Conscience = Survival Instincts

[rational experiences]

The review is from life observed. Now.

Memory of life lived a long time ago no bullies just families.

Looking back for thesis science the bully beginning by group about coerced stories. Involves looking back also for science thesis.

Group wants using coerced human group information claiming no argument allowed. Coercing. Just shared agreed human chosen use of words.

Bullies. Where it began as a recalled memory.

Want invented science by human motivated reasons.

The selves spiritual. Healthy. Highest aware. Human men. Group.

What life taught us. The highest spiritual man self group the worst bullies. As recorded human memory.

Why the argument God is a bully when men coerce that man is the powered owner God. Yet only in science.

No human. No bullies. No argument. Natural behaviour animal existence with no judgements. Judgements human inferred thinking.

Therefore argument was the first spiritual reasoning applied against bullies.
Second choice bully won't listen. Won't stop. So I will stop them.

Claiming but natural owns God not science.

Just human reasoning by event choice and causes.

 

[Augustus]

This is your claim but you don't support it with a reason.

Name a single social unit in history that has scaled from the small group level to millions and retained the purely informal small group dynamics you are proposing.

Small company with 10 employees v corporation with 100k employees
Family of 5 v country of 1 billion
Gang of 8 v army of 80k
Commune of 20 v Communist nation of 100 million

You think these can all operate on the same informal principles that you propose?

Given that any group that gets past about 10 members splits into multiple sub-groups and each of these sub-groups forms their own culture and value system and begins to favour 'their own' over outsiders, why do you believe they will all still instinctively and consistently know what is 'right' in every situation?

In groups that only exist in an abstract sense (anything that has scaled beyond direct personal contact for all members), how do you create commitments between members without creating a sense of group pride and identity?

Another claim without an explanation. Why would evolution not apply to our entire species?

Which current paradigm of evolution suggests the core unit of selection is the species rather than the individual and/or a limited group?

I'm not sure what you're referring to, Can you give me one or two examples?

The need to reproduce and secure access to reproductive resources, the desire for social status, the desire to further group interests and weaken outside threats, the desire for security, our capacity for self-deception, etc.

I don't believe there is some distinct part of the mind called 'conscience' that is dominant over and can be abstracted from all other impulses and intuitions as we cannot apply reductionist logic to the brain and its functions. They are all interconnected.

 

[joe1776]

The morality of owning slaves has changed with changing society. Morals are agreed upon by a social group. Conscience is an individuals belief of what is good or bad, right or wrong and are influenced by the morals of a group but and an individuals conscience does not prevent them from acting differently to the morals of a society.

There is no universal cross-culture moral conscience but there are definitely trends based on how human and other animal brains work thus there are common patterns to conscience, the bonding of a mother to an infant is an example seen in social animals.

There are no moral judgements that are objective and made by unbiased minds they are far more emotionally derived rather that cognitively.

Our individual conscience is only influenced by socially derived morals and in the end we each make our own decision about how we should behave based on our own conscience.

I disagree with pretty much every sentence you wrote, but I will focus on only this significant difference between our positions:

There is no universal cross-culture moral conscience...

The Harvard Moral Sense Test (MST) has been online now for more than 15 years. It's authors devised the test to find out whether a universal moral conscience exists or whether we learn our morals culture by culture in stages of development as taught in Psychology 101.

This linked PDF from Georgetown doesn't tell us how many cultures the MST reached but the results so far find that "Intuitive moral judgments are robust across variation in gender, education, politics, and religion: A large-scale web-based study."

I think the MST is biased against finding for a universal conscience since the questions include moral dilemmas which involve both reason and intuition. In other words, they aren't testing moral intuition exclusively. Despite this flaw, the findings favor the intuitive universal moral sense commonly referred to as "conscience."

https://faculty.georgetown.edu/lbh24/BanerjeeEtAl.pdf

 

[joe1776]

Name a single social unit in history that has scaled from the small group level to millions and retained the purely informal small group dynamics you are proposing.

I'm not proposing small group dynamics. My hypothesis is that we humans have a universal conscience (moral intuition) aligned with survival of our species..

Which current paradigm of evolution suggests the core unit of selection is the species rather than the individual and/or a limited group?

Who cares about "core units of selection?" The point is that evolution's objective is concerned with survival of the species and the judgments of conscience seem to be well-aligned with survival as the objective..

I don't believe there is some distinct part of the mind called 'conscience' that is dominant over and can be abstracted from all other impulses and intuitions as we cannot apply reductionist logic to the brain and its functions. They are all interconnected.

