Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments, Decision, Opinions, Beliefs and related views.
Here is a discussion to support the above;

When someone expressed an opinion or belief, there are corresponding real physical brain matters and processes that enable the opinion or belief.
Whether the opinion or belief is true or not to reality is a different issue.
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:15 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: However, the assertion 'Stravinsky is the best composer' expresses an opinion, as does the assertion 'abortion is morally wrong'. With these assertions, we've moved away from the factual, and therefore objectivity, and into the subjective. There is no feature of reality that is 'being the best composer' or 'being morally wrong' - which is why opinion, judgement or belief is all that can be appealed to to justify those assertions.
Normally if someone says "Abortion is morally wrong" I'd say that they're giving their opinion, and I'd not expect that they believe it to be anything other than that unless they explicitly specify otherwise. It's not necessary for them to say "In my opinion" every time they state something like that. It should be understood that that's their opinion. The unusual idea would be if they're claiming that it's something other than their (or other persons') opinion(s). So I wouldn't say that those utterances move away from something factual. It's just that it's a fact of what their opinion happens to be. They're only moving away from something factual if they say that "Abortion is wrong independent of anyone's opinion."
1. When someone expresses "Abortion is morally wrong" he is expressing a statement which could be his opinion or beliefs which claims to represent reality.
Just like my points above, there are physical brain matters and processes that correspond to the activity of making the expression "Abortion is morally wrong".

2. Take for example, the expression by someone 'killing is morally wrong'.
This expression like any expression is manifested from physical brain matters and processes that enable the expression 'killing is morally wrong' or any other expressions of opinions or beliefs.

3. The reality is the above expression of opinion 'killing is morally wrong' is represented by activities of the brain functions that enable one to make expressions of opinions and beliefs, i.e. involving the inference function, the linguistic functions, memory, concepts, etc.

4. However the expression 'killing is morally wrong' has nothing to do with [independent to] the inherent moral drivers and functions [humans ought not to kill humans] which has its separate corresponding physical referents in terms of its specific neural correlates and chemical activities.

5. This is what I meant when I insisted 'moral' judgments, decisions, opinions, beliefs are independent of morality-proper.
Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615

6. So there are two independent physical functions in the human brain on the issue of drivers in expressing 'moral opinions' and the real physical moral drivers.

7. The neural drivers for expressing opinions, beliefs can manifest all sorts of opinion and beliefs which need not be merely 'moral' related but can be any type of opinions or belief.

8. The physical moral drivers [represented by physical neurons and chemicals] in the brain drive moral matters only, e.g. inhibiting humans from killing humans. This inhibitor may be weaken or failed but that does not mean it do not exist in the brain.

Therefore real Physical Moral Drivers in the brain are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments, Decision, Opinions, Beliefs and related views.

Agree?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:43 am Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments, Decision, Opinions, Beliefs and related views.
Here is a discussion to support the above;

When someone expressed an opinion or belief, there are corresponding real physical brain matters and processes that enable the opinion or belief.
Whether the opinion or belief is true or not to reality is a different issue.
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:15 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: However, the assertion 'Stravinsky is the best composer' expresses an opinion, as does the assertion 'abortion is morally wrong'. With these assertions, we've moved away from the factual, and therefore objectivity, and into the subjective. There is no feature of reality that is 'being the best composer' or 'being morally wrong' - which is why opinion, judgement or belief is all that can be appealed to to justify those assertions.
Normally if someone says "Abortion is morally wrong" I'd say that they're giving their opinion, and I'd not expect that they believe it to be anything other than that unless they explicitly specify otherwise. It's not necessary for them to say "In my opinion" every time they state something like that. It should be understood that that's their opinion. The unusual idea would be if they're claiming that it's something other than their (or other persons') opinion(s). So I wouldn't say that those utterances move away from something factual. It's just that it's a fact of what their opinion happens to be. They're only moving away from something factual if they say that "Abortion is wrong independent of anyone's opinion."
1. When someone expresses "Abortion is morally wrong" he is expressing a statement which could be his opinion or beliefs which claims to represent reality.
Just like my points above, there are physical brain matters and processes that correspond to the activity of making the expression "Abortion is morally wrong".

2. Take for example, the expression by someone 'killing is morally wrong'.
This expression like any expression is manifested from physical brain matters and processes that enable the expression 'killing is morally wrong' or any other expressions of opinions or beliefs.

3. The reality is the above expression of opinion 'killing is morally wrong' is represented by activities of the brain functions that enable one to make expressions of opinions and beliefs, i.e. involving the inference function, the linguistic functions, memory, concepts, etc.

