Neurophilosopher argues morality is rooted in brain science, not reason

> No. That's the heart of it. Everyone dies. You do not save anyone, ever.

You're just getting pedantic. I don't care about your personal opinion, but the world agrees logically saving 10 is better than saving 1. Moral paradoxes like killing baby hitler isn't the point, it's just used to illustrate the point. I am not debating the paradox I am asking you to examine how your own brain resolves the paradox.... everyone has a different position on what to do.

>Again, this is misguided. There is a view that one choice is not better because of the method proposed (choosing for someone else). Although most people cannot articulate it, removing agency is the moral wrong, not the temporary value as a moral net good, ascribed to human life.

I'm not talking about whether something is moral or right or wrong. I'm taking a neutral view. I'm trying to explain another point but you're getting side tracked. You can use your logic and create your own little logical framework for judging what's right or wrong, I don't care about that, that's not what I'm talking about.

>As abhorrent as it may appear, my morality dictates the resolution much more clearly.

Again I could care less about your morality or even mine. This is not the point. In general such a situation will make any normal human being at least pause before they make either decision.

Here's what's going on with you. You have a moral framework you formulated by reasoning about all the logical rules and axioms. These axioms are arbitrary. You feel responsibility is more wrong then saving 10 million people or vice versa so you stick with that certain logic as a conscious choice. Other people may follow different logical rules, it's all arbitrary and what axioms you choose as the basis of your framework isn't interesting. Nobody cares, it's like saying your favorite color is blue and my favorite color is red. Arbitrary and not important.

Also nobody cares about how strictly you follow your logical framework. You can violate it, you can be inconsistent and you can break your own rules or follow it like religion. Not important. This is not the message I'm trying to convey. Try reading my post again, it seems you missed my main point.

>As abhorrent as it may appear, my morality dictates the resolution much more clearly.

I'm not calling you abhorrent. But the fact that appears abhorrent to you says something about your brain. This is the key point I'm talking about, read it twice:

   You follow a logical rule set but another part of your mind is telling you that the action appears abhorrent. This means that there are two modules in your mind telling you two different things. One part of your mind is telling you to follow the rules another part of your mind is telling you the action is abhorrent. Two modules: reasoning and morality. 

This was the point I was trying to convey that your brain is comprised of a logical conscious reasoning module and a moral module. That's it. In the end you choose to follow one of the modules. The whole story of the psychopath is just that the psychopath is missing the "moral" module. He can logically follow your framework but he cannot see how such an action appears abhorrent.

>It should be clear, again, that I do not make the choice for another or a million others. That is my moral position.

I could care less about your personal decision or someone else's personal decision. That is not what I'm talking about. I was responding to the original poster to prove to him that morality is an instinctual phenomenon because we can infer the existence of two modules in the brain: reasoning and morality. That's it.

When faced with a contradiction in your premise, claiming that isn't what you are talking about is trolling, at best.

> the world agrees logically saving 10 is better than saving 1

You're posing a third party opinion as fact. This is not a useful discussion when you pose a dilemma and then declare there is no dilemma. I have illustrated how there is a perspective that does not adhere to that and a good many people follow it, whether you agree or not (ie indifferent cruelty). You do not seem to have a coherent view of "the whole world", given this trivial oversight that you pay lip service in analysis.

>>> That dichotomy is morality and reasoning. (premise) It assumes you're aware that morality and reasoning are two different and incompatible things. (trapdoor weasel phrase - " assumes" not leafboi!)

>>> The logical outcome is to save as many people as possible by pulling the lever. (subjectively morally correct premise that illustrates a dichotomy)

>> Either way, in both thought experiments the logical thing to do is to save the most people (repeated, of your own assertion)

> I'm taking a neutral view. (disingenuous)

Believe what you will, your points need work. They are not compelling as stated because there is no inherent dichotomy. It may exists for people who struggle with a specific moral framework, which is flawed and do not operated on such a framework in practice. People function just fine without much thought because there is no dichotomy. There are conflicting convictions to orthogonal moral precepts, but there is no doubt they are all flexible with reasoning (even if subconscious) rather than a strict "morality vs reason, which to choose?!" I have illustrated a counterpoint that is a view which is both morally consistent and logically consistent, and you have turned around and declared it irrelevant. Your impartiality rings hollow as well as your attempt to remain detached from your own assertions. Good luck with whatever.