The fact that you don't believe it because the hypothesis is too simple would trouble me if you could find a flaw in my argument.

 

[Augustus]

I'm not proposing small group dynamics. My hypothesis that we humans have a universal conscience (moral intuition).

You are proposing we run complex societies of billions of people without formal rules and laws. Informality is a characteristic of small groups that does not survive scale.

If you disagree, what is the largest structured social unit you can think of that has operated successfully in the long term without formal rules?

Who cares about "core units of selection?" The point is that evolution's objective is concerned with survival of the species and the judgments of conscience seem to be well-aligned with survival as the objective..

Who cares? Scientists and anyone trying to explain a coherent theory of evolution.

Which view of evolution posits that survival of the species (rather than survival or the gene/individual or group) is evolution's 'objective'?

The fact that you don't believe it because the hypothesis is too simple would trouble me if you could find a flaw in my argument.

Not "too simple", just too wrong...

We'll agree to disagree on whether your insistence on treating the brain as a non-Complex System constitutes a flaw in your argument.

 

[joe1776]

You are proposing we run complex societies of billions of people without formal rules and laws. Informality is a characteristic of small groups that does not survive scale.

OK, I misunderstood your question and you misunderstand my hypothesis.

Your question assumes that the formal rules and laws are necessary. My hypothesis argues that they are not. I maintain that the laws on murder, for example, are unnecessary but they cause no harm when they agree with the conscience of an unbiased jury. And when they conflict with the conscience of that jury, they are mistaken. When they are mistaken, they become biases capable of throwing justice off course.

So, since they are either useless or potential biases, they should be abandoned.

Who cares? Scientists and anyone trying to explain a coherent theory of evolution.Which view of evolution posits that survival of the species (rather than survival or the gene/individual or group) is evolution's 'objective'?

In all life forms, the individual matters only as representative of its species.

Not "too simple", just too wrong. We'll agree to disagree on whether your insistence on treating the brain as a non-Complex System constitutes a flaw in your argument.

OK

 

[Augustus]

OK, I misunderstood your question and you misunderstand my hypothesis.

Your question assumes that the formal rules and laws are necessary. My hypothesis argues that they are not. I maintain that the laws on murder, for example, are unnecessary but they cause no harm when they agree with the conscience of an unbiased jury. And when they conflict with the conscience of that jury, they are mistaken. When they are mistaken, they become biases capable of throwing justice off course.

So, since they are either useless or potential biases, they should be abandoned.

Yes, I assume that any unit that scales requires some degree of formalisation, especially one with billions of members. Scale matters as anyone who looks at group dynamics can easily see.

You didn't answer this: What is the largest structured social unit you can think of that has operated successfully in the long term without formal rules?

Note: most legal issues are not nice simple murder cases, how do we replace contract law with an informal system based on 'intuition' for example in a manner that allows people to invest with confidence?

In all life forms, the individual matters only as representative of its species.

Why?

That makes no sense as asserted.

 

[joe1776]

Yes, I assume that any unit that scales requires some degree of formalisation, especially one with billions of members. Scale matters as anyone who looks at group dynamics can easily see.

As explained previously, your question only demonstrates that you didn't understand my hypothesis -- which I explained again for you.

You didn't answer this: What is the largest structured social unit you can think of that has operated successfully in the long term without formal rules?

The global community. It has always operated on moral intuition. Its formal rules have been a foolish burden for humanity brought about by an arrogant attachment to its ability to reason.

Note: most legal issues are not nice simple murder cases, how do we replace contract law with an informal system based on 'intuition' for example in a manner that allows people to invest with confidence?

We don't replace contract law. This is (generally) a rational exercise, not a question of conscience.

Why?

That makes no sense as asserted.

I'm making a logical deduction. You're asking why is it logical? If Harry dies from Covid, it doesn't matter to anyone except to Harry and family. If Harry and millions die of Covid, it's a threat to the species.

 

[Augustus]

As explained previously, your question only demonstrates that you didn't understand my hypothesis -- which I explained again for you.

Once again, I understand your point as you make it in every thread you start.

You said moral laws are unnecessary and I asked how you can scale an informal legal system.

The global community. It has always operated on moral intuition. Its formal rules have been a foolish burden for humanity brought about by an arrogant attachment to its ability to reason.

