And, capitalism can be a brutal sport.
Making hard and cruel decisions to make a business more successful comes easier to the amoral person. Running the business still requires intelligence.

If you encounter an intelligent person:
Do not assume that they are also a moral person.

Brutality and intelligence are not always mutually exclusive. Some of the most brutal people in history have been quite insightful and eloquent.

@AskTheDevil
Prison vs Penitentiary.

A just judgement must consider the entire context.

That context includes the structure of their brain. (my original premise)

Blame may be the same regardless of that structure. But applying punishment may be useless to society.

Punishment *should be* about restitution and course-correction for society's benefit. Typically, though, it is not.

I'll maintain that if the punishment does not change the brain, it's useless to society - and cruel.

Those who choose not to consider the second and third-order consequences of their action before they act will always find a way to justify their action after they see the consequences unfold.

#TrumpAssasinationAttempt
#coolitdown

@voltronic
They are infesting San Francisco.
I don't think they are actually bigger than, say, a Suburban. But they look bigger. Definitely a compensation-issue going on...

@AskTheDevil
Re: hedonistic....
Allowing bad behavior to go unchecked might be the result of a hedonistic disposition. If you only prioritize pleasure, why engage in the messy process of punishment? Unless, of course, you are wired to get pleasure from punishment. I'd rather keep the analysis closer to the middle of the bell curve.
Regardless, this is a different rabbit hole from my original premise that some people are insufficiently wired to think with complex abstract concepts.

@AskTheDevil
The primal reaction to "blame" is at a lower level.
The justification of assigning blame is at a higher level.

Assigning blame doesn't ensure it was assigned justly. That is what we should strive to understand.

That is why the mechanism to assess justice is important to unpack.

If some of us are insufficiently 'wired' to use higher levels of abstraction, their ability to properly assign a just-blame is limited.

A mouse cannot lift a skyscraper.

@AskTheDevil
"And when his sinews grew long like metal strings, he felt them under his fingers like cords of deep music.
Winning does not tempt this man. This is how he grows..
By being defeated by constantly greater beings" - Rilke

@AskTheDevil I'm attempting to build a framework that I can trust.
All must and will judge.
How should we do so?
"Blame" is already at a higher level. I'm not there yet, but can speculate.

@AskTheDevil
I'll need a good night sleep to flesh out the hedonism topic...
But, I think we need to differentiate between individual actions and society adjustments. I'm only addressing the brain and the humans using it.

@AskTheDevil
I've lost the objective.
Are we trying to fix the world or our next decision?
I can only fix myself and attempt to understand others.

I don't "believe" that people are "good". They're animals. Viscous. Selfish. When they get the chance to exercise their higher abstract thinking they might consider empathy and morality. Most don't. My original premise is that their brains can't manage it.

@AskTheDevil
Exercising Judgement is a process to Build a strategy.
Minimizing punishment may be an attribute of the building of a strategy, but is not fundamental. It might even be labeled as hedonistic.

Motivation is an outgrowth of world-view. That's the boundary of my current foundational view. I'm currently unable to argue beyond that given my lack of spirituality.

@AskTheDevil
Absolutely. Protect yourself. Abstractions don't provide protection.

@AskTheDevil
Let's question "judging".
I'm not yet at a point of determining if I can do so outside of assessing someone's courage.

Choice implies thought. Thought has levels of influence.

If the levels are compromised relative to your own, then you have to empathize with their handicap ( unless you, too, have the same handicap).

If we get beyond that, we would have to discuss objective, because that provides the trajectory that guides strategy.
Next: The ends don't justify the means.

What if our brain's architecture limits our ability to comprehend and consider our moral bearing?

What if many of us don't have a sufficient brain architecture?

Can
We
Judge
?

BTW, intelligence can be demonstrated without the complexity required for a sound moral position. I.e. Intelligent people can be immoral.

@AskTheDevil
The context is critical to the logic of the argument.
If their hardware is unable to run the software, can they really be held to a high moral standard?

IMHO, the only standard we can hold others to is: "Do they have the courage to face this challenge?"

To be clear, I don't have a position on this topic ... besides having the courage to face what you have the capacity to comprehend.

I'm reading Ray Kurzweils' book The Singularity is Nearer.

He's stated that our brains have 6 levels of processing that, incrementally, build our ability to think abstractly.

Idea: Maybe not everyone has the last layer fully enabled. Maybe that's why some people can't comprehend certain topics nor have empathy.

They just never developed the wiring.

It's phyiological. Maybe not moral.

@EvilBunny
It's a graze.
And, if you have ever cut your ear, it does bleed quite a bit.

I don't think there has been a person with as much ability to have such a large impact on the culture and future of a large country than Donald Trump this week.

He can announce a call to arms and initiate a civil war.

He can make a call for unity and calm and return us to moderation.

He can make either decision, and he has a history of doing the former more than the latter.

#trump
#trumpshooting

Hey @AskTheDevil,
Is it a good thing?
Or a bad thing?
That Trump survived?

And

Is the shooter
A good person?
Or
A bad person?