What is a Moral Framework and System?

[psycho]

Associating is rewiring the neural connections in the brain and that is programming.

You need to do a search in google re human programming, e.g.
https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-divisio ... rogramming
Do more research in google and show me why what is commonly term "human-programming" is not a case of 'programming'.

Rewiring is not programming.

Googling Flat earth does not help to understand the subject of the shape of the planet Earth.

You were the one who insist all murder is an aggressive act.
The killing due to 'love' is also murder, e.g. there are a lot of cases, i.e. the killing of one's children and spouse when one's life has failed to support them due to financial troubles and other reasons. This is due to desperation and stupidity, not aggression as defined.

You are the one who is confused about what Aggression is,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression

I find it strange that you put a link and cite a source that explains that aggression is a reaction.

There is no mention of 'love' in the above.
There are many other reasons other than aggression as defined above, on why someone killed humans which is legally murder.

I also find it quite strange that you assume that a Wikipedia article does exhaust all aspects and facets of a topic.

In the same way, it is strange to me that you consider that it reinforces your position (that love is a reason to kill as much as aggression) to see that in Wikipedia love does not appear as a trigger for aggressive mechanisms.

I don't understand your question.

To me, re the subject of morality, there is no question of any individual needing to feel morally responsible for his actions.

It is truly unfortunate that you do not understand the question

There is some degrees of evaluation in the moral sense or morality proper, but that is secondary.

In morality-proper what is primary is a moral competent person's action is activated spontaneously without evaluation.
It is just like a highly skilled professional tennis player who had trained for years and repeated his actions a million times in training that when he compete on the tennis court his actions to win are done spontaneously.

But a moral competent person do evaluate the consequences of his actions against the moral standard and take preventive steps of correct and improve upon future actions which are to be activated spontaneously.

So, morality is activated spontaneously and prevents immoral behaviors in those individuals who have strong inhibitors.

(We are entering unknown territory here!)

The mechanism would be like this?

1) "In morality-proper what is primary is a moral competent person's action is activated spontaneously without evaluation."

- The person acts = Kills a human being (the inhibitor was not activated due to being weak)

2) "a moral competent person do evaluate the consequences of his actions against the moral standard and take preventive steps of correct and improve upon future actions which are to be activated spontaneously."

- The person evaluates. = Understand that the consequences are bad

3) then he modifies the strength of his inhibitor to avoid killing again.

- (I still don't know how you consider that to be achieved)

4) "In morality-proper what is primary is a moral competent person's action is activated spontaneously without evaluation."

- The person acts = Kills a different human being (The inhibitor has not yet been sufficiently reinforced)

5) go back to step 2) until the inhibitor is strong enough to prevent further kills.

You are the one who present the above syllogistically, I did not.

I presented the above in narrative form and each premise require more detailed explanations,
- Killing humans is a moral issue [as verified and justified within a moral FSK]

- The objective of morality is to reduce the number of humans killed to ZERO

- If fewer humans are killed, morality must have improved
You did not explain why the above do not follow.

If prior to 1950, 500 million humans were killed via violence,
in the period, 1900-1950, 100 million humans were killed via violence,
then in the period 1951 to 2021, 20 million humans were killed via violence,
surely there is improvements in terms of numbers killed,
because killing is a moral element [verified and justified], thus morality has improved.
Morality in this case can be measured via the average Moral Quotient [MQ] as in IQ.

The version in narrative form is relating a fiction.

Arbitrarily suggesting a cause for a phenomenon is only valid within fiction.

[psycho]

No. That is fallacious. The reduction in the number of murders does not imply a moral improvement in society.

What would imply moral improvement then? If you can't even agree that murder is immoral, and therefore about morality then what do you even mean by "morality"?

Calling moral those who respect their neurological restrictions and immoral those who do not respect them is only possible if one completely changes the meaning of "moral".

What do you think THE meaning of "moral" is?

Yes. I have the same questions.

You can ask me anything you can think of!

[Skepdick]

Rewiring is not programming.

It literally is.

FPGAs contain an array of programmable logic blocks, and a hierarchy of "reconfigurable interconnects" that allow the blocks to be "wired together", like many logic gates that can be inter-wired in different configurations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-pro ... gate_array
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_ ... n_language

[Skepdick]

Show me!!

Yo, Sphincter!

I am still waiting for you to reject this Gravity thing you can't "Show me!!"

So your strategy is going to be "Show me!!" ? You insist appealing to direct experience? Great! I am stealing it for the counter-attack.

*clears throat*
*adjust bowtie*
*puts on serious face*
*silently laughs at Philosophers*
*farts*
*ENGAGE SMUGNESS*

Show me Gravity!!! No, I am not asking for the EFFECTS of Gravity, you dumb fucking sophist! I want direct experience of Gravity itself!

Show me Gravity !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Since we both know you can't deliver the goods, I want you to reject Gravity like you reject Morality.

Let me hear you say it! Proclaim your "stupid" like you aren't stupid!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Associating is rewiring the neural connections in the brain and that is programming.

You need to do a search in google re human programming, e.g.
https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-divisio ... rogramming
Do more research in google and show me why what is commonly term "human-programming" is not a case of 'programming'.

Rewiring is not programming.

Can you explain why rewiring the brain is not programming given that 'human programming' is an accepted term within neuroscience and neuro-psychology.

Show me some references to some opposing views where rewiring of the brain as in human programming is not programming.

Googling Flat earth does not help to understand the subject of the shape of the planet Earth.

Off point, I ask you to google re
"why what is commonly term "human-programming" is not a case of 'programming'."

