We have to start somewhere — S

I agree, and neurobiology is a great place to start, but not to end.

A non-neurobiological explanation for the source of morals would include historical or societal explanations that go far beyond the scope of neurobiology. — Merkwurdichliebe

They would be secondary explanations, not explanations at a more fundamental level. They would be complimentary. What you're mentioning is a bit like mentioning tables and chairs when others are mentioning neutrons and electrons. You're further from the source.

Then how is it that I can have no emotion concerning murder, and rape, but nevertheless still judge it to be morally wrong. — Merkwurdichliebe

You've already had that emotional moment. You don't need it each time. You've already made the connection.

Electrons and neutrons are very scientific .

But, tables and chairs are certainly more practical

You've already had that emotional moment. You don't need it each time. You've already made the connection. — S

Prove it.

Electrons and neutrons are very scientific.

But, tables and chairs are certainly more practical. — Merkwurdichliebe

If the question was about the source of the universe, would you object that by bringing up the Big Bang, I'm neglecting the Tudor period?

More like you are neglecting the present moment.

Prove it. — Merkwurdichliebe

You just said that you judge murder and rape to be morally wrong, and it's not plausible that you're a robot. That's sufficient evidence.

Ok, then let me change my judgment, I believe it is a ethical right to murder and rape.

Still no emotion.

Ok, then let me change my judgment, I believe it is a ethical right to murder and rape. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yeah, that's real believable. Why are you being silly?

Because there was confusion about this earlier with someone else, are you using "source" to refer to where morals arise as morals? An analogy would be the source of a river. — Terrapin Station

Take a river. It's source is the snow from a mountain top. Snow has its source in ice precipitation, which has its source in cloud condensation, and so on. All these factors are necessary if we want to adequately understand the source of the river.

Why are you being silly? — S

You bring it out of me. :wink:

You bring it out of me. :wink: — Merkwurdichliebe

Frim fram.

I approached the topic from the angle of neurobiology. It can explain a heck of a lot about emotion — S

Such as?

What you're mentioning is a bit like mentioning tables and chairs when others are mentioning neutrons and electrons. You're further from the source. — S

Neutrons and electrons have existed for billions of years longer than tables and chairs, but not all neutrons and electrons result in tables and chairs. Something must have occurred that made one result in the other.

Huh? I could've sworn I heard something just now. I think I must've imagined it.

You can’t ignore me, bi-otch.

Why don't they present evidence from neurobiology like I done did?

Why don't they present evidence from neurobiology like I done did? — Merkwurdichliebe

Amnesia is a deficit in memory caused by brain damage or disease. Amnesia can also be caused temporarily by the use of various sedatives and hypnotic drugs. The memory can be either wholly or partially lost due to the extent of damage that was caused.

Take a river. It's source is the snow from a mountain top. Snow has its source in ice precipitation, which has its source in cloud condensation, and so on. All these factors are necessary if we want to adequately understand the source of the river. — Merkwurdichliebe

The source of a river is a common term of art in the Earth sciences. I guess you're not familiar with that. As that term of art, it refers to the point where the river begins as the river in question.

With the way you're using the term why wouldn't "the big bang" be the answer to the source of everything?

Amnesia is a deficit in memory caused by brain damage or disease. Amnesia can also be caused temporarily by the use of various sedatives and hypnotic drugs. The memory can be either wholly or partially lost due to the extent of damage that was caused. — S

You aren't a neurobiologist. How about citing an actual neorobiological study. You can even paraphrase it.

And what does this have to do with the source of morals, besides nothing?

The source of a river is a common term of art in the Earth sciences. I guess you're not familiar with that. As that term of art, it refers to the point where the river beginsas the river in question. — Terrapin Station

I'm not talking about earth science. I'm making an analogy to the source of morals, and it works. You'll have to vomit up some better rhetoric than that if you wish to make a point.

You didn't deal with either point I made.

(1) "Source" doesn't conventionally denote "causes of x that aren't themselves x"

and

(2) Given the way you're using the term, why isn't the big bang the source of everything?

I think it's clear how we're using the term "source" - in a very ordinary and mundane sense. No need to confuse things by turning it into some cryptic mathematical abstraction.

And I wouldn't mind hearing an explanation on how the big bang is the source of everything. What that tells us about the source of morals remains to be seen.

And what does this have to do with the source of morals, besides nothing? — Merkwurdichliebe

It was my way of signalling that you (and praxis) were speaking as though you had forgotten my earlier contributions, and one in particular, top of page 9.

I approached the topic from the angle of neurobiology. It can explain a heck of a lot about emotion
— S

Such as? — praxis

Why don't they present evidence from neurobiology like I done did? — Merkwurdichliebe

And yet, sitting there, top of page 9:

Amygdala

The amygdalas are two almond-shaped masses of neurons on either side of the thalamus at the lower end of the hippocampus. When it is stimulated electrically, animals respond with aggression. And if the amygdala is removed, animals get very tame and no longer respond to things that would have caused rage before. But there is more to it than just anger: When removed, animals also become indifferent to stimuli that would have otherwise have caused fear and even sexual responses.

That's only one example, and brief, but there is of course the entire internet at your disposal, so...

You aren't a neurobiologist. — Merkwurdichliebe

Correct. I'm a serial killer.

Brains are insufficient for morals. Worms have brains. Worms have no morals.

Emotion is insufficient for morals. Dogs have emotions. Dogs have no morals.

That which is insufficient for morals cannot possibly be the source of morals.

Brains and emotion seem to be necessary for morals. We can confidently say this much simply because all morals as we know them are had by creatures whose overall 'makeup' includes both. However, we also know that not all things capable of emotion have morals, and that not all things with brains have morals.

It clearly takes more.

Can you give me a link or reference to any study done in neurobiology that shows how emotion is the source of morality?

When it is stimulated electrically, animals respond with aggression. And if the amygdala is removed, animals get very tame and no longer respond to things that would have caused rage before. But there is more to it than just anger: When removed, animals also become indifferent to stimuli that would have otherwise have caused fear and even sexual responses.

So you're suggesting that critters have morals, @S?

It's currently believed that the amygdala doesn't play the as big a role in human emotion as they once thought it did. Also, according to constructed emotion theory, culture plays a significant role, not unlike that in moral development.

Correct. I'm a serial killer. — S

:rofl:

Brains are insufficient for morals. Worms have brains. Worms have no morals.

Emotion is insufficient for morals. Dogs have emotions. Dogs have no morals.

That which is insufficient for morals cannot possibly the source of morals. — creativesoul

:lol:

Worms and dogs aren't moral agents. Their brains aren't advanced enough.

Can you give me a link or reference to any study done in neurobiology that shows how emotion is the source of morality? — Merkwurdichliebe

Not at present, no. I would have to look into it. I was making that connection myself, influenced in part by Hume, who made the connection between morality and its emotional source. Neurobiology then makes the connection between emotions and their neurobiological source.