Interesting how the author in describing the argument being made by the neuroscientists as to why there is no such thing as good and evil couldn’t manage to avoid using terms like “innocent” and “doing ill” which of course have no meaning without reference to good and evil.
These arguments always fail when pressed to their logical conclusion.
Ask the scientists who claim there is no such thing as good or evil, only “degrees of empathy,” why empathy is a desirable thing.
When they say because empathy tends to promote and benefit life, they have revealed that they have implicitly made a judgment that life is good and non-life is not, which is a moral judgment.
Indeed, even the purported use of this scientific theory in the example given with reference to Justice Breyer in which he cited neuroscience research for the proposition that video games reinforce neural pathways for violence, begs the question, why is violence undesirable if there is no such thing as good and evil?
They want their cake and the money that pays for said cake. Liberals do not want violence and evil turned on them, but when it is them doing it, we must not see it as so. It’s a self serving “art” of pimping, a scheme hoping others will play dead while they get molested. These folkes are necrophiliacs and tell us there is no such “evil” thing.
They play gods of the dead, but they are irrelevant to life as a passing impotent black cloud of snake poison that only affects those meant to be affected in “belief” of it.
However the bureaucrate loves the word science, the salient “order excuse” from which Nazis or communists never “deviated” from, thus condemning billions to death in the name of words like peace and love.
read later