You were the one who insist all murder is an aggressive act.
The killing due to 'love' is also murder, e.g. there are a lot of cases, i.e. the killing of one's children and spouse when one's life has failed to support them due to financial troubles and other reasons. This is due to desperation and stupidity, not aggression as defined.

You are the one who is confused about what Aggression is,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression

I find it strange that you put a link and cite a source that explains that aggression is a reaction.

There is no mention of 'love' in the above.
There are many other reasons other than aggression as defined above, on why someone killed humans which is legally murder.

I also find it quite strange that you assume that a Wikipedia article does exhaust all aspects and facets of a topic.

In the same way, it is strange to me that you consider that it reinforces your position (that love is a reason to kill as much as aggression) to see that in Wikipedia love does not appear as a trigger for aggressive mechanisms.

I am surprised that by now you have not understood the limitations in using Wikipedia.

It is commonly understood by users of Wikipedia that it is a useful source of information, but one need to provide reservations on its credibility and confidence levels.
If we cannot agree with what is referred to Wikipedia initially, then we need to refer to other primary sources that has higher credibility and confidence levels - which is more tedious.

I don't understand your question.

To me, re the subject of morality, there is no question of any individual needing to feel morally responsible for his actions.

It is truly unfortunate that you do not understand the question

The onus is on you to make it easier to understand.

There is some degrees of evaluation in the moral sense or morality proper, but that is secondary.

In morality-proper what is primary is a moral competent person's action is activated spontaneously without evaluation.
It is just like a highly skilled professional tennis player who had trained for years and repeated his actions a million times in training that when he compete on the tennis court his actions to win are done spontaneously.

But a moral competent person do evaluate the consequences of his actions against the moral standard and take preventive steps of correct and improve upon future actions which are to be activated spontaneously.

So, morality is activated spontaneously and prevents immoral behaviors in those individuals who have strong inhibitors.

(We are entering unknown territory here!)

The mechanism would be like this?

1) "In morality-proper what is primary is a moral competent person's action is activated spontaneously without evaluation."

- The person acts = Kills a human being (the inhibitor was not activated due to being weak)

2) "a moral competent person do evaluate the consequences of his actions against the moral standard and take preventive steps of correct and improve upon future actions which are to be activated spontaneously."

- The person evaluates. = Understand that the consequences are bad

3) then he modifies the strength of his inhibitor to avoid killing again.

- (I still don't know how you consider that to be achieved)

4) "In morality-proper what is primary is a moral competent person's action is activated spontaneously without evaluation."

- The person acts = Kills a different human being (The inhibitor has not yet been sufficiently reinforced)

5) go back to step 2) until the inhibitor is strong enough to prevent further kills.

I agree with the above iterations.
The above iterations are typical of any problem solving techniques to generate continuous improvements toward an established standard or objective.

However there is one critical point, i.e.
the range of degrees the moral agent is capable of evaluation of the consequences of his actions.
The range of degrees in capability to evaluate can be from low or none [malignant psychopaths] to high [normal person].

In the case of the average person who killed, it could be out of a sudden rage or passion, drunk, etc. that the person lost control and killed a person. In this case, after the damaging effect is over, the person conscience and guilt will take over and thus he will be able to evaluate and take corrective actions and hopefully it will not happen again.

On the other hand, in the case of a malignant psychopaths, his moral functions and moral evaluators are seriously damage beyond repairs.
In this case, he will not be evaluating his consequences and will continue to kill until the law catches up with him.

There will be case in between the lowest and the highest.

Btw, the above is not confined to the individual moral agent, but also to humanity so that it can facilitate the individuals to continually improve.

For example to meet the objective of ZERO killing, in the case of psychopaths, humanity will have to ensure no psychopaths are born and bred or find ways to reprogram and repair the damaged neurons which is not possible at present, but perhaps possible in the future.

The moral standard of ZERO killing will also trigger and motivate humanity to find ways to reduce the number of wars or get rid of wars. If there is a will [the standard drives the will] there will be a way - not now but in the future.

You are the one who present the above syllogistically, I did not.

I presented the above in narrative form and each premise require more detailed explanations,
- Killing humans is a moral issue [as verified and justified within a moral FSK]

- The objective of morality is to reduce the number of humans killed to ZERO

- If fewer humans are killed, morality must have improved
You did not explain why the above do not follow.

If prior to 1950, 500 million humans were killed via violence,
in the period, 1900-1950, 100 million humans were killed via violence,
then in the period 1951 to 2021, 20 million humans were killed via violence,
surely there is improvements in terms of numbers killed,
because killing is a moral element [verified and justified], thus morality has improved.
Morality in this case can be measured via the average Moral Quotient [MQ] as in IQ.

The version in narrative form is relating a fiction.

Arbitrarily suggesting a cause for a phenomenon is only valid within fiction.

My critical point above is about the relativeness and reductions as an example of what denotes improvement in relation to morality.

If you are in the know, the arbitrarily numbers are a close approximation in relative_ness to the real numbers.
I referenced earlier, in between 1900 -1950
WWI Casualties = 40 million
WWWII casualties = 85 millom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
Show me where my numbers are really fictitious and crazy?

It would be fictitious [common knowledge] if I assumed,
in the period, 1900-1950, 3 billion humans were killed via violence,
then in the period 1951 to 2021, 300 million humans were killed via violence,

[bahman]

Associating is rewiring the neural connections in the brain and that is programming.

You need to do a search in google re human programming, e.g.
https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-divisio ... rogramming
Do more research in google and show me why what is commonly term "human-programming" is not a case of 'programming'.

Rewiring is not programming.

