What makes the human mind dependant on morality and a system of universal rules of behaviour and thought?

What makes bright humans, like Kant for example- who are otherwise so adept in analyzing the limits of human cognition and in evaluating the limits of human reason - then reach for the absolute veracity of ethical correctness?

Is it a natural consequence of human frailty?
Is it the tribal instinct asserting itself upon free-will?
Is it the innate terror felt, by every conscious and rational mind, when faced with responsibility?
Is it the inherent contradiction of reaching for dissimilar goals, such as in the case of ‘happiness’ and ‘power’ or the confrontation between practical and abstract reasoning?
Is it the struggle between individual, immediate virtues against communal eternal ones?
Is it the natural aversion of the mind, created by and dependant on order and linear time, of all that appears chaotic and disorderly?

:confused:

What makes the human mind dependant on morality and a system of universal rules of behaviour and thought?

It is not the human mind that is dependant on these things. The mind alone is capable of imagining a wide range of scenarios and acting on these without constriction or restraint. What really is dependant on morality and laws is an instance where a collection of minds come together, by choice, to form a sociological construct known as a civic society.

What makes bright humans, like Kant for example- who are otherwise so adept in analyzing the limits of human cognition and in evaluating the limits of human reason - then reach for the absolute veracity of ethical correctness?

Quite simple actually. Kant holds that the formulation of an ethical code is governed by the application of rational thought and logic.

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law"

Variations of this are..."Do unto others..., An eye...". The presumption here, as always, is one of rationality.

Is it a natural consequence of human frailty?

No. It is a testament to human wisdom and ingenuity

Is it the tribal instinct asserting itself upon free-will?

Instinct in our case is not merely a biological imperative that asserts itself in manner that has the potential to be inimical and disadvantageous to the individual. It also includes the application of logical reasoning to these imperatives that govern and dictate our primary motivations.

Is it the innate terror felt, by every conscious and rational mind, when faced with responsibility?

Perhaps an expansion (in a scientific manner) is required here.

Is it the inherent contradiction of reaching for dissimilar goals, such as in the case of ‘happiness’ and ‘power’ or the confrontation between practical and abstract reasoning?

There is no contradication, merely faulty and erroneous reasoning.

Is it the struggle between individual, immediate virtues against communal eternal ones?

I reject the uneccessary dichotomy. It is a lack of vision or perhaps an insistence on satisfying short term goals that gives rise to this contrast between the individual and the collective.

Is it the natural aversion of the mind, created by and dependant on order and linear time, of all that appears chaotic and disorderly

It is only the misinformed and unintelligent that establishes a society that seeks to repress the notions of freewill, individuality and personal responsibility. It is only the misinformed and unintelligent that persist on insisting that mere appearances reflect reality. It is only the misinformed and unintelligent that create fantasies in a desperate attempt to explain what is, for the moment, unexplainable.

There is no chaos. There is no disorderliness. What there is rather, is a lack of adequate information.

It is not the human mind that is dependant on these things. The mind alone is capable of imagining a wide range of scenarios and acting on these without constriction or restraint. What really is dependant on morality and laws is an instance where a collection of minds come together, by choice, to form a sociological construct known as a civic society.The follow-up question therefore arises, as to what makes this collection of minds come together in the first place.
The “by choice” is a hypothesis based on a presumption of free-will.
If minds come together by free-will, then why do not some minds choose not to “come together” at all?
Why does the majority choose the same social interaction and why do those few, that may diverge from this normality, become examples of illness or psychological dysfunction?
But more than this, the instances of social behaviour in other creatures, with questionable critical thought and choice in the matter and their disciplined acceptance of group rules and conventions speaks about more than mere “choice”.
We can say that all social creatures exhibit moral behaviour, in that they conform to the communal will.

I believe that there is more at play here than a congregation of the free-willed. There is an intrinsic human drive towards socialization based on human physical frailty, as compared to other creatures.
Neglecting the urging force of instinct can lead to error.

The mind, by itself, may be capable of adjusting and functioning within a wide range of scenarios but it is attached and dependant on a physical presence that demands, desires and diverts focus and consciousness towards ulterior motivations.

Quite simple actually. Kant holds that the formulation of an ethical code is governed by the application of rational thought and logic. Quit a bold leap of reason from one so aware of rational thoughts and logics constraints.
He (Kant) says: What use can we make of our understanding, even in respect of experience, if we do not propose ends to ourselves? But the highest ends are those of morality, and it is pure reason that can give us the knowledge of these.
He goes on elsewhere:
Reason conducted us, in its speculative use, through the field of experience, and, as it can never find complete satisfaction in that sphere, from thence to speculative ideas – which, however, in the end brought us back again to experience, and thus fulfilled the purpose of reason, in a manner which, though useful, was not at all in accordance with our expectations.Reason, according to Kant, determines the limits and the extent of understanding, rooted in a priori concepts but reliant on empirical evaluations.
Morality, therefore, becomes the adaptation of the minds perceptions to communal interpretations and its adherence to popular beliefs of what is virtuous and what is ethical.

Instinct in our case is not merely a biological imperative that asserts itself in manner that has the potential to be inimical and disadvantageous to the individual. It also includes the application of logical reasoning to these imperatives that govern and dictate our primary motivations.I agree.
I would say that the biological imperatives are always an imposition of need upon free-will, by necessity.
For even the fact that biological imperatives “assert” themselves, speaks to the minds inability to resist them or to its inability to find alternatives.

But of course, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere (specifically in my thread: ‘Social Parasitism’), the general acceptance of communal restrictions and modes of behaviour, nourishes and nurtures intellect, by subtracting from its burden of work that of basic survival.
Ironically, though, after the mind has been freed from most of the needs of its primordial function, it becomes constrained by the very mechanisms that protect it and it becomes restless and unfulfilled due to them.

There is no contradication, merely faulty and erroneous reasoning.Sometimes the acquisition for power does not make happiness possible, or vice versa.
Power, by itself, is reliant on knowledge and awareness, which are sometimes contrary to contentment.

I reject the uneccessary dichotomy. It is a lack of vision or perhaps an insistence on satisfying short term goals that gives rise to this contrast between the individual and the collective.But individual interests are always based on “short term goals”.

There is no chaos. There is no disorderliness. What there is rather, is a lack of adequate information.
True, but I am referring here to chaos and order from a purely human perspective.
When it comes to human perception, there will always be spheres of inadequate information and therefore chaos will always loom on the horizon of human understanding.
Kant believed that knowledge of the thing-in-itself was impossible and only the interpretations of sensual stimuli and the imaginative construction of abstract mental models were possible to approximate reality.
From these areas of inadequacy mankind will always be tempted to turn a blind eye and to place there mythical concepts of absolute orderliness.