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.