User:One optimist

This is a inquiry to the misinformation that gives merit to the belief of moral skepticism by not suggesting alternatives and without pointing out that it is not supported by cognitive science.

Natural morality is a state in conscious behavior. A cognitive function in human experience often mistaken as moral emotion. It is not used in language because it is not an ethical argument. Apparent when in a meditative state or as a conscious part. it differs from morality because it can not be subjected to inquiry but remains present when not thinking about an individuals own paradigm.

My statements is not verified at this time. I believe it would not be useable as a definition to the title, Natural morality. Although it does give the explanation to assert that moral skepticism is contradictory to the theory. Though the statement is true it is subjective to a understanding of ethics. The page defining empathy and the page Natural morality have ideas that support this statement though they do not directly affirm its existence. Adding the statement; "This is contradicted by natural morality" at the location; " moral skepticism" on the ethic page of Wikipedia would affirm this fact. the reason this fact is not useable on the page is it would assert such ideas as, paradigms are real, that the brain is functioning on its own and that meditation is real. As well it can be debated as a ideal statement, a bias statement or a presumption due to the already presumable fact that Cognitive science is theoretical.

The fact can be used to prove the ideas in sociology where we say our behavior has reason and that we have intelligence we can excess or validated. it also gives merit to beliefs in justice or behavioral therapy.