First you need to establish which sense of objectivity are you adopting, note this;
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View - realism
2. The FSK-ed view - antirealism
As with the above, there are two senses of scientific objectivity, i.e.
1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View - realism
2. The FSK-ed view - antirealism
It appears from your views above re pure objectivity, your sense of objectivity is based on
realism, i.e. 1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View which is regardless of one's opinions, beliefs or judgments.
I have proven the your view '1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View' is driven by philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167s
So, your sense of objectivity is illusory and has no credibility to counter me at all in this case.
Given the above, what is most realistic is the "2. The FSK-ed view - antirealism" sense of objectivity.
Thus my argument;
- P1 What is reality, fact, must be conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK which enables objectivity.
P2 Morality is part of reality [FSK-ed].
C Therefore, there are moral facts [FSK-ed], and morality [FSK-ed] is objective [FSK-ed].
the "moral oughtness not to kill humans" which is an objective moral fact from the moral-FSK [see above argument].
The above is based on inputs of FSK-ed scientific biological facts into the moral FSK.
....................................
ChatGpt: Additionally, understanding the neural and biological basis of behavior is an active area of research, and our understanding continues to evolve.
I am not presenting something definitive but a potential to establish pre-existing scientific facts that can moral facts within a moral FSK.
The below is the clue to how a scientific fact or 'not to kill humans' can be transposed to be an objective moral fact as conditioned within a human-based moral FSK.
The moral facts here are represented by the invariant physical neurons, their connectivity [relations] and neural algorithms, not any resulting varied opinions, belief and judgments resulting from them.
[quote"Question to ChatGpt"]
RE: The instinct 'not to kill humans' and 'to kill for food and self-defense'.
To facilitate survival, humans are "programmed" with an impulse to kill for food and in self-defense situation.
However, this "kill" impulse can be abused for evil acts such as premediated murder.
To ensure survival of the species, humans are also "programmed" with inhibitors [neural algorithm] that deter them from killing humans arbitrary.
Damage and weaknesses in this inhibitor of not-to-kill-humans as in malignant psychopaths and the likes drive some humans to kill other humans.
Question:
Are there biological program in terms of neural algorithms in the brain and body that inhibit and modulate the early evolutionary program to kill for food and self-defense?[/quote]
ChatGpt wrote:ChatGPT
Your description touches upon aspects of evolutionary psychology and behavioral inhibition. While it's essential to recognize that using terms like "programming" can be a bit misleading when applied to complex human behavior, there are indeed biological and neural mechanisms that contribute to the inhibition and modulation of behaviors, including the impulse to kill for food and self-defense.
Inhibition of Harmful Acts:
Evolutionary pressures have likely favored individuals who can cooperate and live in social groups. In many social species, including humans, there are neurological and psychological mechanisms that inhibit harmful acts towards members of the same species. This can be seen as a form of "biological programming" in the sense that certain predispositions have evolved to support social cohesion.
Preventing Arbitrary Killing:
Humans, as social beings, generally possess an aversion to harming others arbitrarily. This aversion is likely a result of a combination of genetic predispositions and cultural influences. The inhibition against arbitrary killing is crucial for maintaining social structures and ensuring the survival of the species.
Adaptations for Cooperation:
Humans have evolved to be cooperative and engage in reciprocal altruism, where individuals help each other with the expectation of receiving help in return. This cooperative behavior is facilitated by neural systems that reward prosocial actions and penalize antisocial ones.
Neurological Basis of Inhibition:
The prefrontal cortex, a region of the brain associated with executive functions and decision-making, plays a significant role in inhibitory control. This region is involved in regulating impulsive behaviors and considering the consequences of actions. Dysfunction in the prefrontal cortex or imbalances in neurotransmitter systems can contribute to difficulties in inhibiting harmful behaviors.
Role of Emotions:
Emotions such as empathy and guilt also play a role in inhibiting harmful actions. Feeling empathy for others can discourage harmful behavior, while guilt can serve as a deterrent and motivator for prosocial actions.
Individual Differences:
There are, however, individual differences in the strength of these inhibitory mechanisms. Some individuals may have neurological or psychological conditions that compromise their ability to inhibit harmful behaviors, leading to a higher risk of violent or antisocial acts.
It's important to note that while these mechanisms exist, they are not absolute or foolproof. Cultural, social, and environmental factors also play crucial roles in shaping behavior. Additionally, understanding the neural and biological basis of behavior is an active area of research, and our understanding continues to evolve.