The 'global community' is not a structured social unit. It is a collection of competing and often antagonistic countries and empires that just happen to share the same planet but operate with different purposes and very different ideological and moral outlooks where countries use military force and other forms of power to tilt the system in their favour as much as possible.

Also, why would you would say that the global community in which hundreds of millions of people have been killed over the past 100 years constitutes an example of a successful social unit?

What formal rules do you believe were 'foolish' and made things worse than the free-for-all that existed in ancient times btw?

We don't replace contract law. This is (generally) a rational exercise, not a question of conscience.

Why aren't they about conscience though? They are about ownership and obligation which are ethical issues.

In your opinion, what laws should exist and are beneficial, and what laws are unnecessary and harmful?

I'm making a logical deduction. You're asking why is it logical?

I'm asking what it's supposed to even mean. That collection of words in the context of our discussion made no sense to me.

 

[joe1776]

Once again, I understand your point as you make it in every thread you start. You said moral laws are unnecessary and I asked how you can scale an informal legal system.

Doesn't the word "legal" to you imply laws? If you understand my hypothesis , your question make no sense. I am not proposing another legal system, either formal or informal.

The process I envision would abandon criminal laws and substitute the conscience of the jury as the ultimate moral authority -- since its the only moral authority we have.

The 'global community' is not a structured social unit.

So, it's not enough that I answer your question. I have to answer it according to your preferred definitions? I'll pass on that.

What formal rules do you believe were 'foolish' and made things worse than the free-for-all that existed in ancient times btw?

We humans have been making moral progress, so the old days were more violent than the present. But rules like "You should not murder" did more harm than the current laws on murder which can fill book shelves because the current laws don't support a pacifist's interpretation. And, if all the good people were pacifists, the bully-tyrant's would rule the planet. The species would be at risk.

Why aren't they about conscience though? They are about ownership and obligation which are ethical issues.

I used the word "generally" so that you would be less likely to nitpick. It didn't work.

In your opinion, what laws should exist and are beneficial, and what laws are unnecessary and harmful?

No comment.

 

[Augustus]

Doesn't the word "legal" to you imply laws? If you understand my hypothesis , your question make no sense. I am not proposing another legal system, either formal or informal.

The process I envision would abandon criminal laws and substitute the conscience of the jury as the ultimate moral authority -- since its the only moral authority we have.

You seem unfamiliar with the concept of 'informal' in this context (it means unwritten)

What you are describing is an informal legal system. To avoid pointless quibbling we can call it an informal justice system if you like.

We humans have been making moral progress, so the old days were more violent than the present. But rules like "You should not murder" did more harm than the current laws on murder which can fill book shelves because the current laws don't support a pacifist's interpretation. And, if all the good people were pacifists, the bully-tyrant's would rule the planet. The species would be at risk.

The question was about international law.

You seem unable to articulate your idea beyond the most facile example.

I used the word "generally" so that you would be less likely to nitpick. It didn't work.

Case in point.

Perhaps you can explain why laws regarding ownership and obligation are not 'generally' a moral issue. I doubt it though.

 

[joe1776]

You seem unable to articulate your idea beyond the most facile example

We're done.

 

[Augustus]

We're done.

QED

 

[rational experiences]

Consciousness versus science by design.

Natural human origin to being.
Natural human a human.

Self origin.

Human existed first before science thesis. A human thinking.

What they thought about. No human was present or owned human form. As the use human thoughts.

How a human today pretended that their own human consciousness existed before they did. The human thinker theist.

Who today still applies the same human reasoning of I know how I was invented.

As he infers machine design. First. Designed by maths to be his created sacrificed life ownership. Human confessing.

Then says sun metal UFO mass invented his sacrifice. Science conditions.

Reason earth existed as a natural planet and heavens.

Designed by him. Thinking about natural earth first. Natural sun first. How to design a machine.

As a sun by mass blasted earth to convert God. God never converted God by radiation itself. As God O one the natural planet a human lives on.

Water with extra UFO radiation in heavens the vision of his thesis. A machine.

Mountain tips above water the theme. Flat top mountain gained. Mountain mass saved was under flooded water.

How a metal machine type body converted earth God mass. Pyramid mountain tip thesis.

Evaporation of water mass off ground rid UFO attack.

Water with life in it. Not human. Got rid UFO effect.

Our origin form is human.

A microbe form is a microbe today in water as it was in the past. One cell in water mass.

If science a human says I believe. Then they are saying I pretend I know.

A self destructive human expressed condition. I studied UFO radiation effect for a machine.

