I was thinking of war today and about children, and of the link between joy-killing a bird with a slingshot versus joy-killing a human in illegal combat. Seems that people capable of developing this behaviour lack capability of introspection to some degree. In wars case, brainwashing aside, there is something very normal about becoming a sociopathic soldier.
Can a conscience based on logic alone really be considered a conscience if there is no analysis of the decision, or factoring-in of the circumstance? If this is the case, then provisions of consequence are absent while self gratification overcompensates.
Children develop morality partially through adoption and internalization of standards of their environment. Development of morality can be thought of as a stabilization project; an individuals identification with values, as well as recognition of certain behaviour that facilitate survival among their species. A children's perception of what moral code is, depends on others reactions to a behaviour, or observing those who violate a code etc etc. Learning to resist temptations to transgress in the event of a 'moral dilemma' is part of this process too.
If no guilt emerges after a behaviour or in anticipation of possible punishment, then relief is bound as result of the behaviour. The feeling of relief gives an impression of happiness. This becomes the impulse to the behaviour, so the 'moral-standard' is considered less effective or competent. Repetition of the behaviour gains the individual a relief feeling, it may become a form of mild addiction, favouritism. In early stages of cognitive development, rewarded behaviour (considered beneficial) solidifies a foundation for emotional and intellectual growth. In a no-perceived-guilt circumstance, components of normal development are coerced by "good" reward for "bad" behaviour. I'll call it growth through reward-punishment based judgement. Conditioning to the 'good feeling for bad behaviour' occurs thus the need for stronger stimuli. If the behaviour is amplified in this way through to adulthood, it has potential to evolve into a condition, a behaviour with intentions distinguishable from the original behaviour. I probably need to explain or elaborate on this train of thought, but it's my blog so deal.
If no guilt emerges after a behaviour or in anticipation of possible punishment, then relief is bound as result of the behaviour. The feeling of relief gives an impression of happiness. This becomes the impulse to the behaviour, so the 'moral-standard' is considered less effective or competent. Repetition of the behaviour gains the individual a relief feeling, it may become a form of mild addiction, favouritism. In early stages of cognitive development, rewarded behaviour (considered beneficial) solidifies a foundation for emotional and intellectual growth. In a no-perceived-guilt circumstance, components of normal development are coerced by "good" reward for "bad" behaviour. I'll call it growth through reward-punishment based judgement. Conditioning to the 'good feeling for bad behaviour' occurs thus the need for stronger stimuli. If the behaviour is amplified in this way through to adulthood, it has potential to evolve into a condition, a behaviour with intentions distinguishable from the original behaviour. I probably need to explain or elaborate on this train of thought, but it's my blog so deal.
Morality exists or can be established socially and internally and is treated through experience. Moral obligation however, can be an external expectation in a different way: As an owing to a given set of standards which can also deter a certain behaviour not through guilt or punishment, but through conformity. Toxic human behaviour can be taught and contained using the same method. Who would make better students for war than humans who already confuse unacceptable external stimuli with normal cognitive interactions.
