, if one supposes that there are unconscious factors that form the will.

That it is irrational if one attributes that characteristic to oneself, if an observer does it, if society does it or if the extraterrestrials do it.

In other words, how can one conclude morality in an agent who does not have complete control of the factors that make up his will?

[Skepdick]

At no time did I hold society responsible for assuming me responsible. You interpreted that and then attributed it to me.

It was implicit in the question "Why could I be held morally responsible?". You pose this question to society.

And society poses one back at you "Why couldn't you be held morally responsible?"

You should point out which of my arguments was absurd.

All of them. You are applying a double standard.

I say that it is irrational to attribute moral responsibility, if one supposes that there are unconscious factors that form the will.

It's not my fault that I am irrational. I am victim of circumstance. Are you holding me responsible for my irrationality or....?

That it is irrational if one attributes that characteristic to oneself, if an observer does it, if society does it or if the extraterrestrials do it.

You did say that. In saying it YOU are abdicating responsibility for your thoughts and actions appealing to external factors. Why do you get to abdicate responsibility, but I don't?

It's not my fault that I am irrational. There are unconscious factors that form the will. I don't know the factors that form my will. Whatever those factors - they make my will irrational.

In other words, how can one conclude morality in an agent who does not have complete control of the factors that make up his will?

What sort of silly question is that! YOU did that! Ask yourself how you concluded it. You should have the answer, no?

- I do not know what are the factors that form my will.

If you don't want to conclude morality in agents, then don't. Conclude actions and consequences.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

No. One cannot program or "program" a human brain. That's just a commonly used metaphor that produces confusion.

To suppose that a program to kill exists in humans (unfounded) implies that there is a program for each of human actions. Turn your head, think about morals, insult the sky, etc.

It still seems strange to me that you propose that human actions are programmed and at the same time think that human morality exists.

There are no fixed and absolute meanings to words in the field of etymology which is very dynamic. Surely you'll not dispute this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology
The meanings for many words has changed and added with new meanings over time.
Note once a upon a time the word 'gay' = joyful, but its most popular meaning at present is 'homosexuality'.

If you are up to date, the word 'program' which is more popular toward computer programs, has now been used for mental programs of in the brain in recent times.
Even in artificial intelligence the move at present is to understand and mimic how the brain was "programmed" via evolution and nature.

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.

You said that in the case of a murder, aggression may be the reason for that action. Now you clarify to me that aggression could be the reason for its consequences.

Aggression is not a factor in a murder. Aggression is one of the tools (behaviors) that a human (or any agent) uses to solve a problem.

Aggression is used to defend territory, protect young, determine social hierarchies, etc.

It is not a factor from the point of view of the individual who uses it.

To consider it the cause of its consequences is tautological.

Your clarification did not correct the absurdity of that idea.

I believe the above is a problem of semantics.

If we present "murder" as an output as an equation, then we have,

• [Human]+ {a + b + c + ...} [inputs] + processes = murder [output]

From the above, 'aggression' is merely one of many variables that are present in the murder equation.
Aggression is not the critical variable.
The critical variable is the 'weakening of the moral inhibitors' in the murder equation.
Without the aggression variable, murder can still happen.
However if we have strong moral inhibitors, murders will not happen.

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.

Any unconscious factor in human decisions voids those decisions of moral responsibility.

If the factors of the human will are unconscious all the Ethics treads can be erased.

I wrote a response to your post somewhere and asked,
'decisions of moral responsibility' to who?
see:
'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31903

In morality-proper, a moral agent is not responsible to an external authority but only to his own moral conscience.

Another point is one need to understand the moral situations of humanity, e.g. there was/is so much violence, killing and all sort of evil acts committed by various individuals.
The moral agent's responsibility is to ensure he is not one of those within the statistics of evil people.

As such to better and improve the moral agent's moral conscience and responsibility, one has to understand what is going inside one's brain [the unconscious] and re-program for moral progress.