Can you explain why rewiring the brain is not programming given that 'human programming' is an accepted term within neuroscience and neuro-psychology.

The brain keeps information (instead of a code) on different topics and links them together. Rewiring in the brain, therefore, is a change in links.

[psycho]

Can you explain why rewiring the brain is not programming given that 'human programming' is an accepted term within neuroscience and neuro-psychology.

Show me some references to some opposing views where rewiring of the brain as in human programming is not programming.

Whoever proposes the existence of something carries the responsibility of providing the evidence that justifies his assertion.

It is not possible to program humans.

The phrase is used metaphorically.

But it is completely indifferent to me that you understand that it is possible.

In this thread, let's agree that we don't agree on that topic. Otherwise we get out of the way. If you think that determination is essential, we can discuss it in another thread (if you think so).

Off point, I ask you to google re
"why what is commonly term "human-programming" is not a case of 'programming'."

If you found sites that claim that it is possible to program humans, my clarification is still valid.

I am surprised that by now you have not understood the limitations in using Wikipedia.

It is commonly understood by users of Wikipedia that it is a useful source of information, but one need to provide reservations on its credibility and confidence levels.
If we cannot agree with what is referred to Wikipedia initially, then we need to refer to other primary sources that has higher credibility and confidence levels - which is more tedious.

This clarification is also remarkable to me.

The onus is on you to make it easier to understand.

I agree with the above iterations.
The above iterations are typical of any problem solving techniques to generate continuous improvements toward an established standard or objective.

However there is one critical point, i.e.
the range of degrees the moral agent is capable of evaluation of the consequences of his actions.
The range of degrees in capability to evaluate can be from low or none [malignant psychopaths] to high [normal person].

In the case of the average person who killed, it could be out of a sudden rage or passion, drunk, etc. that the person lost control and killed a person. In this case, after the damaging effect is over, the person conscience and guilt will take over and thus he will be able to evaluate and take corrective actions and hopefully it will not happen again.

On the other hand, in the case of a malignant psychopaths, his moral functions and moral evaluators are seriously damage beyond repairs.
In this case, he will not be evaluating his consequences and will continue to kill until the law catches up with him.

There will be case in between the lowest and the highest.

Btw, the above is not confined to the individual moral agent, but also to humanity so that it can facilitate the individuals to continually improve.

For example to meet the objective of ZERO killing, in the case of psychopaths, humanity will have to ensure no psychopaths are born and bred or find ways to reprogram and repair the damaged neurons which is not possible at present, but perhaps possible in the future.

The moral standard of ZERO killing will also trigger and motivate humanity to find ways to reduce the number of wars or get rid of wars. If there is a will [the standard drives the will] there will be a way - not now but in the future.

Interesting!

My first impression is that this mechanism would guarantee the extermination of all individuals in a short time.

The second thought that crossed my mind is that this mechanism does not occur in nature.

The reason for killing seems particular to each person but it is not. It is always a threat to his integrity. Physical, genetic (relatives), economic, social, religious, etc. Something that attempts against his being or the heart of his identity.

Killing is a form of defense except in psychopathic individuals.

Now, the nature of the threat is as varied as the individuals and their interpretations are varied.

When the individual considers that it is not possible to solve this threat by other means, he resorts to aggression to solve it. Here the spectrum of aggressions ranges from passive aggressiveness to murder.


The idea would be that a biological system of control of human behavior has been developed that discourages people from taking harmful actions to their fellow humans?

But this type of system, if it exists, cannot be interpreted as a moral system.

Nor do I see it possible for different people to determine individually how harmful their actions are when they are harmful.

I do not understand how you suppose that the reinforcement of the inhibitor, which occurs (according to your point of view) after committing a harmful action, can be genetically transferred to the offspring of the individual (since you consider that the reinforcement of the inhibitor is the result of evolution ) nor why that moral improvement would facilitate greater reproduction in those who end up with a strong inhibitor.

Central to your hypothesis is that there should be some minimal hint of scientific proof for the existence of such a biological inhibitor.

[Veritas Aequitas]

double posting

[Veritas Aequitas]

I agree with the above iterations.
The above iterations are typical of any problem solving techniques to generate continuous improvements toward an established standard or objective.

However there is one critical point, i.e.
the range of degrees the moral agent is capable of evaluation of the consequences of his actions.
The range of degrees in capability to evaluate can be from low or none [malignant psychopaths] to high [normal person].

In the case of the average person who killed, it could be out of a sudden rage or passion, drunk, etc. that the person lost control and killed a person. In this case, after the damaging effect is over, the person conscience and guilt will take over and thus he will be able to evaluate and take corrective actions and hopefully it will not happen again.

On the other hand, in the case of a malignant psychopaths, his moral functions and moral evaluators are seriously damage beyond repairs.
In this case, he will not be evaluating his consequences and will continue to kill until the law catches up with him.

There will be case in between the lowest and the highest.

Btw, the above is not confined to the individual moral agent, but also to humanity so that it can facilitate the individuals to continually improve.

For example to meet the objective of ZERO killing, in the case of psychopaths, humanity will have to ensure no psychopaths are born and bred or find ways to reprogram and repair the damaged neurons which is not possible at present, but perhaps possible in the future.

The moral standard of ZERO killing will also trigger and motivate humanity to find ways to reduce the number of wars or get rid of wars. If there is a will [the standard drives the will] there will be a way - not now but in the future.

Interesting!
My first impression is that this mechanism would guarantee the extermination of all individuals in a short time.

This is a hasty and ridiculous impression.
If the objective is ZERO killing, it is not logical that all individuals will be exterminated in a short time.

