Thank you for your in-depth criticism.

"..supposedly makes the actor feel good and happy.", "one that most people approve of", "is a heroic act" etc. etc. are all examples which later I, myself, debunked, much resembling your claims. I put to you that you missed the point of my paper because you did not finish following the logical buildup of the claim I made.

You rejected my thesis on examples that were mistaken by you as examples of my beliefs and supporting reasons for my later points, but in fact their support was merely that they were false and unsupportable claims of what makes an act moral.

Strangely and in a funny way, you agreed with me, inasmuch as the examples you rejected were rejected by me too. Your mistake was to not see that.

If you had only read and reflected on the paragraph that preceded the list you quoted from, the above would have been clear to you. Instead, I believe and it appears that you superficially neglected to do an in-depth reading, you skimmed my paper, skipped integrally important parts of it, important in the sense that they served to show a point, and then you made judgments on the merits of my paper based on completely irrelevant reasons.

This is an act that no human would say "it is amoral, it is immoral". To all this is a truly moral act. — god must be atheist

If the action was done purely on instinct would it not be amoral? At least some conscious thought is required to make it a moral action. Although to others it may seem that the action of saving a child was heroic and was made based off that consideration. In reality it was amoral as it was done purely through instinct. However, if there was any conscious thought at all in the seconds that it took to save that child; then would it not fall in your first category as it was a decision affected by that person’s sense of morality? True the range of moral options are limited based on the persons biology. In this case not saving your own child is not an option, biological instinct will compel you. Instead the effort exerted or the method in doing so might be changed. Unfortunately this is the case for every action a human might take as they are limited by biology. These biological instincts can be over come and given time completely ignored, otherwise morality amongst humans would be universal:

Some cultures are abhorred by any one or more of the following things, and they teach morals against them: cannibalism, child- and wife abuse, murder, slavery, incest or inbreeding. Yet all of these features were integral, working, and in some cases, necessarily accepted features of to us known and well-operating cultures — god must be atheist

Although this all takes place on a spectrum and is not:

two horns of the dilemma that has created havoc among ethicists. — god must be atheist

Humans are limited by biology in the conscious and unconscious decisions or actions they can preform.
In summary actions made by a conscious individual may be assigned morality and actions made without conscious thought are amoral. Biology limits the scope of what humans define to be moral. Morality is sometimes mistakenly placed on amoral unconscious action because it is mistaken for a conscious action and this can be done even potentially by the individual in question due to faulty memory or other factors.

I apologize if I appear to be rambling I would be happy to clarify any misconceptions or answer any questions.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Altered.

The difference in our opinion may stem from the difference in our approach to morality. You say morality is limited by biology; well, I don't know what it is that is not limited by the biology of a person. I mean, you'r right, but being limited by our own biology is not something that fosters further thought, since our entire biological existence is limited by biological constraints.

Although this all takes place on a spectrum and is not:
two horns of the dilemma that has created havoc among ethicists.
— god must be atheist — Altered

I would be curious to read more on this negation of my observation. Unfortunately after you say "this is not true" you don't offer any evidence to support your opinion; instead, you again go onto explaining how we are biologically limited. Well, then I don't understand why you said "and is not", if you are not willing to illuminate the truth in your proposition.

Notwithstanding the differences, I am glad you found my treatise worthy to respond to. Very few people give it the time of day.

I am glad you enjoyed my response I felt this was the most interesting topic on this forum to which I could formulate a response, so I decided to post my take. I will attempt to clarify the position that your dilemma exists on a spectrum and is therefore not a mere dilemma. To do so I will continue to use the following example:

You see your child drowning in deep water. You don't think, you don't philosophize, you don't debate what it is you ought to do in this particular instance. You don't act to be fair, you don't obey god, you don't care how you feel, good or bad, or how it affects mankind. Instead, you jump in to swim to your child and rescue her. — god must be atheist

