Humanity is of No Moral Value

Ethics
1

There is an implicit assumption in society and philosophy that humanity ought to be the basis of morality. But why do we believe this?

I find no reason to believe that humanity is of any moral value.

There are two main arguments I find people make to attempt to justify this idea. The first is rationality; the second is supremacy. I will not cover religious arguments.

First off, rationality: it is argued for any number of reasons that the ability to reason is the justification for human-centric morality. Possibly along the lines of the fact that humans are the only beings capable of understanding morality, and thus the only ones to whom morality applies.

This forgets that not all humans have an understanding of, nor the ability to act on, morality, and that some humans have a much lower level of rationality than others.

If rationality determines morality, then to include all humans, including those with mental disabilities, you must set the bar for inclusion low. Low enough that you begin to include other animals. Moreover, you can never be sure that this low bar will include all humans; to do as such, you would have to select the minimal level of rationality to be about zero. At this point it becomes hard to say rationality is of any importance at all, since far from saying that rationality is reason for humanity as a moral value, rationality only ever seems to exclude humans.

The other argument I have heard is that humanity is the center of morality, because humans are the ones who enforce morality, so they would naturally care about themselves. However, this argument risks justifying ideas we would find deplorable. The same line of reasoning justified early American slavery, because the slave owners were in charge and naturally cared about the color of one’s skin.

If we disagree with the second, how can we agree with the first? In either scenario, we are selecting a completely arbitrary trait and claiming that this forms the basis of morality. We have no greater reason to choose one over the other.

In conclusion, it makes no sense to say that humanity is the center of morality, since no argument can give a non-arbitrary justification. If it’s always some arbitrarily selected human trait that not all humans even possess, or which is not unique to humans in the first place, why care about humanity at all except as a merely biological category?

If we are to select a trait that actually forms the basis of morality, it should be sentience, the ability to experience pleasure and suffering. Because our ability to experience decides when we care. If something is to happen after our death, we assign it far less worth, and we go to great lengths to avoid suffering and pursue pleasure.

Humanity is a species of animal, nothing more.

2

It comes down to what you value, as George Harrison pointed out. You decide what to do, one way or anther; so if you choose not to value humanity, that’s about you.

1 Like
3

I’m not sure I have followed your argument.

Are you presenting an argument against human exceptionalism and making the point that morality is meaningless?

I’m not sure what you mean by “humans at the centre of morality “ What does this refer to specifically?

Even if we take a view that humans are clever animals and that there is no inherent meaning, I would have thought that a moral system is still useful to help navigate resources, relationships and power.

4

I think what you’re saying is that humanity exhibits no traits that would give it specific or exclusive moral value, yes? But of course that wouldn’t mean that humanity had no moral value. As you point out, that value might be the same as that held by other animals, or the planet itself.

5

I think it is worth considering whether our evolutionary history has resulted in humans (generally) having a bias towards morally valuing other humans. So how our environment has shaped our brains seem likely to provide an explanation for why we believe this.

6

Not that humanity ought to be the basis of morality. The assumption is that the human being is the only battleground in the universe (that we know of) that perceives good and bad. And why would we not assume that? You are being a moral being right now in this post. You are wondering what good is humanity? Nothing else but the human being does this. So we already are the basis for moral inquiry.

7

I would disagree, I don’t think you can simply chose what you value. For me morality is a process of determining your best intrest with regards to others. Sinice I don’t find humanity to be of moral value, to exclude based of morality would be arbitrary. From a strategic point of veiw, if you exclude based of an arbitrary trait, you inherently risk the possibility of being excluded yourself.

Also from a more intuitive bases, even if we were to grant that morality is based of your own personal choice of what you vaule. It is still the case that chosing who to value is very differnt to chosing what to value. We do not allow someone to say, “I value some skin colors over others”,we would find that deplorable. As mentioned if we don’t accept one why accept the other?

8

I sorry if it may have been hard to follow, I think this might have benefited from a slightly more precise explanation. Regardless, yes this is ment as an argument against human exeptionalism. Though I dont know where I implyed morality to be meaningless.

I consider morality to be a process of determining what is in one best intrests with respect to others. I agree that morality is integral as a tool for improving our live in countless ways, that is why I made this argument. I just simply think that morality needn’t be based of humanity.