As you are rationally intelligent as a whole human. Conscious due to being a whole human and you can tell stories. Thinking. The theist owning talking themes. Just stories in reality.

Realisation. Consciousness said no man is God. About human scientists as humans believing they know everything.

Why would a human claim I am a microbe as a thesis? When intelligence human says your form self is a human? Origin self human. Thinking self human.

That conscious human reviewed belief thinking design was determined to be our life destroyer as a human owned human expressed personality disorder.

Design for machine whilst being origin to self ownership. A human.

UFO enabled a machine to be designed.

 

[Bear Wild]

I disagree with pretty much every sentence you wrote, but I will focus on only this significant difference between our positions:



The Harvard Moral Sense Test (MST) has been online now for more than 15 years. It's authors devised the test to find out whether a universal moral conscience exists or whether we learn our morals culture by culture in stages of development as taught in Psychology 101.

This linked PDF from Georgetown doesn't tell us how many cultures the MST reached but the results so far find that "Intuitive moral judgments are robust across variation in gender, education, politics, and religion: A large-scale web-based study."

I think the MST is biased against finding for a universal conscience since the questions include moral dilemmas which involve both reason and intuition. In other words, they aren't testing moral intuition exclusively. Despite this flaw, the findings favor the intuitive universal moral sense commonly referred to as "conscience."

https://faculty.georgetown.edu/lbh24/BanerjeeEtAl.pdf

I disagree with pretty much every sentence you wrote, but I will focus on only this significant difference between our positions:



The Harvard Moral Sense Test (MST) has been online now for more than 15 years. It's authors devised the test to find out whether a universal moral conscience exists or whether we learn our morals culture by culture in stages of development as taught in Psychology 101.

This linked PDF from Georgetown doesn't tell us how many cultures the MST reached but the results so far find that "Intuitive moral judgments are robust across variation in gender, education, politics, and religion: A large-scale web-based study."

I think the MST is biased against finding for a universal conscience since the questions include moral dilemmas which involve both reason and intuition. In other words, they aren't testing moral intuition exclusively. Despite this flaw, the findings favor the intuitive universal moral sense commonly referred to as "conscience."

https://faculty.georgetown.edu/lbh24/BanerjeeEtAl.pdf

Did you read the study carefully? It does not support what you think it does and affirms my position.

 

[rational experiences]

Con Scious.
Con. Science.

A con. Says so.

Consciousness human says science a con.

Humans. Born babies. No human today was ever an origin parent. Even our own two human parents who had sex own that claim. They were babies also.

We started giving ourselves age appropriate birthday recorded quotes. I am sixty years old as a quote.

Science thinking origin humans might quote about two million years ago first humans existed. But we are not sciences quote about using age as data. For a science statement.

Science the con.

A human born a baby says I believe I was an alien. Yet they were born from human parents. Are human consciousness making a non human claim.

Medical status quotes a dysfunctional mind condition.

If science said once I was an alien or an evil spirit as a human. Same quote.

If they said an evil spirit is about two million years old. You would say that would be what human bones would have deteriorated to.

As a human form in decay.

Which I think movies portrayed as a human shifting back in time. If you went forward supposedly you would return to being sperm not yet procreating.

How many sperm do you man science selves own. As a future not yet sperm released.

Consciousness is aware acutely proven.



Just one example.

 

[Bear Wild]

I disagree with pretty much every sentence you wrote, but I will focus on only this significant difference between our positions:



The Harvard Moral Sense Test (MST) has been online now for more than 15 years. It's authors devised the test to find out whether a universal moral conscience exists or whether we learn our morals culture by culture in stages of development as taught in Psychology 101.

This linked PDF from Georgetown doesn't tell us how many cultures the MST reached but the results so far find that "Intuitive moral judgments are robust across variation in gender, education, politics, and religion: A large-scale web-based study."

I think the MST is biased against finding for a universal conscience since the questions include moral dilemmas which involve both reason and intuition. In other words, they aren't testing moral intuition exclusively. Despite this flaw, the findings favor the intuitive universal moral sense commonly referred to as "conscience."

https://faculty.georgetown.edu/lbh24/BanerjeeEtAl.pdf

There are several problems with the study you claim supports your position.

