Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

Neuroscience has taught me different

I think you are correct in your observation. As long as the brain has the ability to learn morality I think it can. I do think that some brains have problems in this area and will have difficulties or be unable to learn it.

You wrote,

What did neuroscience teach you?

The opposite of what you stated.

That's good and all, but I think he's asking for an in depth explanation, as well as relevant sources, so he can judge the matter in question for himself.

That's not a good response. Just because you claim something isn't true, it needs to be supported by some challenge that refutes what I said.

There have been many neuroscientist and a few neurophilosophers who have spoken on this subject to name a few, Patrica Churchland, David Eagleman, Sam Harris and others. I think that these people have a better understanding than me and maybe you. What do you think?

Since you claimed you have learned different, I want to hear what that difference is.
I can't very well discuss a point if you fail to tell us what it is you learned.

BTW, as a point of logic, there's a difference between what is taught and what is learned.

Yes there is a difference but just because a person is unable to explain what was learned because of language differences or other reasons of inability to coherently explain does not mean that one has not learned. it only means that there is a barrier between what they know and how to share it.

Interesting TED talk. I think you posted this in another thread, but no problem watching it again.
That's one way of looking at it I suppose. An argument for moral realism.
I agree that fully constrained by the laws of nature are our conscious minds and their states are natural phenomena. I also agree that morality depends on the existence of conscious minds. Our minds experience various forms of wellbeing and suffering, and that moral concerns are really concerns about wellbeing and suffering. Conscious minds and their states being natural phenomena, fully constrained by the laws of nature (whatever these turn out to be in the end). Therefore, there must be right and wrong answers to questions of morality that potentially fall within the purview of science, which is an interesting way to view I suppose. He says himself that his philosophy is a form of utilitarianism.
My thought on the matter is he is claiming that moral truths can be delivered by science, when in fact all he has shown is that science is a very helpful means to one of philosophically discovered end, and that is utilitarianism.

You're the one who said you learned different. What I'm asking is "what difference?" You must surely understand what the difference is of you are able to descern there's a difference.

That has absolutely nothing to do with language comprehension.

returning later to read more

I think that you have shown very little interest in the videos that I have shared but I do think that this one addresses your question more thoroughly about how we are not completely able to make our own decisions.

I hope you may at least consider what this neuroscientist has to share.

I don't have Adobe Flash Player to view your video. That software slows down my computer too much!

It seems you are unable to defend what you said about my theory being wrong. Suggesting what any neuroscientist says doesn't support what you claimed; mainly that you "learned different." Why are you having such a difficult time putting into words what you claim is "what you learned?"

I do not know you personally but if you had a baby that was emotional sterile or even worse was born sociopathic and you were able to understand that there was a pathological reason to his/her behavior would you not have empathy toward him/her?

That's not even relevant to this discussion.

You stated that your computer slows down too much if you down load a program that would enable you to view what a neuroscientist has to say?

I have a brand new laptop but I prefer to use this 10 year old cheap computer
$ 400.00 and you talk about your trips that you go on but have a more out dated computer than me. Are you being serious or could it be that you have less of an interest than me about reality?

Please explain why it was not relevant to what he said.

I don't see how one can determine if an infantile or a baby has a psychopathic personality, so isn't your question pertinent to ask?
I sense you're trying to force me to be empathetic towards a sociopath. If that was your intentions, your loaded question has failed miserably.

Since you've show interest in sociopaths for sometime here in a2k, you might want to check out a scientific source, and reformulate your initial thoughts aimed at me, or placing empathetic individuals in the same classification as a sociopath for that matter.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-you-make-sociopath-through-brain-injury-trauma