Why is it so hard for people to accept that morality probably

>>1690866
It opens the door for claims of decreased moral culpability if and offender has an equally valid but completely different sense of morality that stems from his unique personal/racial biology.

>>1690866
It takes away alot of a 'free will' because it means the moral choices made and sense of integrity we carry are somewhat predetermined.

That and the fact that peoples perceptions change to align to their own sense of morality, and something that fluid cant really be determined from birth.

E.g.
Can hate people who steal, but find a way to justify taking shampoo samples from a hotel.

Morality is such a grey area you cant really pinpoint a definite causation. If it were biological it would be pretty predictable for most people, which it really isnt. It depends on a ridiculous amount of environmental and internal factors.

>>1690894
Not really, because you're still presupposing an absolute moral code. If morality is just our biology, and if we yes-say to our instincts, then we can do away with the farce of "culpability".

The enlightenment concept of morality is mistaken for the only concept of morality, and causes us to dismiss the idea altogether because we forget to find the true source of our morals.

>>1690898
claiming it's biological doesn't make it any more predictable than humans are in general.

Most likely because they see it in a reductivist sense, versus holistic or naturalistic.
(i.e. 'Are you saying we're just brain chemicals and neural synapses?')

It is difficult to deny that most moral behaviors are those which tend to make living more stable and survivable, thus more biologically desirable.

Though, biology is just a particular of a whole I would say.

I apologize for less than correct grammatical practices.
Morality is biological, it's not genetic. The positive feelings and thoughts associated with another living creature are the main aspects to morality. First understanding what is meant by each word is necessary to see what morality is. The earth is a living creature.
I'm going to stop here. Don't want to ramble

>>1690945
>(i.e. 'Are you saying we're just brain chemicals and neural synapses?')
no

>>1690917
More so i meant that because morality is affected by so many factors, you could never really prove a clain that it is biologically determined.

I thought your op was claiming that morality is primarily determined by biology. If you accept that other factors play an important role, I completely agree with you.

>>1691008
I mean that in the sense of that's the way some people interpret the claim.

I'm saying we shouldn't take it this way.

>>1690866
because they're idiots ruled by emotion

>>1690894
it doesn't take away from moral culpability except to idiots.

biological morality means that morality has a basis n real world results. an offender is immoral even if he's an idiot because he causes harm, rather than because of intent alone (note that intent is biological as well.)

the system is complete. the japanese have been using a system of biological morality for 1k years.

>>1691011
any simple system appears increasingly complex the more stupid you become.

biological causes are moderately complex but not impossible to prove. we have more or less completely figured out, to a t, most of the simpler procsses

>>1691590
definitely yes

>>1690866
morality is an ad hoc to justify retroactivism