So if it isn't black, its got to be white? :zzz:For the record, I agree with your position on "at least both the neurobiological and the sociocultural levels|. But thats all. I need to see solid proof before buying into innate, biologic, morality.
You are framing a ficticious debate. The choice is not a binary one between nature vs nurture, but about modern models of how complexity arises out of interactions.
A simple way to model the opposing forces behind social organisation in general, and thus moral behaviour in particular, is the dichotomy of competition~co-operation. Not a binary either/or, but a synergistic or complementary pairing.
And if this model is "true", then we should expect to find these same forces manifesting at every level of analysis. And right there in the neurobiology of the brain are modulatory systems that negotiate between the moment to moment choices of whether to compete or co-operate.
That is solid proof for the general interactionist model so far as I'm concerned. But you take a rigid reductionist view of human behaviour clearly, so subtle evidence cannot be evidence from your point of view.
If it isn't black and white and binary all over, it simply don't compute. Oxytocin, as a molecule, either "encodes" morality - or it doesn't.
But natural systems turn out not to be machines. They are more interestingly complex.