True, the individual may be ignorant of all of the above and his moral status, thus it is up to other individuals in the know to discuss [like what we are doing at present here] to facilitate moral progress in other individuals.

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.

Noticing a decrease in violent solutions since World War II is not the same as assuming that Humanity evolves morally.

If the process that produces that idea is to compare the deaths that occurred by the hand of man during the deadliest wars in history with the time after them and to conclude that this proves moral evolution is very naive and almost funny.

I understand correlation is definitely not causation.

But note, I have given a sound argument to support my point, i.e. a trend in the reduction of killing and violence is caused by an increase in the average moral competence of humanity.

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

What is wrong with the above argument?

Re premise 1 note this argument,
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

Premise 4 is very evident in the reduction contrast between the present to last 50 years in comparison to the numbers of humans killed via violence and wars during WWII, WWI and prior.

• World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. An estimated total of 70–85 million people perished, or about 3% of the 1940 world population (est. 2.3 billion).
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties.
  
  The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was about 40 million:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

Prior to the above,

• it is "claimed" 80 millions of Hindu-Indians were killed during the 1000 years of occupation by SOME Muslims in India.
  SOME Muslims also went on a killing spree in other lands.
  https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/
  
  There were also many other genocides, and terrible killings and violence where millions were killed.

[psycho]

At no time did I hold society responsible for assuming me responsible. You interpreted that and then attributed it to me.

It was implicit in the question "Why could I be held morally responsible?". You pose this question to society.

And society poses one back at you "Why couldn't you be held morally responsible?"

No. I do not deny the right for society to react to my actions or anyone else's.

I ask what is the rationality of attributing moral responsibility to an agent if not all the factors that make up his will are under his control (regardless of what society does)

I say that it is irrational to attribute moral responsibility, if one supposes that there are unconscious factors that form the will.

It's not my fault that I am irrational. I am victim of circumstance. Are you holding me responsible for my irrationality or....?

That it is irrational if one attributes that characteristic to oneself, if an observer does it, if society does it or if the extraterrestrials do it.

You did say that. In saying it YOU are abdicating responsibility for your thoughts and actions appealing to external factors. Why do you get to abdicate responsibility, but I don't?

It's not my fault that I am irrational. There are unconscious factors that form the will. I don't know the factors that form my will. Whatever those factors - they make my will irrational.

And this does not answer my question. Society can choose not to answer my question but society would be acting absurd if it considers that they answered it.

My question points to rational justification. Society can act irrationally (reason is not what decides human actions) and still I can ask what is its justification (irrational or rational).

You edited my quote and added a phrase that I didn't write. That is dishonest (Speaking of moral responsibility and consequences).

[Sculptor]

I am surprised there are people who deny the existence of moral systems within their respective framework.

No one is doing that.
The claim seems to be a denial of the claim that such a thing could be objective or absolute.
All such things are, at the outset, arbitrary, and subjective.
Rules are axiomatic, and might attract some objectively determined solutions in the case of very simple instances, but such axioms are inventions; culturally, historically, and personally subjective.

[Skepdick]

I ask what is the rationality of attributing moral responsibility to an agent if not all the factors that make up his will are under his control (regardless of what society does)

There doesn't have to be any rationality!

Because not all the factors that make up their will are under their control.

And this does not answer my question.

You are not owed an answer.

Society can choose not to answer my question but society would be acting absurd if it considers that they answered it.

Society is made up of agents, like you. If not all factors that make up your will aren't under your control, why do you think other people's circumstances are any different?

My question points to rational justification. Society can act irrationally (reason is not what decides human actions) and still I can ask what is its justification (irrational or rational).

The justification is... there isn't any. People are just acting in accord with the uncontrollable factors that make up their will.

You edited my quote and added a phrase that I didn't write. That is dishonest (Speaking of moral responsibility and consequences).

I am not dishonest. I am just not under control of all the factors that make up my will

[Skepdick]

The claim seems to be a denial of the claim that such a thing could be objective or absolute.

Morality is objective, but who is claiming absoluteness?