ZERO killing in an inherent objective moral standard within all humans from the early phases of human evolution.
This is the inherent drive that trended the increasing human population from a few long long ago [100Ks of years ago] to 7+ billion in 2021.

The second thought that crossed my mind is that this mechanism does not occur in nature.

As stated it is already evident in nature as stated above, increasing trend of human population from a few in 100Ks of years ago to 7+ billion in 2021.

The reason for killing seems particular to each person but it is not. It is always a threat to his integrity. Physical, genetic (relatives), economic, social, religious, etc. Something that attempts against his being or the heart of his identity.

Killing is a form of defense except in psychopathic individuals.

Now, the nature of the threat is as varied as the individuals and their interpretations are varied.

When the individual considers that it is not possible to solve this threat by other means, he resorts to aggression to solve it. Here the spectrum of aggressions ranges from passive aggressiveness to murder.

As I had stated, ALL humans are "programmed" with the potential to kill primarily for food, self-defense is secondary and other reasons [aggression etc.] to kill extreme deviations.
So the program 'to kill for food' is primary for humans.

Note the analogy,
Also primary is, ALL humans are "programmed" with a very strong sex drive to produce the next generation.
But how they choose to have sex is secondary, it could be in a very romantic way or in aggressive mode of wild sex, violent sex, rapes, self-release, suppress it, bestiality, sadism, etc.

Therefore you cannot conflate 'aggression' or other modes with the primary inherent drives of 'to kill' or 'to have sex'.

The idea would be that a biological system of control of human behavior has been developed that discourages people from taking harmful actions to their fellow humans?

But this type of system, if it exists, cannot be interpreted as a moral system.

Nor do I see it possible for different people to determine individually how harmful their actions are when they are harmful.

Analogously, it is not possible for different people to determine individually how the sexual activities will be productive or harmful.
But that all humans are 'programmed' with a sex drive, nature could not care less how people have sex, but it is based on the strategy of large numbers and for the majority they will produce the next generation.

It is the same with the 'not to kill' inhibitors which is active in the majority with provisions for variation but depended on the strategy of large numbers doing the right thing to ensure the increase in population of humans.

"Moral" is just a word.
However the reality is there is a constant pattern and trend of human activities [state of affairs, feature of reality, fact] corresponding to the trend of human evolution that is driving toward the 'positives' and 'good'.
The above a constant pattern and trend of human activities is term 'morality' and generally accepted by most philosophers and others.

Note the general definition of morality which is accepted by many;

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.
Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Thus what is morality is merely a word to represent what is real, i.e. that a constant pattern and trend of human activities corresponding to the trend of human evolution that is driving toward the 'positives' and 'good'.

To be more objective with the term 'morality' we need to verify and justify it empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system [FSK].

The other point is, what is the inherent sex drive, moral drive, etc. drives endowed by Nature is crude.
Humans are endowed with wisdom [philosophy] to polish the moral drives with greater efficiency.
That is why I have been trying to discuss about.

I do not understand how you suppose that the reinforcement of the inhibitor, which occurs (according to your point of view) after committing a harmful action, can be genetically transferred to the offspring of the individual (since you consider that the reinforcement of the inhibitor is the result of evolution ) nor why that moral improvement would facilitate greater reproduction in those who end up with a strong inhibitor.

Do you believe in natural selection?

Within a generation, it is not likely for the offspring to inherit the positive moral inhibitors. Naturally it may take 20 generations for that to take effect.
But with education and skillful training, it is possible for the next few generations to expedite with "self-programming" the intended effective moral inhibitors.

Note I highlighted the http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
With the potential of the above and advancing technologies, humanity will be to expedite the processes for the individual to expedite the self-programming to increase the strength of their moral inhibitors such that they act spontaneously.

Note, when an individual or group has to decide whether it is morally wrong to kill 1 person or 20 persons in a either or scenario, that is not morality-proper.

Central to your hypothesis is that there should be some minimal hint of scientific proof for the existence of such a biological inhibitor.

Inhibitors are very basic and common elements within the neurosciences.
There are loads of research done on inhibitors.

As I mentioned, the trend of the increase in human population from a few to 7+ billion is a very strong initial evidence supporting the existence of the 'ought-not-to-kill-humans inhibitors.
This can be tested by science, e.g. via the existence of malignant psychopaths who are bent of killing humans without remorse. It is discovered these malignant psychopaths lacks or have damage to those parts that comprised the moral function set.

[psycho]

This is a hasty and ridiculous impression.
If the objective is ZERO killing, it is not logical that all individuals will be exterminated in a short time.

ZERO killing in an inherent objective moral standard within all humans from the early phases of human evolution.
This is the inherent drive that trended the increasing human population from a few long long ago [100Ks of years ago] to 7+ billion in 2021.

If there is a biological inhibitor, it has no purpose. That is magical thinking.

Assuming that a species has a limitation to a certain action (specifically, Do not kill humans) from the beginning of its development, is still magical thinking. The assumption that arose, at the beginning of the existence of a species (there is no such thing as the beginning of a species. It is just a convention) a characteristic that had an objective, that at the beginning was not effective in its intention and that with the successive generations it could be concretized, it is not something that can be sustained in science or common sense.

As stated it is already evident in nature as stated above, increasing trend of human population from a few in 100Ks of years ago to 7+ billion in 2021.

The increase in the human population is due to social and economic factors.

As I had stated, ALL humans are "programmed" with the potential to kill primarily for food, self-defense is secondary and other reasons [aggression etc.] to kill extreme deviations.
So the program 'to kill for food' is primary for humans.

