# Humanity is of No Moral Value **URL:** \ **Category:** Ethics\ **Created:** [September 22, 2026, 1:44am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184 "2026-09-22T01:44:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Belial\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f6c823/32.png) [@Belial\_1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Belial_1)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2026, 10:52pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/61 "2026-09-24T22:52:08Z")
> [@BestGuessYet](#): > > All we can do is push for our own conception of morality, I guess. I just laid out a system that counters this. If it doesn’t, please let me know. > [@BestGuessYet](#): > > Well, he might own the Ministry of Justice or something, so…. > [@BestGuessYet](#): > > Good luck with that. He might just offer to pay $10K to anyone who votes for him, using tax money. Or something. I was laying out my best guess as to a strategy to deal with him, but at this point it appears we are significantly off topic from whether humanity is of moral value. ---
**Author:** ![Belial\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f6c823/32.png) [@Belial\_1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Belial_1)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2026, 10:55pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/62 "2026-09-24T22:55:03Z")
> [@BestGuessYet](#): > > Well, what about just enslaving one family because we need them to save us from a nuclear weapon planted by the terrorists? Would that be moral? Would this positively affect the majority? If so, it may be the only way to deal with an objectively bad situation. If so, it is moral in the sense that it would be better than the alternative, even if the action itself is terrible. ---
**Author:** ![Belial\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f6c823/32.png) [@Belial\_1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Belial_1)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2026, 11:18pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/63 "2026-09-24T23:18:03Z")
> [@FireOlogist](#): > > The other has to do with whether it is good or bad to treat a biological human animal as worthy of moral value. They are sentient, so I care about them. But not because they are human. > [@FireOlogist](#): > > I’m talking about the first question first, because if you think anything close to “humanity is of no moral value”, which you titled this thread, I don’t see why we would care (or it even be necessary to ask) about a distinction between humans that have the ability to consider morality, and humans who don’t? Your position, as I understood it, was that the ability to consider morality is justification for morality to apply to you. However, not all humans possess the ability to consider morality. I was quite sure you cared about all humans, but your argument implied otherwise; thus, by asking this, I hoped for you to reveal that this is not actually your source of morality. Given what you say later, it seems this is the case. > [@FireOlogist](#): > > I thought you were the one making any points to devalue any human beings, and I am trying to address that. I have had to clarify this a few times, but my point was that _humanity_, the trait of being human, was of no moral value. But humans are morally valuable, precisely because they are sentient, nothing more. In other words, I care about humans because they are sentient beings, not because they are human. > [@FireOlogist](#): > > To repay your charity, I don’t think human beings are valuable _only_ because they can participate in a moral life; I think human beings are each inherently and particularly valuable because of many, many things human beings are, even if only because they can be loved by other human beings. Individual human beings do not each fall somewhere on a scale of morally valuable at one end, and no moral value on the other. If you are human, you are inherently more valuable than the rest of the universe as I can tell. Thank you for your reply. At the same time, this is where I fundamentally disagree. You mention, “[Humanity is] valuable because of many, many things human beings are…” but I don’t think there is a single thing you can point to in order to properly justify this. It seems to me you have conceded that rationality is not on this list, since you care about all humans, even those with comparatively low intelligence. Can you give me an example of one of these traits humans have? > [@FireOlogist](#): > > My point is that humanity in general is the only being we know of that certainly participates in complex moral forms of communion and socialization. And as such, it is almost a distortion of this basic observation about one of the things only humans seem to do to be able to conclude that “humanity is of no moral value.” Who or what else in the world could possibly make such a judgment about anything, let alone about itself and its kind? Yet not all humans do this, do they? ---
**Author:** ![Belial\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f6c823/32.png) [@Belial\_1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Belial_1)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2026, 11:34pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/64 "2026-09-24T23:34:22Z")
> [@Hanover](#): > > Is it your view that you are of an advanced moral state due to your ability to remaine unbiased towards human suffering when comparing it to animal suffering or do you think it a curious moral limitation you have that you cannot appreciate the exceptional character of humanity? Where in this is there a response to my argument? > [@Hanover](#): > > I know you insist otherwise, but I can’t imagine you have the same reaction to what occurs daily at chicken houses and what occurs from time to time in school shootings. A butcher preparing a chicken doesn’t make the news, but it would if there were a baby at the end of his knife, but, per your view, each is as equally newsworthy. Your attempt to read my mind has utterly failed. You cannot begin to understand how deeply horrified I am at the hellish treatment of animals. What do you feel when a crime comes on the news revealing a baby was killed? With that in mind, how would you even begin to come to terms with millions of them being killed on mass everyday? Would you, like me, feel a deep, horrifying sadness and anguish at the millions of dead babies? Or would you laugh about their deaths? My only difference is that this horror is my daily reaction to the fact that every male chick in factory farms is thrown into an industrial macerator. If only both were equally newsworthy. ---