If you go online to the moral sense test which they drew their participants from you can get an idea from the questions about the structure of the study. After taking the test myself it seems that the answers you would expect are predicted by the neurologic patterns of behaviors that have evolved with social animals. 1. Protecting other individuals with low risk to oneself or another would be the expected result. 2. Indirectly causing harm to a single individual saving others is still a pro-social behavior expected from social animals. 3. Directly injuring another to save others would be more difficult. These should hold through for any culture gender and most religions. The direct action to harm another would be expected to take more cognitive energy in its execution. The examples of the kinds of questions given in the study that you present are along the same framework and again could be explained by the expected response with social animals.

Second problem is that most behavioral responses are most typically framed and emotional/effective response rather than primarily cognitive. Thus a person may carry out behavior in which they can state is not considering moral thus their conscience allows for the behavior. This creates a problem in these questionnaire responses which draw on more cognitive response that the emotional when the behavior is an immediate response to an actual situation – not one linguistically described.

They themselves give a third issue

“It is possible that the sample that we examined is so homogeneous that it has

eliminated the possibility of meaningful variation in moral judgments. Our participants

were drawn from a largely Western sample, they were fairly well Educated (even where

they had not yet finished high-school), they were largely from Industrial countries, they

were relatively Rich from a global perspective, and they were likely to have largely

Democratic values”

The people participating share significantly connected experiences in our highly technology dependent media environment. The extensively shared experiences from our media Input would be expected to cause shared responses compared to a social groups without such media input. A current interesting study would be to compare responses to current moral decisions in the us now with a divided media input.

 

[joe1776]

There are several problems with the study you claim supports your position.

If you go online to the moral sense test which they drew their participants from you can get an idea from the questions about the structure of the study. After taking the test myself it seems that the answers you would expect are predicted by the neurologic patterns of behaviors that have evolved with social animals. 1. Protecting other individuals with low risk to oneself or another would be the expected result. 2. Indirectly causing harm to a single individual saving others is still a pro-social behavior expected from social animals. 3. Directly injuring another to save others would be more difficult. These should hold through for any culture gender and most religions. The direct action to harm another would be expected to take more cognitive energy in its execution. The examples of the kinds of questions given in the study that you present are along the same framework and again could be explained by the expected response with social animals.

Second problem is that most behavioral responses are most typically framed and emotional/effective response rather than primarily cognitive. Thus a person may carry out behavior in which they can state is not considering moral thus their conscience allows for the behavior. This creates a problem in these questionnaire responses which draw on more cognitive response that the emotional when the behavior is an immediate response to an actual situation – not one linguistically described.

They themselves give a third issue

“It is possible that the sample that we examined is so homogeneous that it has

eliminated the possibility of meaningful variation in moral judgments. Our participants

were drawn from a largely Western sample, they were fairly well Educated (even where

they had not yet finished high-school), they were largely from Industrial countries, they

were relatively Rich from a global perspective, and they were likely to have largely

Democratic values”

The people participating share significantly connected experiences in our highly technology dependent media environment. The extensively shared experiences from our media Input would be expected to cause shared responses compared to a social groups without such media input. A current interesting study would be to compare responses to current moral decisions in the us now with a divided media input.

So, in a nutshell, you think the study supports your position. But where it doesn't, they admit they could be wrong?

Maybe you can explain this then. Here's a quote from 2003 from one of the authors explaining the purpose of the study (link below for the entire article):

For hundreds of years, scholars have argued that our moral judgments arise from rational, conscious, voluntary, reflective deliberations about what ought to be. This perspective has generated the further belief that our moral psychology is a slowly developing capacity, founded entirely on experience and education, and subject to considerable variation across cultures. With the exception of a few trivial examples, one culture’s right is another’s wrong. We believe this hyper rational, culturally-specific view is no longer tenable. The MST has been designed to show why and offer an alternative. Most of our moral intuitions are unconscious, involuntary, and universal, developing in each child despite formal education.

But your position is the exact opposite:

That is how human and animal minds work. What is considered moral is determined by the individual influenced by the social group. Conscience is an individual construct of the individual human/animal influenced by the individuals neurologic wiring, hormones, environment and social surrounding.

So, your position is that what is considered moral is determined by the individual influenced by the social group, and you claim that the MST supports you. But the Harvard researchers set out to prove just the opposite-- that our intuitions are universal. Now my question is this: Why did those Harvard researchers continue a failing study for 18 years. Are they idiots?

Edge: THE MORAL SENSE TEST

 

[Bear Wild]

So, in a nutshell, you think the study supports your position. But where it doesn't, they admit they could be wrong?