4. However the expression 'killing is morally wrong' has nothing to do with [independent to] the inherent moral drivers and functions [humans ought not to kill humans] which has its separate corresponding physical referents in terms of its specific neural correlates and chemical activities.

5. This is what I meant when I insisted 'moral' judgments, decisions, opinions, beliefs are independent of morality-proper.
Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615

6. So there are two independent physical functions in the human brain on the issue of drivers in expressing 'moral opinions' and the real physical moral drivers.

7. The neural drivers for expressing opinions, beliefs can manifest all sorts of opinion and beliefs which need not be merely 'moral' related but can be any type of opinions or belief.

8. The physical moral drivers [represented by physical neurons and chemicals] in the brain drive moral matters only, e.g. inhibiting humans from killing humans. This inhibitor may be weaken or failed but that does not mean it do not exist in the brain.

Therefore real Physical Moral Drivers in the brain are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments, Decision, Opinions, Beliefs and related views.

Agree?
1 What's the implied difference between moral and 'moral' in the OP? Is it that moral judgements, decisions, and so on, are not real?

2 Can the assertion 'humans ought not to kill humans' express a 'moral' judgement, decision, and so on?

3 If what we're talking about are 'real physical drivers' of human behaviour, why call them 'moral drivers'? What meaning does the word 'moral' have in the expression 'moral driver' or (same thing) 'moral programming'? Does it refer to the driver, or to the behaviour that the driver drives?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:43 am Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments, Decision, Opinions, Beliefs and related views.
Here is a discussion to support the above;

When someone expressed an opinion or belief, there are corresponding real physical brain matters and processes that enable the opinion or belief.
Whether the opinion or belief is true or not to reality is a different issue.
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:15 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: However, the assertion 'Stravinsky is the best composer' expresses an opinion, as does the assertion 'abortion is morally wrong'. With these assertions, we've moved away from the factual, and therefore objectivity, and into the subjective. There is no feature of reality that is 'being the best composer' or 'being morally wrong' - which is why opinion, judgement or belief is all that can be appealed to to justify those assertions.
Normally if someone says "Abortion is morally wrong" I'd say that they're giving their opinion, and I'd not expect that they believe it to be anything other than that unless they explicitly specify otherwise. It's not necessary for them to say "In my opinion" every time they state something like that. It should be understood that that's their opinion. The unusual idea would be if they're claiming that it's something other than their (or other persons') opinion(s). So I wouldn't say that those utterances move away from something factual. It's just that it's a fact of what their opinion happens to be. They're only moving away from something factual if they say that "Abortion is wrong independent of anyone's opinion."
1. When someone expresses "Abortion is morally wrong" he is expressing a statement which could be his opinion or beliefs which claims to represent reality.
Just like my points above, there are physical brain matters and processes that correspond to the activity of making the expression "Abortion is morally wrong".

2. Take for example, the expression by someone 'killing is morally wrong'.
This expression like any expression is manifested from physical brain matters and processes that enable the expression 'killing is morally wrong' or any other expressions of opinions or beliefs.

3. The reality is the above expression of opinion 'killing is morally wrong' is represented by activities of the brain functions that enable one to make expressions of opinions and beliefs, i.e. involving the inference function, the linguistic functions, memory, concepts, etc.

4. However the expression 'killing is morally wrong' has nothing to do with [independent to] the inherent moral drivers and functions [humans ought not to kill humans] which has its separate corresponding physical referents in terms of its specific neural correlates and chemical activities.

5. This is what I meant when I insisted 'moral' judgments, decisions, opinions, beliefs are independent of morality-proper.
Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615

6. So there are two independent physical functions in the human brain on the issue of drivers in expressing 'moral opinions' and the real physical moral drivers.

7. The neural drivers for expressing opinions, beliefs can manifest all sorts of opinion and beliefs which need not be merely 'moral' related but can be any type of opinions or belief.

8. The physical moral drivers [represented by physical neurons and chemicals] in the brain drive moral matters only, e.g. inhibiting humans from killing humans. This inhibitor may be weaken or failed but that does not mean it do not exist in the brain.

Therefore real Physical Moral Drivers in the brain are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments, Decision, Opinions, Beliefs and related views.