**Author:** ![Belial\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f6c823/32.png) [@Belial\_1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Belial_1)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2026, 11:38pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/65 "2026-09-24T23:38:56Z")
> [@WhoKnows](#): > > Since the spectrum of human behaviour is extensive, isn’t it logical to take an overall average? An average over what? Should I eat a rotten apple since most apples are edible? > [@WhoKnows](#): > > I don’t think it was just about the color of ones skin. There were many factors involved The validity of your argument rests on your ability to demonstrate these factors. (Specifically, what these factors are for humanity). > [@WhoKnows](#): > > I call this the “Great Ape Misperception”. Sure, “a species of animal” but what an amazing animal in what it can achieve. > > I find folk who observe The Humanities in the way you are here, are ashamed of being human. Would that be correct, or have I missed the mark? If humans are immoral monsters, then I would be ashamed of that. Do you perhaps have an argument to restore my faith in humanity? ---
**Author:** ![Belial\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f6c823/32.png) [@Belial\_1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Belial_1)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2026, 12:02am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/66 "2026-09-25T00:02:52Z")
> [@FireOlogist](#): > > If by sentient, you mean human, I basically agree here. We do not agree because sentient does not mean human; it refers to the ability to experience pleasure and pain. ---
**Author:** ![WhoKnows](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/whoknows/32/1145_2.png) [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2026, 12:07am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/67 "2026-09-25T00:07:16Z")
> [@Belial\_1](#): > > An average over what? The Humanities > [@Belial\_1](#): > > Should I eat a rotten apple since most apples are edible? Should you complain about a rotten apple since most apples are not? > [@Belial\_1](#): > > The validity of your argument rests on your ability to demonstrate these factors. (Specifically, what these factors are for humanity). Are things better, worse or the same for the descendants of these slaves? > [@Belial\_1](#): > > If humans are immoral monsters, then I would be ashamed of that. Do you perhaps have an argument to restore my faith in humanity? If you want to be ashamed of being human, have at it. It is not anyone’s responsibility to prove you wrong about that. ---
**Author:** ![Belial\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f6c823/32.png) [@Belial\_1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Belial_1)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2026, 12:16am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/68 "2026-09-25T00:16:23Z")
> [@WhoKnows](#): > > > [@Belial\_1](#): > > > > The validity of your argument rests on your ability to demonstrate these factors. (Specifically, what these factors are for humanity). > > Are things better, worse, or the same for the descendants of these slaves? I knew this would cause confusion the moment after I said it. To clarify, if you inform me of the trait that sets humans morally apart from other animals, then you have defeated my argument. Regarding the slaves, I think we can both agree that the abolition of slavery was a major improvement to their condition. > [@WhoKnows](#): > > The Humanities I knew what you said when you said it. And my question still stands: what makes someone human? > [@WhoKnows](#): > > > [@Belial\_1](#): > > > > Should I eat a rotten apple since most apples are edible? > > Should you complain about a rotten apple since most apples are not? This was an analogy. Do you complain about those with mental disabilities? I don’t think that’s what you meant to say. > [@WhoKnows](#): > > If you want to be ashamed of being human, have at it. It is not anyone’s responsibility to prove you wrong about that. Except yours, if you disagree about whether humanity possesses any inherent moral value. ---
**Author:** ![Belial\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f6c823/32.png) [@Belial\_1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Belial_1)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2026, 12:40am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/69 "2026-09-25T00:40:46Z")
> [@Astorre](#): > > In my view, we get a bit carried away by attributing morality solely to humans. A breath of fresh air to hear that someone on this thread holds that view. > [@Astorre](#): > > “What is morality?” > “Well, it’s the ability to understand morality.” > > It seems to me that this definition is missing something. I agree. > [@Astorre](#): > > Another possible answer—from your perspective—might be: is it the capacity to be the center of morality and, consequently, to care for oneself? I would say that is the start. To me, morality stems from a pragmatic concern: that your best interests require you to consider others. > [@Astorre](#): > > Perhaps a discussion on morality should begin by defining its boundaries. Are you speaking of behavior that entails refraining from violence (or other harm) against another member of your species? When discussing morality, are you referring to a “choice” between the “desired” and the “right”? Obviously, in my view, morality goes beyond caring for one’s own species. Some choices are to fulfill one’s best interests; others are to fulfill the best interests of others. The first determines normativity, what one ought to do; the second is morality. What is important to me is that when the first is true, the second generally is as well. > [@Astorre](#): > > I wouldn’t be too quick to claim that animals are incapable of restraining themselves from what they desire. Take, for instance, a dog that waits half the day for its owner to take it for a walk. What is that—morality? Training? The capacity for willpower? Or obedience born of the fear of punishment? I don’t claim that animals are or are not capable of restraining themselves from what they desire. ---
