Assuming there is no god, morality is subjective and laws are unnecessary

a.) Youre not understanding, stress doesnt determine right or wrong. Context + certain "mixes" of hormones/neurotransmitters + reaction to the previous two defines what is negative or positive and this is objective in healthy people/animals. Stress responses themselves do not define right or wrong. When a person is murdered, when an ape is murdered, in front of another person/ape a stress response occurs. You do not have to have language or a society for this to happen. This is considered negative as constant stress responses such as constantly being in violent situations will diminish mental and physical health. Your body was built to avoid these situations and its why you have stress responses to begin with. This is an objectively negative biological response that your body will avoid. Your body will move energy from your brain, digestive tract, and sex organs and allocate them to the lungs, muscles, and basic parts of the brain that deal with fight/flight. Doing this for long periods of time will kill you/cause depression/anxiety. As I mentioned before CONTEXT is incredibly important, without the ability to perceive each others biological states you would NEVER have a stress response. Just because you experience stress decided what clothes to wear today does not mean there is a right or wrong choice. Stress isnt there to tell us whats right or wrong but you couple early mammalian brain structure with a more "modern" human pre-frontal cortex and you get abstract ways to interpret stress and other peoples stress. Just go to sci-hub.cc and plug in the DOI and youll get past any pay wall bro. And they have to be proportional? b.) It is a disorder of the brain/body and as I mentioned "fixing" "wrong" behaviors is highly ethically controversial. Yes, medication would be the best option to "fix" any behavior but legally getting to that point is probably not possible. Just because a problem exists in the brain doesnt mean it starts there btw, which means you might not always want a drug to target the brain if you can fix the behavior elsewhere. For example if I get cranky cause I have ulcers you dont make a drug to stop me from experiencing anger you make a drug to fix the ulcers. http://sci-hub.cc... https://synapse.koreamed.org... ""Who is to say what is a "right" behavior if this contextual layer exists on top of this base objective layer?" Are you trying to say that morality is objective and subjective?" You could view it that way. I interpret this in such a way where there is a baseline objective morality that all healthy humans display and as more experiences occur in an organism more subjectivity builds up in the way contexts are identified but the baseline objective morality is always there and represented through stress physiology. And when I say "subjective" I mean that now the stress physiology changes and is dependent on experiences the organism had. A healthy person will still recognize a person suffering, but now whether its right or wrong determines what the physiology looks like. The stress response happens. That will not go away unless youre unhealthy. Amounts of molecules change. "the definition of"... no.. there is no singular definition for anything so "a definition of guilty is.." is what you mean. You do not have to feel responsible to feel guilt. Survivors guilt is about feeling stress about the idea that you survived and others did not. In some cases, sure someone may feel they are at fault. In many other cases they just feel guilty people died. The only comparison of apes to humans I did was how they have INFERIOR PFCs' so if youre implying I did than youre wrong. I compared the stress responses of humans to apes (note, a lot of behavioral interpretation of stress physiology was done on apes to determine the evolutionary uses of social stress etc). IF morality is based on experiencing stress responses when witnessing another organism suffer than apes have morality as well. As I mentioned previously because apes have less evolved prefrontal cortexes their morality is much less contextual and much more based on basic response. "*However, I also believe that those who can"t defend themselves should find someone who can defend them and work out some kind of agreement, and I"d suggest that to them now, even with laws*. If the reason they don"t have a weapon is that they"re either too lazy to get one or too stupid to use one, good riddance." So if there arent laws to defend these highly resourceful, impactful, and progressive individuals and they refuse to carry weapons themselves than what do you suggest we do to ensure they stay alive? "They result in more time spent thinking of how to protect yourself than thinking of algebra or quantum physics or how to build computers or rockets or music or therapeutical drugs or predicting ecosystem crashes or how to farm or how to make light bulbs." Actually, there's not much thought required to protect oneself. There"s this incredible machine called a gun. When you pull the trigger, a bullet comes out and lodges itself in whatever you"re pointing it at. I would suggest pointing it at the head of the person you need to protect yourself from. It works wonders. If all the thinking you do when making decisions about how to protect yourself especially with guns is "well I just point and shoot!" than youre probably missing ammo. And you probably havent cleaned your weapon. Or taken it apart to know how it works. Or studied it to further your knowledge of how it works. Or tested it. Or trained yourself so you can efficiently operate it in high stress situations. Or have thought of a career that allows you the time and money to support your training and purchases. Or where to store your weapons and ammo. Or how you will transport them. You also must now be paranoid of those around you so instead of walks thinking about mass spectroscopy and fluorescence detection for a drug you developed that cures a popular strain of cancer you must keep your eyes peeled and be ready to fight.