Agree?
So for one, you're claiming that there can be semantic content instantiated in an individual's brain that the individual isn't aware of, correct?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6213
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments

Post by FlashDangerpants »

I've put up with a lot of foolishness in my time. But the prospect of watching Vegetable Ambulance attempt to address an intentionality problem fills me with particular dread.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:43 am Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments, Decision, Opinions, Beliefs and related views.
Here is a discussion to support the above;

When someone expressed an opinion or belief, there are corresponding real physical brain matters and processes that enable the opinion or belief.
Whether the opinion or belief is true or not to reality is a different issue.
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:15 pm

Normally if someone says "Abortion is morally wrong" I'd say that they're giving their opinion, and I'd not expect that they believe it to be anything other than that unless they explicitly specify otherwise. It's not necessary for them to say "In my opinion" every time they state something like that. It should be understood that that's their opinion. The unusual idea would be if they're claiming that it's something other than their (or other persons') opinion(s). So I wouldn't say that those utterances move away from something factual. It's just that it's a fact of what their opinion happens to be. They're only moving away from something factual if they say that "Abortion is wrong independent of anyone's opinion."
1. When someone expresses "Abortion is morally wrong" he is expressing a statement which could be his opinion or beliefs which claims to represent reality.
Just like my points above, there are physical brain matters and processes that correspond to the activity of making the expression "Abortion is morally wrong".

2. Take for example, the expression by someone 'killing is morally wrong'.
This expression like any expression is manifested from physical brain matters and processes that enable the expression 'killing is morally wrong' or any other expressions of opinions or beliefs.

3. The reality is the above expression of opinion 'killing is morally wrong' is represented by activities of the brain functions that enable one to make expressions of opinions and beliefs, i.e. involving the inference function, the linguistic functions, memory, concepts, etc.

4. However the expression 'killing is morally wrong' has nothing to do with [independent to] the inherent moral drivers and functions [humans ought not to kill humans] which has its separate corresponding physical referents in terms of its specific neural correlates and chemical activities.

5. This is what I meant when I insisted 'moral' judgments, decisions, opinions, beliefs are independent of morality-proper.
Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615

6. So there are two independent physical functions in the human brain on the issue of drivers in expressing 'moral opinions' and the real physical moral drivers.

7. The neural drivers for expressing opinions, beliefs can manifest all sorts of opinion and beliefs which need not be merely 'moral' related but can be any type of opinions or belief.

8. The physical moral drivers [represented by physical neurons and chemicals] in the brain drive moral matters only, e.g. inhibiting humans from killing humans. This inhibitor may be weaken or failed but that does not mean it do not exist in the brain.

Therefore real Physical Moral Drivers in the brain are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments, Decision, Opinions, Beliefs and related views.

Agree?
1 What's the implied difference between moral and 'moral' in the OP? Is it that moral judgements, decisions, and so on, are not real?
Yes 'Moral' judgements, decisions are not directly related to morality-proper as I have stated many times.
2 Can the assertion 'humans ought not to kill humans' express a 'moral' judgement, decision, and so on?
It is possible for the assertion 'humans ought not to kill humans' to be expressed as a 'moral' judgment if it is not considered within morality-proper and as a real physical moral driver [things].
3 If what we're talking about are 'real physical drivers' of human behaviour, why call them 'moral drivers'? What meaning does the word 'moral' have in the expression 'moral driver' or (same thing) 'moral programming'? Does it refer to the driver, or to the behaviour that the driver drives?
Why call 'sexual drivers, hunger drivers, emotional drivers, etc.
There are 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 connectors [synapses]; note the potential combinations of these connectors.
There are sets of neural correlates which drive specific human behavior, thus are labelled to their specific type of human behavior.

Physical moral drivers [organic machines] are those sets of neural correlates [algorithms] that drive moral impulses thus moral behaviors.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:14 pm So for one, you're claiming that there can be semantic content instantiated in an individual's brain that the individual isn't aware of, correct?
Nope, I am claiming that are physical contents in the brain that are driving behaviors that are recognized as moral.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:21 am A physical brain-state that 'corresponds to/with' expressing a moral opinion isn't therefore a 'moral brain-state'. That expression transfers the epithet 'moral' from what it applies to - say, the behaviour caused by the brain-state - to the brain-state itself. Would the expression 'immoral brain-state' refer to the brain-state?

The correct analysis is this: our 'brain-states' cause certain actions; some of those actions can be judged to have moral implications - to be morally right or wrong; our moral judgements 'come from' or 'reflect' or 'manifest' our 'brain-states'.
You are too short sighted on the above.

What we have are the following;

A. The physical moral drivers
  • 1. The inherent physical moral drivers "programmed" via evolution.
    2. The above are represented by specific neurons and chemicals.
    3. The exist as a brain state and potential.
    4. This state manifest moral actions.
    5. This moral brain state do not express 'moral' opinions, beliefs, judgment, etc.
B. The Judgment & Expressing Drivers
1. The physical judgment and expressing drivers are separate faculties in the brain.
2. They are represented by a different set of neurons and chemicals from A.
3. These judgment and expressing drivers receives input from the moral actions and they make judgments [not necessary] on them.
4. These separate judgment and expressing drivers make judgment on all other human behaviors not only morally related ones.

