Real Physical Moral Drivers are Independent of 'Moral' Judgments

[Terrapin Station]

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:

• Judgment and decision-making: Brain activity indicates there is more than meets the eye.
  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101218.htm
  
  Exploring The Mechanics Of Judgment, Beliefs: Technique Images Brain Activity When We Think Of Others
  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 212112.htm

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;

• The Moral Life of Babies
  Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

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.

How would we make sense of "no killing of humans" where there's no semantic component to that? It couldn't be something akin to what we have in quotation marks there, because a phrase like that, without a semantic component, is just a set of marks on a screen (or sounds that something makes).

[Veritas Aequitas]

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'.

I have already explained the above a "1000" so I am not going to repeat it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

How would we make sense of "no killing of humans" where there's no semantic component to that? It couldn't be something akin to what we have in quotation marks there, because a phrase like that, without a semantic component, is just a set of marks on a screen (or sounds that something makes).

In the context of the whole related discussion, I have repeated that many times, it refer to,
humans has the inherent inhibition via human nature, that humans ought-not to are prevented from killing humans.

[Peter Holmes]

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'.

I have already explained the above a "1000" so I am not going to repeat it.

No, you haven't even addressed the point I'm making.

There's no reason to describe a 'driver' that causes certain behaviour as a 'moral driver'. The modifier 'moral' in the expression 'moral driver' is grammatically misattached. It provides no information.

For the same reaon, without explanation, the modifier 'moral' in the expression 'moral behaviour' has no clear function. If 'moral' just means 'has moral significance', then 'moral behaviour' just means 'morally significant behaviour'. But what is morally significant behaviour? What makes it morally significant?

We know what makes a driver a sexual driver. So what makes a driver a moral driver?

[Terrapin Station]

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.

How would we make sense of "no killing of humans" where there's no semantic component to that? It couldn't be something akin to what we have in quotation marks there, because a phrase like that, without a semantic component, is just a set of marks on a screen (or sounds that something makes).

In the context of the whole related discussion, I have repeated that many times, it refer to,
humans has the inherent inhibition via human nature, that humans ought-not to are prevented from killing humans.

What??

You're not at all understanding what I'm asking you. I'm asking you how we'd make sense of it as something that occurs ontically, as something in brains that an individual (who has it instantiated in their brain) would be unaware of. If it is instantiated ontologically as something with no semantic content, just what is it (ontically)? Just what sort of thing are we saying is instantiated in brains that makes sense to say amounts to "killing is morally wrong"?