Note the analogy,
Also primary is, ALL humans are "programmed" with a very strong sex drive to produce the next generation.
But how they choose to have sex is secondary, it could be in a very romantic way or in aggressive mode of wild sex, violent sex, rapes, self-release, suppress it, bestiality, sadism, etc.

Therefore you cannot conflate 'aggression' or other modes with the primary inherent drives of 'to kill' or 'to have sex'.

Analogously, it is not possible for different people to determine individually how the sexual activities will be productive or harmful.
But that all humans are 'programmed' with a sex drive, nature could not care less how people have sex, but it is based on the strategy of large numbers and for the majority they will produce the next generation.

It is the same with the 'not to kill' inhibitors which is active in the majority with provisions for variation but depended on the strategy of large numbers doing the right thing to ensure the increase in population of humans.

"Moral" is just a word.
However the reality is there is a constant pattern and trend of human activities [state of affairs, feature of reality, fact] corresponding to the trend of human evolution that is driving toward the 'positives' and 'good'.
The above a constant pattern and trend of human activities is term 'morality' and generally accepted by most philosophers and others.

Note the general definition of morality which is accepted by many;

Do you understand that reproducing would be a programmed directive that is reinforced after each sexual act and that each individual reinforces their sexual drive with each sexual experience? That would be another case of moral improvement?

Thus what is morality is merely a word to represent what is real, i.e. that a constant pattern and trend of human activities corresponding to the trend of human evolution that is driving toward the 'positives' and 'good'.

To be more objective with the term 'morality' we need to verify and justify it empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system [FSK].

The other point is, what is the inherent sex drive, moral drive, etc. drives endowed by Nature is crude.
Humans are endowed with wisdom [philosophy] to polish the moral drives with greater efficiency.
That is why I have been trying to discuss about.

Morality is not a pattern of human behavior but the differentiation of these behaviors into two groups. Good behaviors and bad behaviors.

Do you believe in natural selection?

Within a generation, it is not likely for the offspring to inherit the positive moral inhibitors. Naturally it may take 20 generations for that to take effect.
But with education and skillful training, it is possible for the next few generations to expedite with "self-programming" the intended effective moral inhibitors.

Note I highlighted the http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
With the potential of the above and advancing technologies, humanity will be to expedite the processes for the individual to expedite the self-programming to increase the strength of their moral inhibitors such that they act spontaneously.

Note, when an individual or group has to decide whether it is morally wrong to kill 1 person or 20 persons in a either or scenario, that is not morality-proper.

This seems to leave us with two possibilities.

- The inhibitor strengthens through evolution. (A strong inhibitor favors the reproduction of individuals with this characteristic)

- The inhibitor is reinforced during the life of the individual. (Each individual is born with the inhibitor in a standard position and no change in this characteristic is biologically transmitted to their offspring)

Inhibitors are very basic and common elements within the neurosciences.
There are loads of research done on inhibitors.

As I mentioned, the trend of the increase in human population from a few to 7+ billion is a very strong initial evidence supporting the existence of the 'ought-not-to-kill-humans inhibitors.
This can be tested by science, e.g. via the existence of malignant psychopaths who are bent of killing humans without remorse. It is discovered these malignant psychopaths lacks or have damage to those parts that comprised the moral function set.

An example of serious, scientific origin, explaining the existence of moral inhibitors that prevent murders, of genetic origin that can be reinforced by the behavior of individuals, would be useful.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is a hasty and ridiculous impression.
If the objective is ZERO killing, it is not logical that all individuals will be exterminated in a short time.

ZERO killing in an inherent objective moral standard within all humans from the early phases of human evolution.
This is the inherent drive that trended the increasing human population from a few long long ago [100Ks of years ago] to 7+ billion in 2021.

If there is a biological inhibitor, it has no purpose. That is magical thinking.

Assuming that a species has a limitation to a certain action (specifically, Do not kill humans) from the beginning of its development, is still magical thinking.
The assumption that arose, at the beginning of the existence of a species (there is no such thing as the beginning of a species. It is just a convention) a characteristic that had an objective, that at the beginning was not effective in its intention and that with the successive generations it could be concretized, it is not something that can be sustained in science or common sense.

Actually yours is magical thinking when you insist mine is magical thinking because your view is very illogical and irrational.

I did not state there was a instant where the species began, but the fact is the species did emerge gradually during some phase of evolution.

If you assumed there are NO inhibitors to kill humans from the early stages of the emergence of humans,
then logically and rationally every human will be inclined to kill humans for food, etc. [since all humans are programmed to kill for food to survive]
Thus logically the human species could potentially be extinct by humans.

But if you are observant, that is not the feature of Nature.
It it observed and evident that living things do not kill members of their own species and they make it a point to avoid killing members of their own species. It is only in exceptional cases and in low % of the population, where killing member of one's species is done.
This is verifiable by science.

As stated it is already evident in nature as stated above, increasing trend of human population from a few in 100Ks of years ago to 7+ billion in 2021.

The increase in the human population is due to social and economic factors.

But the core and fundamental reason is because all human are 'programmed' with the inhibitors not to kill the members of its own species. Where it happened those are exceptional cases and of low % relative to the whole population.
The favorable social and economic factors are merely catalysts.

Do you understand that reproducing would be a programmed directive that is reinforced after each sexual act and that each individual reinforces their sexual drive with each sexual experience? That would be another case of moral improvement?

This is magical thinking.