You have conflated A with B, thus the confusion.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:24 pm There are two different senses of "moral" there. Note that in philosophy, we don't usually use "moral," without other qualifiers, to denote "morally permissible" or "morally obligatory" or anything like that. "Moral" in philosophy rather typically refers to "having to do with judgments of/ about the permissibility/impermissibility (etc.) of behavioral interactions."
I am arguing what is typically 'moral' in our present philosophy community is not effective in producing the intended results. That is why we have moral subjectivism.

What I am doing is aligning 'morality' with what is "programmed" inherent within all humans to ensure the 'good' prevails over 'evil', i.e. which is basically morality-proper [as defined].

A moral utterance is thus an utterance of or about these judgments. It's not saying that the utterance itself is morally permissible whereas an utterance might be morally impermissible. "X is morally impermissible" is a moral utterance just like "X is morally permissible" or "X is morally neutral."

So a "moral brain state" is a brain state of or about judgments of behavioral interactions . It's not a morally permissible (versus morally impermissible) brain state.
Note my point in the above post where I stated that are two different neural sets represented by different neurons and chemicals, i.e.

A. The physical moral drivers
B. The physical Judgment & Expressing Drivers

Example the physical sexual drivers that make you sexually excited are different from the physical judgment and expressing drivers that enable you to make judgments and expression of your sexual behaviors.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:27 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:14 pm So for one, you're claiming that there can be semantic content instantiated in an individual's brain that the individual isn't aware of, correct?
Nope, I am claiming that are physical contents in the brain that are driving behaviors that are recognized as moral.
Okay, but you were talking about this as if the expression "killing is morally wrong" would be present in brain structure/function where the person might not be aware of it. So to get this straight, you are NOT saying that "killing is morally wrong" might be present in someone's brain where they're not aware of this, right?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:27 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:14 pm So for one, you're claiming that there can be semantic content instantiated in an individual's brain that the individual isn't aware of, correct?
Nope, I am claiming that are physical contents in the brain that are driving behaviors that are recognized as moral.
Okay, but you were talking about this as if the expression "killing is morally wrong" would be present in brain structure/function where the person might not be aware of it.

So to get this straight, you are NOT saying that "killing is morally wrong" might be present in someone's brain where they're not aware of this, right?
NOPE! I am not saying that.
To doubt I may be saying that is actually insulting your own intelligence, how could you come up with that sort of doubt.

What I am saying is there is a specific function in the brain that enable humans to make judgments in general which could be any sort of judgment besides morally related judgments like "killing is morally wrong".

Note:

On the other hand and similarly there is a specific moral function in the brain which is different from the specific function for judgements albeit linked in someway.
Here is a clue re the innateness of morality within humanity;
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments

Post by Peter Holmes »

What we call 'making a judgement' is a neural process. But would we call it a 'judgemental neural process'?

If we think about aeronautics, is there an aeronautical neural process going on going our brains?

When we make a moral judgement, why does it make sense to call it a 'moral neural process'?

If something in our brains makes us behave violently, is that thing a 'violent neural process'?

If a neural process stops us killing people, in what way is that a 'moral neural process'?

If a neural process made us kill people, would that be a 'moral neural process'?

What I mean is: a physical process just does or doesn't exist. Moral judgement as to the rightness or wrongness, goodness or badness, propriety or impropriety of that physical process is a separate matter from the process itself.

The expression 'moral driver' conflates separate issues: a neural process that causes ('drives') certain behaviour; and the moral significance of the behaviour. The behaviour may be considered apt for moral judgement, and even judged as right or wrong, not-evil (aka good) or evil, and so on. But the neural process is neither, because it has no moral significance. The expression 'moral driver' is incoherent - or, at least, risks conceptual confusion.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:20 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:27 am
Nope, I am claiming that are physical contents in the brain that are driving behaviors that are recognized as moral.
Okay, but you were talking about this as if the expression "killing is morally wrong" would be present in brain structure/function where the person might not be aware of it.

So to get this straight, you are NOT saying that "killing is morally wrong" might be present in someone's brain where they're not aware of this, right?
NOPE! I am not saying that.
To doubt I may be saying that is actually insulting your own intelligence, how could you come up with that sort of doubt.

What I am saying is there is a specific function in the brain that enable humans to make judgments in general which could be any sort of judgment besides morally related judgments like "killing is morally wrong".

