Morality in Nature

[bennyboy]

I disagree. Individuals monitor what happens in a community and individuals respond to crises, phenomenon explained by individual self-awareness. The community as a whole does not display self-awareness. It does not meet the criteria.

Some groups of people certainly monitor other groups of people, and modify the ways of dealing with them. How is this different from a group of neurons monitoring other groups of neurons, and modifying the way they are monitored? (insert next special criterion here. . . )

Anyway, back to morality. All this stuff about monitoring the monitor has shown that a brain, if part if it is dysfunctional, can lead to a person doing a bad behavior, like a murder. But what you haven't explained is why we should interpret this as a moral failing, which requires punishment. Why wouldn't you interpret it as a mental disability, and see that as proof that a person SHOULDN'T be punished?

This is a simple argument:
1. No healthy person would kill unnecessarily.
2. A serial killer is therefore obviously unhealthy.
3. A person shouldn't be morally accountable for his own illnesses.
4. A peson therefore can't be morally acountable for serial killing.

You don't shout "Fuck you for having epilepsy," and beat someone because they're blocking traffic, do you? Normally, blocking traffic is against the law. Should the epileptic be ticketed for blocking traffic? What if someone had a stroke, and caused a fatal multi-car pileup? Would you punish them for having a stroke?