Nope! the inherent sexual drive is "programmed" in all humans to produce the next generation.
The inherent sexual drive if and when activated normally at puberty is of the same degree for the majority which is very forceful.
Thereafter that sexual drive can be increased or decreased due to nurturing and social factors.
Those who have had bad sexual experiences will likely have a decreased in sexual desires.

Therefore your "that each individual reinforces their sexual drive with each sexual experience?" is magical thinking.

Thus what is morality is merely a word to represent what is real, i.e. that a constant pattern and trend of human activities corresponding to the trend of human evolution that is driving toward the 'positives' and 'good'.

To be more objective with the term 'morality' we need to verify and justify it empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system [FSK].

The other point is, what is the inherent sex drive, moral drive, etc. drives endowed by Nature is crude.
Humans are endowed with wisdom [philosophy] to polish the moral drives with greater efficiency.
That is why I have been trying to discuss about.

Morality is not a pattern of human behavior but the differentiation of these behaviors into two groups. Good behaviors and bad behaviors.

Who said so?
To ensure your definition is not weird, where are your references to support the above?

This seems to leave us with two possibilities.

- The inhibitor strengthens through evolution. (A strong inhibitor favors the reproduction of individuals with this characteristic)

- The inhibitor is reinforced during the life of the individual. (Each individual is born with the inhibitor in a standard position and no change in this characteristic is biologically transmitted to their offspring)

I can agree with the above.

Inhibitors are very basic and common elements within the neurosciences.
There are loads of research done on inhibitors.

As I mentioned, the trend of the increase in human population from a few to 7+ billion is a very strong initial evidence supporting the existence of the 'ought-not-to-kill-humans inhibitors.
This can be tested by science, e.g. via the existence of malignant psychopaths who are bent of killing humans without remorse. It is discovered these malignant psychopaths lacks or have damage to those parts that comprised the moral function set.

An example of serious, scientific origin, explaining the existence of moral inhibitors that prevent murders, of genetic origin that can be reinforced by the behavior of individuals, would be useful.

'Killing of humans' is a moral issue.
Scientific research into why malignant psychopaths kill without remorse nor guilt, i.e. due to damage or weakening of certain parts of the brain is scientific evidence explaining the defect of moral inhibitors.

At present science has plenty of evidences surrounding the killing of humans [a moral issue] but they have not yet establish the exact and precise set of neurons involved.
But with the Human Connectome Project, it will be soon where neuroscience can pin point the exact neural sets that are responsible for humans killing humans and the inhibitors involved.

The problem with you is that you are so indifferent and a moral skeptic such that there is no drive [except resisting all the way] in you to explore the above scientific-moral possibilities. There is a psychological basis for such resistance and thinking.

[psycho]

Actually yours is magical thinking when you insist mine is magical thinking because your view is very illogical and irrational.

I did not state there was a instant where the species began, but the fact is the species did emerge gradually during some phase of evolution.

If you assumed there are NO inhibitors to kill humans from the early stages of the emergence of humans,
then logically and rationally every human will be inclined to kill humans for food, etc. [since all humans are programmed to kill for food to survive]
Thus logically the human species could potentially be extinct by humans.

But if you are observant, that is not the feature of Nature.
It it observed and evident that living things do not kill members of their own species and they make it a point to avoid killing members of their own species. It is only in exceptional cases and in low % of the population, where killing member of one's species is done.
This is verifiable by science.

It is absurd to assume that killing is a compulsive behavior in all individuals and requires an inhibitor.

That is, does every being that does not kill its fellow human beings has an inhibitor that prevents it from doing so?

A reference to such verification would be helpful.

But the core and fundamental reason is because all human are 'programmed' with the inhibitors not to kill the members of its own species. Where it happened those are exceptional cases and of low % relative to the whole population.
The favorable social and economic factors are merely catalysts.

This is an unfounded assumption.

This is magical thinking.

Nope! the inherent sexual drive is "programmed" in all humans to produce the next generation.
The inherent sexual drive if and when activated normally at puberty is of the same degree for the majority which is very forceful.
Thereafter that sexual drive can be increased or decreased due to nurturing and social factors.
Those who have had bad sexual experiences will likely have a decreased in sexual desires.

Therefore your "that each individual reinforces their sexual drive with each sexual experience?" is magical thinking.

It is remarkable to me that you see so clearly the impossibility of this mechanism in the case of sexuality and unjustifiably, you consider it necessary in your theory.

Who said so?
To ensure your definition is not weird, where are your references to support the above?

Do you suppose that morality is not the distinction between good and bad human behavior?

I can agree with the above.

They are mutually exclusive!

Would you give an example of how a strong inhibitor favors the reproduction of individuals with this characteristic?

'Killing of humans' is a moral issue.
Scientific research into why malignant psychopaths kill without remorse nor guilt, i.e. due to damage or weakening of certain parts of the brain is scientific evidence explaining the defect of moral inhibitors.

At present science has plenty of evidences surrounding the killing of humans [a moral issue] but they have not yet establish the exact and precise set of neurons involved.
But with the Human Connectome Project, it will be soon where neuroscience can pin point the exact neural sets that are responsible for humans killing humans and the inhibitors involved.

The problem with you is that you are so indifferent and a moral skeptic such that there is no drive [except resisting all the way] in you to explore the above scientific-moral possibilities. There is a psychological basis for such resistance and thinking.

No. Your assumption implies that our species comes from a group of psychopathic individuals who have corrected their psychopathies over time.

You have no idea what psychopathy is.

If in our origins the majority of the population had been made up of psychopaths, we would have become extinct.

The existence of psychopaths depends on the majority of the population not possessing these traits.

In other words, there is no scientific endorsement of your theory?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Actually yours is magical thinking when you insist mine is magical thinking because your view is very illogical and irrational.