**Author:** ![WhoKnows](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/whoknows/32/1145_2.png) [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2026, 6:13am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/70 "2026-09-25T06:13:13Z")
> [@Belial\_1](#): > > To clarify, if you inform me of the trait that sets humans morally apart from other animals, then you have defeated my argument. You wrote in the OP “I find no reason to believe that humanity is of any moral value.” So, even if I were to argue that other animals and even insects are of any moral value (by identifying some moral trait which sets them apart from any other moral lifeforms) and such are then morally valuable, is this to say anything in particular? Is value" itself a moral judgment? > [@Belial\_1](#): > > what makes someone human? The form at the very least. It is the same for what makes elephants, elephants, ants, ants et al. If you are asking what trait makes humans, humans I wouldn’t argue “morality alone”. I have not encountered such an argument. > [@Belial\_1](#): > > Do you complain about those with mental disabilities? Generally, I leave them to complain about themselves, or their lives, or their illness. > [@Belial\_1](#): > > I don’t think that’s what you meant to say. No. I don’t consider the mentally ill to necessarily being “bad apples” I was focuing on your words ---
**Author:** ![Hanover](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/hanover/32/38_2.png) [@Hanover](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Hanover)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2026, 11:44am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/71 "2026-09-25T11:44:49Z")
> [@Belial\_1](#): > > Where in this is there a response to my argument? It’s less an argument than a report of your deviant psychological state that prevents you from distinguishing the suffering and death of humans from all other forms of animal life. My question is whether you believe this deviation is more moral than what is experienced by the vast majority of the population. ---
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2026, 11:51am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/72 "2026-09-25T11:51:26Z")
> [@Belial\_1](#): > > Humanity is a species of animal, nothing more. Humans are animals in body for sure. But the ability to use language, reasoning, and having moral values qualify them to be the real humans. ---
**Author:** ![BestGuessYet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2026, 1:21pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/73 "2026-09-25T13:21:07Z")
> [@Belial\_1](#): > > > [@BestGuessYet](#): > > > > All we can do is push for our own conception of morality, I guess. > > I just laid out a system that counters this. If it doesn’t, please let me know. Many people have moral systems. I have one myself. Each one is their own conception of morality. Yes? ---
**Author:** ![BestGuessYet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2026, 1:22pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/74 "2026-09-25T13:22:05Z")
> [@Belial\_1](#): > > > [@BestGuessYet](#): > > > > Well, what about just enslaving one family because we need them to save us from a nuclear weapon planted by the terrorists? Would that be moral? > > Would this positively affect the majority? If so, it may be the only way to deal with an objectively bad situation. Who decides? A member of the family? Or a representative of the majority? ---
**Author:** ![FireOlogist](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/fireologist/32/597_2.png) [@FireOlogist](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/FireOlogist)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2026, 4:10pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/75 "2026-09-25T16:10:41Z")
> [@Belial\_1](#): > > Your position, as I understood it, was that the ability to consider morality is justification for morality to apply to you. That isn’t what I meant to say, if that is what I said. My point is simpler. Only humans do morality. > [@Belial\_1](#): > > However, not all humans possess the ability to consider morality. True - but I’m not saying the ability to do morality is the only thing valuable about humans. I’m simply saying that the notion “humanity has no moral value” seems absurd to me, since only humans could figure such a thing out as only humans play at morals. There has to be some moral value to being the creature that evaluates morals. Only humanity has this ability, but you don’t think the humanity adds value? We added moral evaluation in the first place. > [@Belial\_1](#): > > I was quite sure you cared about all humans, but your argument implied otherwise; thus, by asking this, I hoped for you to reveal that this is not actually your source of morality. Another reason human beings have unique value is their ability to do stand-up comedy, or just laugh at a joke. Language is really cool - humans alone do language. But if you are concerned about my feelings towards humans that don’t laugh at good jokes, I am simple - if you are human, I value you greatly - you are a cousin or friend of some hilarious comedians or sacrificial morality game players. > [@Belial\_1](#): > > my point was that _humanity_, the trait of being human, was of no moral value. > > But humans are morally valuable, precisely because they are sentient, nothing more. > > In other words, I care about humans because they are sentient beings, not because they are human. So when a person is in a coma, do they lose their moral value? When a person is drunk and passes out, won’t wake up, is it perfectly justifiable to take them out with the trash? Seems a bit confusing to say that human beings are no different than other sentient beings when it comes to moral value, even though only human beings care at all about moral evaluation. If you want to think humans are another version of ape, and apes have moral value because they are sentient, okay, but it doesn’t seem very observant to me to not see a vast distinction between what we are doing in this conversation and what any other type of animal ever does. ---
