People have ideas and thoughts about what they're cognitively doing. An extreme example is Son of Sam getting his commands from his dog to go out and kill people - in his mind, that was what he was supposed to do.
Madness aside. You do what you believe in, right? So, if you believe that by eating vegetables will make you healthier, will give you reason for you to eat vegetables. That's what I meant. Ideas that we think are true are the driving forces behind our actions. Of course, this is simplified; the actual thought processes in the mind is very complex, and only when doing cognitive deliberate actions are there driving forces behind them (unless if they're completely arbitrary, but then again, such actions are not deliberate). Exactly how these driving forces are determined and put into action, is an orchestra of ideas, self-perceived morals, beliefs, state of mind (e.g. emotions) and circumstances.
If a kid was brought up by a father who beat up his kid all the time, this kid would grow up (indoctrinated) thinking this was something that was normally done by everyone, unless someone proved him otherwise. So a standard reaction to a situation, for this kid, would be to resort to violence; this is because all precursory conditions, growing up, was met with violence from the father. This is not unreasonable, but just how the kid would intrinsically perceive everything as something with a "necessary" dimension of violence.
With that in mind, think of someone holding irrational beliefs about his world, and its surroundings. What if one of his beliefs made him believe that his neighbor was a "demon"? And seeing, as he thinks that demons are very evil, he gets the idea to destroy the demon (of course, in reality, the neighbor is just an ordinary mind-my-own-business neighbor, and normal just like everyone else). In this irrational believers mind, the demon must be destroyed to "rid the world from its evil", and so he does. He kills the neighbor according to his beliefs and morals, with the right conditions, state of mind and circumstances.
And that's the conclusion; ideas/beliefs/thoughts are the propulsion behind our deliberate, cognitive and intended actions - simple conditions plus incentive equals action.
We are self-aware, we are able to identify the actual implications of our cognitive actions and, to an uncertain knowledge extent, the moral implications from our actions. That we are able to base our actions on past experiences, makes us viable for similar actions, i.e. it makes us conscious of the repercussions by our actions. E.g. so, if you break your mothers cup once, and she tells you that breaking cups is a "bad" thing, she then has installed a value judgment in you - essentially learning you not to break cups - the actual knowledge learned, is that one does not break cups; it is our (moral) understanding that tells us that it is a "bad" thing to break cups.
When we're consciously aware of our actions and its repercussions, then we're also liable for any consequences (moral indiscretions, breaking a law/rule, etc.).
But that's as far as it goes. We are our memories.
E.g. your child memory of your father blasting his brains out is an imprint in your mind that will never leave you, and that will affect the rest of your life. It will affect how you perceive things. It will affect what you think is right and what is wrong. It will affect your perception on parenthood ...
I don't want children to be "programmed" a certain way, as to make them completely logical and reasoning beings. What I would like is that parents are better qualified in raising their kids. Such being, parents being competent enough of raising children to a moral understanding, social behavior, reasoning, imagination and so forth (although I suspect that the imagination in children is something that is intrinsically present/arises).
Just because you can make a sperm hit an egg does not make you a parent. I think, like with a driving license, people should have taken an elementary course in ... parenting. Not something difficult or fancy. Just a mandatory class, which most people would pass, but would have the essential parenting "tools" in the course (it should also be free of any form of religious, secular, anti-religion, racist, or otherwise discriminatory bias).
Some of you undoubtedly read this and think it is unreasonable.
Then ask yourself this: would you accept that people should just be able to buy a car, to be allowed to drive it? Of course not. Why doesn't this same qualification/competence principle apply to parenting?