All such things are, at the outset, arbitrary, and subjective.
Rules are axiomatic, and might attract some objectively determined solutions in the case of very simple instances, but such axioms are inventions; culturally, historically, and personally subjective.

You conflate arbitrariness and subjectivity with infinite flexibility. As if to say that for every social norm found in one place, the exact opposite social norm could exists elsewhere.

And yet you continue to NOT provide evidence for societies where murder is a social norm.

[psycho]

There are no fixed and absolute meanings to words in the field of etymology which is very dynamic. Surely you'll not dispute this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology
The meanings for many words has changed and added with new meanings over time.
Note once a upon a time the word 'gay' = joyful, but its most popular meaning at present is 'homosexuality'.

If you are up to date, the word 'program' which is more popular toward computer programs, has now been used for mental programs of in the brain in recent times.
Even in artificial intelligence the move at present is to understand and mimic how the brain was "programmed" via evolution and nature.

The problem is conceptual.

Programming implies an intentional programmer and a mechanism (non-biological or biological) capable of receiving a list of orders and carrying them out in the order indicated.

This is not a characteristic of human nervous systems.

Metaphor is metaphor.

I believe the above is a problem of semantics.

If we present "murder" as an output as an equation, then we have,
[Human]+ {a + b + c + ...} [inputs] + processes = murder [output]
From the above, 'aggression' is merely one of many variables that are present in the murder equation.
Aggression is not the critical variable.
The critical variable is the 'weakening of the moral inhibitors' in the murder equation.
Without the aggression variable, murder can still happen.
However if we have strong moral inhibitors, murders will not happen.

That is like considering that the grasping ability of the hand is one of the reasons why someone strangles another.

I wrote a response to your post somewhere and asked,
'decisions of moral responsibility' to who?
see:
'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31903

In morality-proper, a moral agent is not responsible to an external authority but only to his own moral conscience.

Another point is one need to understand the moral situations of humanity, e.g. there was/is so much violence, killing and all sort of evil acts committed by various individuals.
The moral agent's responsibility is to ensure he is not one of those within the statistics of evil people.

As such to better and improve the moral agent's moral conscience and responsibility, one has to understand what is going inside one's brain [the unconscious] and re-program for moral progress.

True, the individual may be ignorant of all of the above and his moral status, thus it is up to other individuals in the know to discuss [like what we are doing at present here] to facilitate moral progress in other individuals.

That does not answer because oneself (anyone) considers himself morally responsible when not all the factors of a decision are known to him (for example: unconscious factors).

I understand correlation is definitely not causation.

But note, I have given a sound argument to support my point, i.e. a trend in the reduction of killing and violence is caused by an increase in the average moral competence of humanity.
1. The JUSTIFIED TRUE moral fact and moral standard is,
2. 'no human ought to kill humans'
3. this mean that there should be ZERO killing of humans as the standard.
4. Therefore, if there are a trend of decreasing killing towards ZERO killing, then there would be moral advance or progress.
What is wrong with the above argument?

Re premise 1 note this argument,
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

Premise 4 is very evident in the reduction contrast between the present to last 50 years in comparison to the numbers of humans killed via violence and wars during WWII, WWI and prior.
World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. An estimated total of 70–85 million people perished, or about 3% of the 1940 world population (est. 2.3 billion).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties.

The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was about 40 million:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties
Prior to the above,
it is "claimed" 80 millions of Hindu-Indians were killed during the 1000 years of occupation by SOME Muslims in India.
SOME Muslims also went on a killing spree in other lands.
https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/

There were also many other genocides, and terrible killings and violence where millions were killed.

The decision to kill, when the murderer considered it a convenient solution, is never after an ethical evaluation of the action. That only happens in Russian novels. What humans calculate, when society makes it necessary, is how to avoid consequences.

I do not dispute the decrease in violent solutions to human conflicts (frankly I do not know). I do not see how to observe that data and then ensure that it proves the moral evolution of humanity.

What is the evolutionary mechanism that favors moral improvement?