**Author:** ![wonderer](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/wonderer/32/106_2.png) [@wonderer](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/wonderer)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2026, 5:04pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/76 "2026-09-25T17:04:29Z")
> [@FireOlogist](#): > > Only humans do morality. It certainly appears to me as if the monkey in [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg) is making a moral judgement. ---
**Author:** ![WhoKnows](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/whoknows/32/1145_2.png) [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2026, 1:28pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/77 "2026-09-27T13:28:48Z")
> [@Corvus](#): > > Humans are animals in body for sure. But the ability to use language, reasoning, and having moral values qualify them to be the real humans. I agree. It qualifies as being more than just “apes” or even just “great apes”… ---
**Author:** ![FireOlogist](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/fireologist/32/597_2.png) [@FireOlogist](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/FireOlogist)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2026, 3:38pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/78 "2026-09-27T15:38:30Z")
> [@wonderer](#): > > It certainly appears to me as if the monkey in [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg) is making a moral judgement. A moral judgment? Any judgment at all, as in conceptual evaluation and decision making prior to externally observable behavior? Could it be that the human ability to make a judgment regarding what motivates behavior is just an easy way to explain the behavior? Aren’t we just personifying animals when we do this? Why think “fairness” even occurs to the monkey? Is the monkey saying the man distributing the food is being unfair, or is the monkey saying “grape me” with no concern for the other monkey or the man? Infants do the same thing - I wouldn’t call them moral judges, just hungry animals that remember what tastes better. ---
**Author:** ![WhoKnows](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/whoknows/32/1145_2.png) [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2026, 7:37pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/79 "2026-09-27T19:37:03Z")
> [@FireOlogist](#): > > A moral judgment? Any judgment at all, as in conceptual evaluation and decision making prior to externally observable behavior? Could it be that the human ability to make a judgment regarding what motivates behavior is just an easy way to explain the behavior? Aren’t we just personifying animals when we do this? “Yes” if indeed monkeys and other animals display signs of being conscious. To what degree we may be morally required to personify them may still be debatable. The alternative is to ask if it is even proper to personify humans… ---
**Author:** ![Belial\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f6c823/32.png) [@Belial\_1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Belial_1)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2026, 8:05pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/80 "2026-09-30T20:05:51Z")
> [@WhoKnows](#): > > So, even if I were to argue that other animals and even insects are of any moral value (by identifying some moral trait which sets them apart from any other moral lifeforms) and such are then morally valuable, is this to say anything in particular? Is value" itself a moral judgment? This has concrete impacts on how we live our lives, and our political and social position. To say that not humanity but sentience is the real basis of morality means caring about other animals. It means taking actions that cause the least harm to them (like not buying animal products) and taking proactive steps to improve their conditions (organizing to prevent their systemic oppression). > [@WhoKnows](#): > > The form at the very least. It is the same for what makes elephants, elephants, ants, ants et al. > > If you are asking what trait makes humans, humans I wouldn’t argue “morality alone”. I have not encountered such an argument. So your position is that humans are their biology (correct me if you believe otherwise). But amongst humans there is large diversity; what biological trait is it that justifies humanity’s moral value? It cannot be the number of fingers, for instance. > [@WhoKnows](#): > > Generally, I leave them to complain about themselves, or their lives, or their illness. I only find this to be a strange way of wording this. > [@WhoKnows](#): > > No. I don’t consider the mentally ill to necessarily being “bad apples” I was focuing on your words In saying this, I was pointing out that I didn’t understand the meaning of your response to the metaphor. In the original metaphor, I was pointing out that the average rationality of humanity shouldn’t be the basis for their morality, just as the average eatability of an apple doesn’t determine if I should eat it. [Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184.md?page=3) [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184.md?page=5)