I did not state there was a instant where the species began, but the fact is the species did emerge gradually during some phase of evolution.

If you assumed there are NO inhibitors to kill humans from the early stages of the emergence of humans,
then logically and rationally every human will be inclined to kill humans for food, etc. [since all humans are programmed to kill for food to survive]
Thus logically the human species could potentially be extinct by humans.

But if you are observant, that is not the feature of Nature.
It it observed and evident that living things do not kill members of their own species and they make it a point to avoid killing members of their own species. It is only in exceptional cases and in low % of the population, where killing member of one's species is done.
This is verifiable by science.

It is absurd to assume that killing is a compulsive behavior in all individuals and requires an inhibitor.

You are running out of arguments and thus it resorting to extremes.
Where did I state "killing is a compulsive behavior in all individuals .."
I stated "ALL humans are 'programmed' with a potential to kill [take a life]'.
You need to be more intellectually careful and honest.

That is, does every being that does not kill its fellow human beings has an inhibitor that prevents it from doing so?

A reference to such verification would be helpful.

I have also stated, because of the potential to kill in all humans, ALL humans are also programmed with inhibitors to inhibit killing.

I have already given you indication of the presence of such inhibitors in yourself and the majority such that you and they do not kill on impulse and in contrast to the psychopaths.

Here is a quickie clue re research in rats;
Evidence for Inhibition by Brain Serotonin of Mouse Killing Behaviour in Rats
https://www.nature.com/articles/233272a0

You have to read and explore more widely.

But the core and fundamental reason is because all human are 'programmed' with the inhibitors not to kill the members of its own species. Where it happened those are exceptional cases and of low % relative to the whole population.
The favorable social and economic factors are merely catalysts.

This is an unfounded assumption.

Once we have justified the existence of the inherent inhibitors to inhibit killing, the following claims are sound inferences.

Who said so?
To ensure your definition is not weird, where are your references to support the above?

Do you suppose that morality is not the distinction between good and bad human behavior?

Morality do involve the distinction between good and bad.
But the definition of what is morality is more encompassing than merely the above.

'Killing of humans' is a moral issue.
Scientific research into why malignant psychopaths kill without remorse nor guilt, i.e. due to damage or weakening of certain parts of the brain is scientific evidence explaining the defect of moral inhibitors.

At present science has plenty of evidences surrounding the killing of humans [a moral issue] but they have not yet establish the exact and precise set of neurons involved.
But with the Human Connectome Project, it will be soon where neuroscience can pin point the exact neural sets that are responsible for humans killing humans and the inhibitors involved.

The problem with you is that you are so indifferent and a moral skeptic such that there is no drive [except resisting all the way] in you to explore the above scientific-moral possibilities. There is a psychological basis for such resistance and thinking.

No. Your assumption implies that our species comes from a group of psychopathic individuals who have corrected their psychopathies over time.

Again where did I make such an assumption which is so stupid?
Our species emerged and expanded based on the 99% of individuals who naturally are born with strong and average moral inhibitors; they are not born with defective inhibitors.
On the other hand, psychopaths are the 1% of humans who are born with weakened and defective moral inhibitors.

You have no idea what psychopathy is.

I noted your ID is 'psycho' but you cannot assume I am ignorant of what is psychopathy is.
I have done sufficient research on what is psychopathy to have a reasonable knowledge of it. What do you think I am ignorant of re what is psychopathy?

If in our origins the majority of the population had been made up of psychopaths, we would have become extinct.

The existence of psychopaths depends on the majority of the population not possessing these traits.

In other words, there is no scientific endorsement of your theory?

Above is a straw man.
I never assumed the population is made up of psychopaths.
It is generally accepted within the psychology and psychiatric community, appx. 1% of humans are psychopaths [malignant and benign].

Btw, you are ignorant of loads of knowledge relevant to the issue above.
If you find something in my presentation that is not to your expectation, 99% of the time that is due to your ignorance.
Personally, I make it a point to ensure what I claimed or posted are supported by references I have or read somewhere [retrievable].

[psycho]

You are running out of arguments and thus it resorting to extremes.
Where did I state "killing is a compulsive behavior in all individuals .."
I stated "ALL humans are 'programmed' with a potential to kill [take a life]'.
You need to be more intellectually careful and honest.

You say that humans programmed to kill congeners are not really compelled to run the program?

If the behavior is under the control of their will, why do they need inhibitors to avoid executing the program?

I have also stated, because of the potential to kill in all humans, ALL humans are also programmed with inhibitors to inhibit killing.

I have already given you indication of the presence of such inhibitors in yourself and the majority such that you and they do not kill on impulse and in contrast to the psychopaths.

Here is a quickie clue re research in rats;
Evidence for Inhibition by Brain Serotonin of Mouse Killing Behaviour in Rats
https://www.nature.com/articles/233272a0

You have to read and explore more widely.

Abstract
THERE is some doubt about the role of brain serotonin in aggression. In mice made aggressive by prolonged isolation, there is a decrease in brain serotonin turnover1, while increased aggressiveness has been noted in cats2 and rats3 given p-chlorophenylalanine (PCPA), which inhibits serotonin synthesis4, although the experiments with cats2 were not confirmed later5. Dominguez and Longo6 reported that PCPA attenuates irritability and viciousness in rats with septal lesions, and Welch and Welch7 observed decreased aggressiveness in isolated mice given PCPA. The explanation for these contradictory results may be that different models of aggression are not mediated through the same areas of the brain or by the same biochemical mechanisms.