Regarding “humans as the center of morality” I refer to treating humans as inheritly more vaulable than others, which I consider to be misguided.

9

Exactly, I agree. The title may have been missleading. I mean that while humanity, as it is made up of sentient beings, is morally important. Humanity its self is not the reason for that relevance.

10

I agree, our evolution definitely played a part in our early moral system. It is no wonder that humans would determine themselves to be morally superior considering there was no one with the ability to correct them.

I say that there is no reason to hold to our initial moral understanding, but rather that we should improve our moral systems to move beyond such arbitrary traits.

11

Not simply, perhaps; valuing humanity may not be a conclusion at the end of some rationalisation, but a beginning. You will have heard the Cherokee story of the two wolves, though, and no doubt have fed the wolf of your own best interest.

Ethics begins when you start to take the Other into consideration, of course - self interest is the shallow end of that pool.

The point is that what you have said tells us more about your concerns than it does about what we ought do.

2 Likes
12

Just because we are the only ones that understand morality doesn’t mean we are the ones it should apply to. What of the humans that do not have the ability to participate in this “battleground”? Are they also irrelevant to morality? I certainly hope not.

If we are the bases, why can we not expand beyond that bases?

13

I care about all sentient beings in existence, why am I less morality advanced? You seem to have come to a conclusion I did not at all intend to implly.

I see self intrest as the very basic begining of morality. It is so much more forfilling once you understand that the self and community are intertwind, and that one is meaningless with out the other.

14

This takes us to the comparatively new concept of speciesism, which comes up in many discussions about animal rights. It’s easy enough to agree that being human, as such, is not the sole locus of moral value. It gets very complicated when we try to say whether this means that, nonetheless, humans are entitled to moral considerations that don’t apply to other animals, and this by virtue of their species membership. In other words, does sharing a moral world entail equal consideration?

15

Thanks for clarifying.

I do consider humans more significant than other animals in many contexts, probably all. If I had to choose between saving my cat or a person, I would choose the person.

Morality revolves around how humans behave towards each other and the planet, so I’d be curious to understand how you see a morality functioning that doesn’t privilege human points of view, culture, and language.

16

[quote=“Jay, post:14, topic:3184”]
In other words, does sharing a moral world entail equal consideration?
[/quote

Depends on what you means by equal. Caring for animals can means very different things depending on the creature, because of wildly different bodies and mental capacities.

They are equal in the same way that people in wheal chairs are (or should be) equal, but we would never force them to walk. And in the way that people with deffernt educations are (or should be) equal, but we don’t expect someone who is not a lawyer to be able to defend themselves in court.

17

And yet assign no moral value to humanity.

Consistency.

But perhaps not of ethics. That begins when you start to consider others. And that, when you move beyond just self-interest.

18

This is a very good argument and something I have definitely thought about alot.

I don’t know what I would, or rather more importantly should, do if I have to chose between the life of a human and if some other animal. It seems reasonable to say that you might chose a human, simply because in addition to their own value they also have significant number of those who would morn their passing.

Still I think this part is not actually all that important. What choice you should make in such a situation has very little to do with whether one is justified in being complacent in the systemic opression of animals.

Regarding the second, I am glad you asked. I care about the will of sentient beings, in other words what they would desire given complete knowledge and perfect rationality. Obviously we can never perfect approximate this but we can do our best. Spesifically I care what is held in commen between these wills.

Through this understanding we can consider the intrests of even those who cannot explicitly tell us.

This may seem strange, but we already do this with children, those with mental conditions, and the elderly. We consider what they would want, not nessasaraly what they do.

And what we find is some generally principles irrispective of humanity. The will to life, and the will towards pleasure and against suffering.

Anyways I hope my tangent was understandable.

19

I consistantly apply moral value to all sentient beings, and humans only as they are sentient beings.

Is not that humans have no value, but that humanity, the trait of being human, has no value inherent to its self.

With regard to determining wether a car is capable of transporting me, I do not ask if it is a Honda, I ask if it is a car.

20

Lots of animals perceive and protest against bad or unfair treatment. Like humans, apes tolerate bad treatment from close partners but not from strangers.

I’d say inquiry is based on curiosity. What is good or bad is open for discovery, regardless of language.

One reason is that good behavior protects the long-term benefits of cooperation.