Maybe you can explain this then. Here's a quote from 2003 from one of the authors explaining the purpose of the study (link below for the entire article):

For hundreds of years, scholars have argued that our moral judgments arise from rational, conscious, voluntary, reflective deliberations about what ought to be. This perspective has generated the further belief that our moral psychology is a slowly developing capacity, founded entirely on experience and education, and subject to considerable variation across cultures. With the exception of a few trivial examples, one culture’s right is another’s wrong. We believe this hyper rational, culturally-specific view is no longer tenable. The MST has been designed to show why and offer an alternative. Most of our moral intuitions are unconscious, involuntary, and universal, developing in each child despite formal education.

But your position is the exact opposite:

So, your position is that what is considered moral is determined by the individual influenced by the social group, and you claim that the MST supports you. But the Harvard researchers set out to prove just the opposite-- that our intuitions are universal. Now my question is this: Why did those Harvard researchers continue a failing study for 18 years. Are they idiots?

Edge: THE MORAL SENSE TEST

They are not idiots. Morals are typically culturally described behaviors for social groups and do not necessarily determine how a person is going to act. I have never claimed that an individuals conscience or an individuals moral judgement is a cognitive or rational deliberation. An individual decision on what behavior to do lies in the affective domain of the brain and the unconscious plays a major role. Our affective and uncurious brain activity is the product of evolution and our development/experiences. We evolved as social creatures and that includes the development of brain designed for social responses. We have both empathy and theory of mind like other social creatures. We react to situation with the emotional/affective aspect of the brain which is influenced by the cognitive aspect of the brain. Thus we can have a behavioral reaction which can be modified by our cognitive brain and thus humans share patterns of behavior with some variation throughout the species and that is what this moral test measures.

Example
1. You are placed in a position of power of the life of another were your are then asked would be moral for you to kill the the person yourself to stop a war between two groups of your people. As a social creature we have the tendency to act to save the most people from suffering but we can also empathize with the individual we are going to kill. As a social creature you would expect the answer to be to save the most people - no surprise in that question about the similarities of the answers that the decision would be permissible with some variation in obligatory to forbidden.

2. A lifeboat will sink if you do not through off a person who is dying.
3. Could you kill your eldest son if it was to save your family.
4. IS it ok to sacrifice one person testing a vaccine to save the majority
5. Would you push a person intentionally in front of a train to save others
6. Save one child or lose both
7. Would you hurt the innocent son of a bomber to stop the bomber from killing others
8. Can you take an organ from an unwilling person to save others.
9. Kill one of your crew members to save the whole crew.
10. Kill an innocent hostage to save the children and yourself
11. kill and injured man to save the group from capture and torture
12. Kill a baby to save everyone.

The results of these question show that permissible was the greatest response with a variation to both extremes and religion did not seem to have a significant influence. But the answers to these questions are about whether it is better to save the majority of the people at the sacrifice of an individual in varying degrees of difficulty. Allowing a dying man to drown to save all is probably easier to answer than smothering a baby but without doing that all die. And the effect of a person doing the action directly or not and all situation there was only one action that could or could not be done. In short as evolutionary derived social creatures we respond to save the most people. Socially were are taught to try and save others. So the answers to these questions are predictable from an evolutionary and cultural standpoint especially when were are not actually doing the actions. It is different to say it is ok to take a sword and chop of a head and another to do it. It is ok to say permissible to smothering a baby if the alternative is all will die.

So yes the responses do support what I believe is correct about humans and human conscience.

 

[joe1776]

They are not idiots. Morals are typically culturally described behaviors for social groups and do not necessarily determine how a person is going to act.

Conscience is a moral GUIDE. We have free will, so we can follow the guidance of conscience or not. So, you are mistaken in describing morals as "typically culturally described behaviors." Moral intuition guides behavior. They themselves are not behavior.

Furthermore, the authors of the MST are testing for, and finding evidence that, our moral intuitions (conscience) are universal -- the same in every culture. (I quoted one of its authors on this point) They are not culturally independent as you claim when you write:

That is how human and animal minds work. What is considered moral is determined by the individual influenced by the social group. Conscience is an individual construct of the individual human/animal influenced by the individuals neurologic wiring, hormones, environment and social surrounding

.
Your post discusses moral dilemmas at length but the methodology of the test is not relevant to the key issue on which we disagree.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that you can't claim that an 18-year study which Harvard researchers think is proving that human moral intuitions are universal is proving the opposite -- that moral intuition is not universal but "determined by the individual influenced by the social group."