Once we have justified the existence of the inherent inhibitors to inhibit killing, the following claims are sound inferences.

It could be possible but you have not proven the existence of inhibitors or that they block programmed behaviors in humans that lead them to kill congeners.

Morality do involve the distinction between good and bad.
But the definition of what is morality is more encompassing than merely the above.

Again where did I make such an assumption which is so stupid?
Our species emerged and expanded based on the 99% of individuals who naturally are born with strong and average moral inhibitors; they are not born with defective inhibitors.
On the other hand, psychopaths are the 1% of humans who are born with weakened and defective moral inhibitors.

Your claim that psychopaths are individuals born with weak moral inhibitors is extremely incorrect.

I noted your ID is 'psycho' but you cannot assume I am ignorant of what is psychopathy is.
I have done sufficient research on what is psychopathy to have a reasonable knowledge of it. What do you think I am ignorant of re what is psychopathy?

What does my username have to do with it ???

But your claims about psychopathy contradict general knowledge.

Above is a straw man.
I never assumed the population is made up of psychopaths.
It is generally accepted within the psychology and psychiatric community, appx. 1% of humans are psychopaths [malignant and benign].

Btw, you are ignorant of loads of knowledge relevant to the issue above.
If you find something in my presentation that is not to your expectation, 99% of the time that is due to your ignorance.
Personally, I make it a point to ensure what I claimed or posted are supported by references I have or read somewhere [retrievable].

In other words, are there individuals within the population with weak inhibitors who are not psychopaths?

I am ignorant of your theory of biological inhibitors that prevent all humans (who are programmed to kill congeners) from running such a program.

That is why I ask you about the different aspects of that theory when they are not clear to me or when I find them contradictory.

It is not inevitable that you answer my concerns.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are running out of arguments and thus it resorting to extremes.
Where did I state "killing is a compulsive behavior in all individuals .."
I stated "ALL humans are 'programmed' with a potential to kill [take a life]'.
You need to be more intellectually careful and honest.

You say that humans programmed to kill congeners are not really compelled to run the program?

If the behavior is under the control of their will, why do they need inhibitors to avoid executing the program?

I have also stated, because of the potential to kill in all humans, ALL humans are also programmed with inhibitors to inhibit killing.

I have already given you indication of the presence of such inhibitors in yourself and the majority such that you and they do not kill on impulse and in contrast to the psychopaths.

Here is a quickie clue re research in rats;
Evidence for Inhibition by Brain Serotonin of Mouse Killing Behaviour in Rats
https://www.nature.com/articles/233272a0

You have to read and explore more widely.

Abstract
THERE is some doubt about the role of brain serotonin in aggression. In mice made aggressive by prolonged isolation, there is a decrease in brain serotonin turnover1, while increased aggressiveness has been noted in cats2 and rats3 given p-chlorophenylalanine (PCPA), which inhibits serotonin synthesis4, although the experiments with cats2 were not confirmed later5. Dominguez and Longo6 reported that PCPA attenuates irritability and viciousness in rats with septal lesions, and Welch and Welch7 observed decreased aggressiveness in isolated mice given PCPA. The explanation for these contradictory results may be that different models of aggression are not mediated through the same areas of the brain or by the same biochemical mechanisms.

That was a google quickie re inhibitors.
Doubts in the role of serotonin in aggression do not mean there are no inhibitors.

Note the brain works on two main activities, i.e. triggering and inhibiting.

Once we have justified the existence of the inherent inhibitors to inhibit killing, the following claims are sound inferences.

It could be possible but you have not proven the existence of inhibitors or that they block programmed behaviors in humans that lead them to kill congeners.

I know there are. It is too tedious for me to search, you can do some explorations yourself to confirm the above. I'll link if I come across them.

Morality do involve the distinction between good and bad.
But the definition of what is morality is more encompassing than merely the above.

It is so obvious.
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Again where did I make such an assumption which is so stupid?
Our species emerged and expanded based on the 99% of individuals who naturally are born with strong and average moral inhibitors; they are not born with defective inhibitors.
On the other hand, psychopaths are the 1% of humans who are born with weakened and defective moral inhibitors.

Your claim that psychopaths are individuals born with weak moral inhibitors is extremely incorrect.

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 noted your ID is 'psycho' but you cannot assume I am ignorant of what is psychopathy is.
I have done sufficient research on what is psychopathy to have a reasonable knowledge of it. What do you think I am ignorant of re what is psychopathy?

What does my username have to do with it ???

But your claims about psychopathy contradict general knowledge.

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].

Above is a straw man.
I never assumed the population is made up of psychopaths.
It is generally accepted within the psychology and psychiatric community, appx. 1% of humans are psychopaths [malignant and benign].

Btw, you are ignorant of loads of knowledge relevant to the issue above.
If you find something in my presentation that is not to your expectation, 99% of the time that is due to your ignorance.
Personally, I make it a point to ensure what I claimed or posted are supported by references I have or read somewhere [retrievable].

In other words, are there individuals within the population with weak inhibitors who are not psychopaths?

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

I am ignorant of your theory of biological inhibitors that prevent all humans (who are programmed to kill congeners) from running such a program.

That is why I ask you about the different aspects of that theory when they are not clear to me or when I find them contradictory.

It is not inevitable that you answer my concerns.

As I had stated, the brain and mind operate on two main activities, i.e. triggering and inhibiting impulses.
The one involving inhibitors are the theory of biological inhibitors.

Neural Inhibitors are like the different types of dams to deal with different levels of water forces within a river system.

If the behavior is under the control of their will, why do they need inhibitors to avoid executing the program?

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.