Note:

On the other hand and similarly there is a specific moral function in the brain which is different from the specific function for judgements albeit linked in someway.
Here is a clue re the innateness of morality within humanity;
So if such as "Killing is morally wrong" is not present in brains without the bearer of the brain being aware of it, just what sort of x is present in brains as a "moral function" that the bearer of the brain might not be aware of?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:09 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:20 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:03 pm

Okay, but you were talking about this as if the expression "killing is morally wrong" would be present in brain structure/function where the person might not be aware of it.

So to get this straight, you are NOT saying that "killing is morally wrong" might be present in someone's brain where they're not aware of this, right?
NOPE! I am not saying that.
To doubt I may be saying that is actually insulting your own intelligence, how could you come up with that sort of doubt.

What I am saying is there is a specific function in the brain that enable humans to make judgments in general which could be any sort of judgment besides morally related judgments like "killing is morally wrong".

Note:

On the other hand and similarly there is a specific moral function in the brain which is different from the specific function for judgements albeit linked in someway.
Here is a clue re the innateness of morality within humanity;
So if such as "Killing is morally wrong" is not present in brains without the bearer of the brain being aware of it, just what sort of x is present in brains as a "moral function" that the bearer of the brain might not be aware of?
Are you aware of your sexual function in the brain?
The majority of people [males] would only be aware of their 'erection' and the "compulsion" [oughtness in a way] to have sex but no idea that is driven by a inherently real physical sexual function in the brain.
It only those who studied biology, human sexuality plus neuroscience that they are knowledgeable there are sexual functions are represented by specific sets of neurons and chemicals in human brain.

The above is the same with moral function in the brain.
There are moral functions represented by specific sets of neurons and chemicals [physically real] in human brain.
Example there is a set of neurons and chemicals in the human brain that generate the inhibition of 'no killing of humans'.

Forget about your 'killing is morally wrong' as a primary element re morality-proper.
'Killing is morally wrong' is triggered by a separate brain function i.e. the 'judgment' function in the brain.
This judgment also enable you to judge and believe your sex is good or not in terms of feelings & performance and other judgments, beliefs, opinions related to sex.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:00 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:09 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:20 am
NOPE! I am not saying that.
To doubt I may be saying that is actually insulting your own intelligence, how could you come up with that sort of doubt.

What I am saying is there is a specific function in the brain that enable humans to make judgments in general which could be any sort of judgment besides morally related judgments like "killing is morally wrong".

Note:

On the other hand and similarly there is a specific moral function in the brain which is different from the specific function for judgements albeit linked in someway.
Here is a clue re the innateness of morality within humanity;
So if such as "Killing is morally wrong" is not present in brains without the bearer of the brain being aware of it, just what sort of x is present in brains as a "moral function" that the bearer of the brain might not be aware of?
Are you aware of your sexual function in the brain?
The majority of people [males] would only be aware of their 'erection' and the "compulsion" [oughtness in a way] to have sex but no idea that is driven by a inherently real physical sexual function in the brain.
It only those who studied biology, human sexuality plus neuroscience that they are knowledgeable there are sexual functions are represented by specific sets of neurons and chemicals in human brain.

The above is the same with moral function in the brain.
There are moral functions represented by specific sets of neurons and chemicals [physically real] in human brain.
Example there is a set of neurons and chemicals in the human brain that generate the inhibition of 'no killing of humans'.

Forget about your 'killing is morally wrong' as a primary element re morality-proper.
'Killing is morally wrong' is triggered by a separate brain function i.e. the 'judgment' function in the brain.
This judgment also enable you to judge and believe your sex is good or not in terms of feelings & performance and other judgments, beliefs, opinions related to sex.
The expression 'moral function' is a grammatical misattribution, or transferred epithet. This means that the modifier 'moral' doesn't actually refer the word 'function'. It refers to something else which is unstated.

And your comparison with what you call the 'sexual function' in the brain shows this. Many of us have a 'sex drive' that makes us want to have sex. So there's a direct relationship between the neural programming and the behaviour.

What does the so-called 'moral function' make us do? Have or do morality? What does it mean to 'behave in a moral way' - and how is that anything like having sex? (You think that morality has nothing to do with right and wrong, etc.)

If your answer is that the moral function or driver makes us not kill humans, why is 'not killing humans' specifically 'moral behaviour'? Why call that a moral function?

The expression 'moral function' is as incoherent as the expression 'moral fact'. They're mis-uses of the word 'moral'.
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:43 am Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments, Decision, Opinions, Beliefs and related views.
:lol: :lol:

There is no way to come back from that heading.

It is so bad, that as scientists say about babble; you are not even wrong.
Post Reply