This case was used as an example of your autonomous moral system. In the most extreme case it would be you and your child alone. Here the only choice is to dive in a save her. However, if only a few variables are changed; for example if you had a friend who was a better swimmer than you, instead of diving in you might have them do it. In this case the acquired moral system will have an effect on the action taken. The degree of the effect will be changed by a variety of similar factors. In this sense your dilemma is not black and white there are many shades of grey. Therefore it exists on a spectrum where most moral decisions have aspects of both the individual acquired moral system and the autonomous moral system. This makes it much more complicated than a mere dilemma as each degree in which both systems have been combined must be taken into account.
To directly address:

the paradox of what seems to be moral behavior, yet the behavior does not satisfy any of the parameters set out as requirements for acting morally. — god must be atheist

It must be noted that in these grey cases the qualifying word completely would be added so that it becomes: the behaviour does not completely satisfy any of the parameters set out as requirements for acting morally.

To overturn the philosophers who proposed an all-encompassing moral map for humanity you would have to demonstrate that a significant amount of actions were sufficiently tainted by the autonomous moral system.

the behaviour does not completely satisfy any of the parameters set out as requirements for acting morally. — Altered

the paradox of what seems to be moral behavior, yet the behavior does not satisfy any of the parameters set out as requirements for acting morally. — god must be atheist

Thank you for raising these points. I actually disagree, and I can explain why.

There are no parameters for specifically the acquired moral code but not for the autonomous one. In the second quote, taken from your text as suggestion, you mention an alleged existence of parameters set out as requirements for acting morally. Again, I am at a loss what you mean, but I'll try to cover it.

By parameters you may mean that the reward-punishment emotional reaction system coming from within the self is in action and working. This is the most important parameter or defining factor of a moral act according to my paper. Actually, it is the only one. How can an inner guilt feeling be not complete, or an inner happiness be not complete? It either satisfies the parameter, or it does not. You can't have 10% guilt; you can't have 40% elation.

By parameters you may mean the qualities in the list of moral behaviour, or rather, what we call moral behaviour which I povided. Many readers mistake that list as a declaration by me as "these are moral actions". My style could be improved on that. This is actually a list of what people consider moral, but they are not absolute in their moral value. In fact, they are independent of morality in and by themselves as actions. I alleged (and shown satisfactorily, but not conclusively) that these behaviours, though we call them moral, can each be satisfactorily and competely described with an attribute that is independent from moral. The attachment of "moral" to these behaviours is arbitrary, and that is proven by their non-pervasive nature. In fact, the opposite of the value of "approval for this behaviour" can be found in other cultures with their separate and to them equally valid set of acquired moral codes. They become moral only when the individual incorporates them in his values to generate inner punishment or reward according to how he or she satisfies the requirements of these behaviours.

I am still not sure if I addressed your concern satisfactorily. I find it a bit difficult seeing our points, as the connection between your claims and your explanation of claims are not very solid. Sorry, this is not a criticism of your thought, but rather a description of the logistics... you may be right, but your explanations are not only ambiguous, but rather lacking in solid reason. At least I don't see the reasoned connection. Whether that stems from my ineptitude of understanding you, or the other way around, is for the philosophers to decide.
-----------------

Regarding the spectrum: I also challenge your stance, that there is a spectrum of hybrid morality, where both innate, or autonomous, and acquired codes are in action at the same time and in the same respect.

You brought up the examples of a parent not saving the child from drowning because they can rely on a different method of saving the child which does not include the parent getting physically involved. I don't see how this can be mixture, albeit it is a variation of behaviour, on the parent's side. Or did you mean the person who is the good swimmer, and dependably can do a better job than the parent to save the child, has a moral dilemma which has components of both autonomous and acquired moral codes? You said that that there are instances of mixed codes at present, but I fail to see that. Please provide the examples, and please point at the mixture in action. The example you provided may be sufficient, but I don't see what you see in it, that is, a spectrum's presence, so please enlighten me. Please analyze for me the event and show which precisely in this scenario is a spectral moral action, a mix of both kinds. Thanks.


In further response to hybrid morality, which makes a spectrum: even if these instances exist, we can identify the two kinds of morality in the hybrid. It's like, allow me to present an anology: it's like a chemical compound, which has two components, which two components can be identified to be present even when they combine to form a unity.

----------------

I thank you again for your spirited and deeply meaningful criticism.