Insatiable Design
I don't discount neurology and your second sentence agrees with what I was saying. BUT, according to this mentioned research there exists a universal, absolute set of ethics that applies to everyone regardless of upbringing, culture, etc. as otherwise it would be impossible to determine "moral aversion." I do not and cannot agree with that.
Why not? There's support and agreement for it within the neurological community. And then you add that fact of linguistic moral categories, and then there's the rub, they exist everywhere in human societies. But let's be honest about universal morality: while it's true that among cultures as among individuals within any culture there are variation in moral beliefs. (As well as scientific beliefs, I'll give you that one), there are still general (nearly universal, so far as I can tell) moral categories built in our language (and capacity for reason) and emotional center of our brain. So while we might not agree on what "Justice" means to us, we still all have that same word with the same ideas behind it and the same emotional reactions when, someone gets it "wrong".
As for literal UNIVERSAL (Not absolute: please keep the definians clear) moral categories, one can find regulation for incest, for example, in every society. Although the boundaries of those prohibitions might vary to a degree, it doesn't change the fact that it's still there and exists in every society ever documented. There are also rules concerning possession, killing, and other abstract ideas which are more or less universal. No one can walk into any human society and start kidnapping and torturing people for pleasure and get away with it, nor can they cannibalize someone's children and get a pass. While some moral beliefs and conduct does vary, variation by itself doesn't disprove the existence of universal commonalities. Much like language categories and medicine! Speaking of medicine! I'm sure any doctor will tell you that different people respond to different drugs differently, but that doesn't refute the universal laws of chemistry.
3nodding Quote:
However, if the information were to be reframed in the context of what I was saying (more complex brain = more complex morals) without changing facts, my theory is still supported.
But that is reframing the context of what was not said. You said there was no moral center in the frontal cortex of brain, I disagreed and supported what I said with facts for example good ole Phineas. Poor man. Maybe that isn't enough however, and I can further support it. There has been research on frontotemporal dementia in Alzheimer patients who show the very same conditions as poor ole' Phineas. It's localized now in the brain. It has nothing to do with complexity, but a specific part in the brain.
Quote:
Maybe to be clearer, when I say more complex morals, I mean ethics that involve protecting things and people besides just yourself and in regard to self looking to long term protection not just immediate.
Ah, well that actually CAN be found in the Kingdom animalia outside of humans, but the problem is it's only in animals that have .... that developed prefrontal cortex... Well I can understand if you think correlation doesn't mean causation but we're seeing a pattern here, and I think no scientist in his right mind will experimentally damage someone's prefrontal cortex to see if he'll suddenly lose his conscience.
eek Quote:
In-groups, out-groups, can you seriously not see that even having such groups indicates nurture/nature respectively?
No, of course not. Surely you've never heard of feral children? They have that same biological drive for morality and the in-group out-group formulation as well even if they are not raised by anything. Sad cases, those. Which goes further to prove my point of biologically existing morals in the prefrontal cortex. Lest you are admitting that it does exist where I said it does
confused
