IMPRINTING AND THE ELIMINATION OF MORAL ABILITY

Scientifically speaking, there are chemical dependencies which results in physical dependancies which eliminate free will toward moral choices and actions. The physical dependancy (and physical need) is governing the choices. I would think that most people could at lease agree with this example. Then question then becomes is there some non-chemical dependency that may form which also eliminates moral choices? Some imprinting which is not chemically based? Let’s take some perverse behavior like that of serial killing to see is we can conclude that some imprinting is the source of these types of immoral behaviors.

Empirically, if we see that serial killers have participated in lesser sadistic activities as children, we can infer a number of things. First, their initial choices to do so were probably influenced by genetics (and not environmental influences) since these type of acts are not preeminently represented vis-a-vis social norms. As a general rule, they we’re (most likely) not learned behaviors. Second, we can also infer that progressively increasing the behavior first qualitatively and then quantitatively is the result of some need which requires more and more stimulation to create satisfaction. This is the brains ability to imprint behavior which has it’s foundation in adaptability and survival. If you hit the dog every time he walks past the sofa, after a while he can not walk past the sofa. At some point, the behavior is changed from abnormal to normal. For we humans, the choice to behave in a moral and not animal fashion is at that some point (and not at the wing removal stage for serial killers) eliminated. For example, this elimination is evidenced by the fact that sociopaths have no guilt and remorse for immoral behavior - an element of a properly functioning morality. My point is that imprinting occurs over time - during that time moral choice is available. However, strong genetic influences and engagement gradually take control and eventually eliminate choice. That is the choice between moral and animal acts. I think these choices are conscious needs. I think they are needs in either case - moral choices also reinforced through engagement.

When we speak of those initial choices which are not chemical dependencies but rather habitual imprinted behaviors, we must look at genetics in the context of survival. And human behavior in the context of the conflict between being moral and surviving. Genetics is not the sole factor in initial choices which lead to imprinting or chemical dependency but can play a role - as can environment and experience. Physiology, biology and genetics play a role in behavior. I have a very docile dog created through years of breeding. We humans are no different. Is then the inability to make moral choices due to these genetic factors therefore a “defect”? Well, considering that the opposite immoral behaviors were required to be dominant toward survival, I’d say that “defect” is the wrong term.

In conclusion, while immoral choices can be made through rational thought, the mind itself can eliminate decision making.

The Biology Of Immoral Behavior

I see a number of causes for human behavior - morality (or a sense of right and wrong), chemical dependence (or biological influences), and genetics (or specific programming associated with survival of the fittest). Each operating collectively toward a dominant influence in any given situation which would require some action - some behavior. They are often in conflict. “They know not what they do” is essentially the tale of those whose instincts and programing and/or chemical dependencies have eliminated moral choices. For example, sadistic tendencies simply being an extension of normal behavior in animals for which humans still require reenactment toward satisfaction of programs. The serial killer merely exhibiting normal behavior (a need to kill) which in the pre-conscious human was not in any way outrageous (as you rightfully believe it should be in the post-conscious human). Take a simple example - football (or the Romans feeding people to lions) - do you see the vicarious extension of being an animal in the love of these things?

There are many programs which relate to hoarding in a variety of animals - squirrels for example hoard nuts without any moral thought regarding the other starving squirrels in the forest. Gluttony, which is a sin in many religions, is something readily participated in by various animals - including humans. The idea being that hoarding wealth is an extension of ingrained programing and not (as you might suggest) some "personal whim". It is only by application of our morality that we can over come these basic desires and instincts.

Clearly there are examples of people who have chemical addictions who have eliminated their ability to choose an alternative behavior. That's one notion I have. I also believe that repeated behaviors grounded in pure programs reinforce themselves and become habitual. The reason for this (I can speculate) is either biological or some pattern in the neurons which is imprinted. I am basing these ideas on empirical evidence. For example, many studies conducted on serial killers indicate that they start this imprinting by killing insects, smaller animals, etc. as children. This seems to suggest a correlation between the behavior and the continued actions as such. I also believe that this imprinting is progressive - meaning that the more you engage in it the greater it becomes. See for example sexual addictions. Finally, I also believe that environment can facilitate this imprinting. Exposure to behavior facilitating a small need which when acted upon can create inescapable patterns Therefore many people are in fact making what we might label immoral choices without any real choice at all.

QUESTIONING THE LEADER OF OUR PACK

I think the basic design of our evolution toward survival made it necessary for packs to form. We do cooperate within packs for win-win results. But given the dynamics of the earth (scare resources etc.) it seems global cooperation would be unlikely. What’s more likely is the system of national packs we have now - all cooperating toward collective goals and (generally) uncooperative or violent with one another. Of course, even these packs are further broken down in to smaller sub-packs (i.e. republican’s and democrats, Catholics and Jews, races, etc.) toward sub-goals. And there are competing interests between the main packs and the sub-packs. Nevertheless, at any given moment the behavior of the alpha of any pack is toward the accumulation of territory, wealth and power for his pack - both in relation to the packs members and to the other competing packs. Other variables are often at play, including competing interests toward the alpha’s individual accumulation of these things. Most decisions of any leader are made in terms of survival without any consideration for morality. It’s a startling catch 22 because the reality of the situation sometimes dictates that immoral behavior is in fact necessary toward survival. Justified war in the face of an attack comes to mind. The problem is that when our leaders act in these immoral ways, they reinforce their future ability to act immorally and (often) justify their behavior in false moral terms. Even though the reality of one or more situations may not dictate that further immoral behavior is actually necessary - and yet it becomes the norm. The change to a conscious human creates an ability now avoid the programs of our evolution and behave toward total cooperation as humans (no pack) through things like cooperation and self-sacrifice. To ignore our natural inclination to behave immorally toward survival. But as you can see by world events, this ability remains at war with the old instinctual programs of the past. Perhaps some global calamity is what is necessary to finally push us toward this reality? What happens when the pack leader suddenly forgets to share the kill with the other pack members? They (eventually) attack him. How many leaders were taken down by their own supporters for failing to share the wealth? What is at play when this occurs is an extreme version of this instinctual need to hoard and control both wealth and power. Every instinct we have can operate at extremes. At it’s worst it’s all encompassing and can lead to sociopathic and self-destructive behavior. As Buddhists would say what is required to overcome the dynamics of human programming is the cessation of desire. I think the right and left hemispheres of our brains are at odds with one another. I think that one side of the brain is strictly for survival at any cost - eat, steal, hoard, obtain power, fear, etc. I think the other side is what you would call the ability to be moral. I think that either side of this duality can be reinforced through use and that choice (or free will) is the initial inciting reaction or key ingredient which decides which side of your brain is going to operate now - once this decision is made or made repeatedly the ability to have an alternative choice is progressively eliminated.. Habits form easy. And de-programming strong reinforcement is often impossible. Behavior, therefore, is a product of environment, choice, use, habit (reinforced programs) and genetics. The brain is obviously a malleable organ and was intended to be as such. Pleasure, like pain, causes the release of chemicals in the brain based upon sensory input. As far as programs go - reinforcement creates a greater chemical need and a need for an increased sensory input to achieve the same (desirable) results - which is why (for example) people may engage in cumulatively more risky behaviors. On the other side of the coin are depressants (like alcohol) which negate sensory inputs. The more they are negated the more sensitive you become to the effects of not negating them. Notwithstanding these things, an initial choice needs to be made to engage in any activity which could create a spiral effect in either case. In today’s world when someone makes a decision to act as leader of our pack, we must question their motivations. Is the situation one where immoral behavior can be tolerated toward survival? Or is it just an extension of the pack leaders personal weaknesses?