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.
@jurban Are you suggesting that people cannot be judged for an impaired ability to possess a moral architecture compatible with other life similar to themselves?
We can judge them unfit. That's a judgement.
I'm not judging them based on their morals, or lack thereof, I am basing my actions and responses on my own morals.
A moral, to me, is similar to an axiom. It is why you choose some ethics and not others.
If an ethic is how you follow a mission, a moral is a reason for the mission.
@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.
@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.
@jurban I don't think blame is at a higher level. I think it's at a very low one, evolutionarily speaking. I think it largely manifests through instinct and id.
@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.
@jurban What do you think blame is useful for?
To me, the only usefulness blame has is to identify where a problem originated.
We focus on blame and punishment, instead of understanding and correction (I mean correction of a problem, not necessarily making a person somehow be nicer).
If someone can't help themselves, it leaves the rest of us to deal with the fallout. Whether it's their "fault" or not, because of a defect changes what? How hard we punish them?
@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.
@jurban Thank you. I agree.
@jurban When you talk about judging, what do you mean? We might be thinking of the term differently!
Are you just referring to whether they are blameworthy for something they've done?
What are we attempting to assess? Their character in full?