# 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:** 15\ **Page:** 5
**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, 8:10pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/81 "2026-09-30T20:10:22Z")
> [@Hanover](#): > > 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. I find pathologizing people to be a bad way of making an argument; I could make this against anyone. For instance, I could claim your lack of care for animals to be a worrying deficiency in empathy. I won’t, though, because this claim is entirely contingent on the truth of my original statement, and is overall unhelpful to convince people. Also, have I not, by making a moral argument, already claimed explicitly that I consider this position to be more moral? ---
**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, 8:12pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/82 "2026-09-30T20:12:39Z")
> [@Corvus](#): > > Humans are animals in body, for sure. But the ability to use language, reason, and having moral values qualify them to be the real humans. Perhaps if that’s your definition of human, I just don’t see why this means anything. ---
**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, 8:19pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/83 "2026-09-30T20:19:01Z")
> [@BestGuessYet](#): > > Many people have moral systems. I have one myself. > > Each one is their own conception of morality. > > Yes? No, I just claimed my position is that this is not the case. As in, despite holding any particular moral position, you can still be wrong. I presented an argument laying out what I consider the objective reason to behave in line with morality. Again, if you disagree, feel free to counter this system. ---
**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, 8:27pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/84 "2026-09-30T20:27:51Z")
> [@Johnnywas](#): > > I tend to agree that people undervalue animals. Same. > [@Johnnywas](#): > > I disagree with your consequentialism. > > What makes peoople happy? Thats the question. You disagree with my consequentialism, so your counter is that whether the _consequence_ of an action makes one happy is the basis of morality… In other words, consequentialism? > [@Johnnywas](#): > > Amd the answer probably isnt greater urnanisation and a more polluted planet Agreed. (assuming you meant urbanization) ---
**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 30, 2026, 8:36pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/85 "2026-09-30T20:36:55Z")
> [@Belial\_1](#): > > 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). So, your reason for starting this thread is that you think morally speaking, humans should not eat other animals which themselves show any hint of morality? If so, then what is to stop us from reasoning that cows accept being eaten by humans because it is morally reasonable for them to do so? Which is to say that cows, having thought about it, choose the moral responsibility to be eaten, for the sake of humans. And if your response to this is something like “cows don’t think” then how is it they can be said to be moral agents? Or do you distinguish levels of moral agency? Cows are not moral agents in the same way as humans? Perhaps you mean they have moral status, not agency? If so, then what gives them moral status except for moral agents? The same which you write of humanity “is of no moral value”? So, is your argument that humans who eat meat are the ones with no moral value? ---
**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 30, 2026, 9:03pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/86 "2026-09-30T21:03:45Z")
> [@Belial\_1](#): > > Also, have I not, by making a moral argument, already claimed explicitly that I consider this position to be more moral? No, but now you have. You were reporting on your feelings towards watching an animal suffer, but unless you believe that your feelings dictate morality, I can’t see how the two are related, which is why I commented on the personal psychological nature of your claims. I might have particular sympathies for bassett hounds, for example, because I grew up around them, but that woudln’t suggest my sympathy reveals a special morality. If I had a bassett hound, I’d name him Elvis (because he ain’t nothing but a hound-dog) or maybe Huckleberry (after the cartoon character Huckleberry Hound). But I divert. My question then is upon what basis do you hold that the death of a dog is of the same magnitude as that of your mother, or of my mother for that matter? How far down on complexity scale do you go? Crabs, fish, trees, bacteria, Donald Trump? ---
**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 30, 2026, 9:17pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/87 "2026-09-30T21:17:21Z")
> [@Belial\_1](#): > > Perhaps if that’s your definition of human, I just don’t see why this means anything. It means moral values are only possible in the humans with the biological bodies, the language and reasoning. The moral values are not just the codes telling you to do something good. Moral values are also relate to how you speak to others (not to hurt the folks in tragic circumstances or difficult conditions). The way human speak to others carries moral values underneath it, in other words. Also consider the facts that some parts of human body can be closely related to the traditional or religious moral values, hence they have the customs, traditions or unspoken codes that the bodies must be cleaned daily, shaved cleanly, also ensure some parts of the body must be hidden always from the public eyes, and you don’t shake hands with your left hand etc etc. If you read Kant, morality is the result of human reasoning on the actions humans perform to others. It is the imperative moral duty to do good, because you know what good is by your own reasoning. No other animals than humans have these moral value aspects. Does it make sense? ---
**Author:** ![BestGuessYet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2026, 10:20pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/88 "2026-09-30T22:20:04Z")
> [@Belial\_1](#): > > No, I just claimed my position is that this is not the case. As in, despite holding any particular moral position, you can still be wrong. Sure. And you can be wrong according to my moral system. You would certainly be wrong according to the politician who sees morality as being about nurturing one’s own genes. > [@Belial\_1](#): > > I presented an argument laying out what I consider the objective reason to behave in line with morality. > > Again, if you disagree, feel free to counter this system. I haven’t studied your system closely, but it looks like a fairly standard system of the greatest good for the most humans (or creatures). But there are two problems which seem pretty much insurmountable so far as “wrong” goes. 1) Other people have other systems and 2) Even in your system, there need to be judges… individual humans to decide the facts of a case and make a judgment about the morality of it. Yes? ---
**Author:** ![Elephant](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/elephant/32/294_2.png) [@Elephant](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Elephant)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2026, 4:44pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/89 "2026-10-01T16:44:07Z")
> [@Belial\_1](#): > > You admit later that culpability doesn’t apply to children. Please inform me of the distinguishing factor between human children and other animals. > > To be clear, my position is not that we should treat children like animals, but that we should treat animals like children. You can say that culpability doesn’t apply to both children and animal. I agree with that. > [@Belial\_1](#): > > I don’t believe in culpability, only harm prevention. > > Otherwise, I agree with you here, but it would be nice to hear how this is an argument against my point. Okay, so you don’t want to examine our morality. Well, I do. And a lot of posters do. Culpability is taking responsibility for our actions – if we harm others, we are culpable unless, like I said, there are mitigating factors: a toddler, an animal, or mental disabilities. It doesn’t mean we don’t do anything about it. The parents’ are responsible for their children. And so on. ---
**Author:** ![Jbgrx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/edb3f5/32.png) [@Jbgrx](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Jbgrx)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2026, 3:22am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/90 "2026-10-18T03:22:30Z")
But morality is based on goals? By the virtue of having a goal, we can separate everything into what is good and what is bad for that goal. And ‘humanity’ is one of the few things you can expect pretty much every human to have at least some attachment to? And focusing on shared goals allows morality to have at least the illusion of objectivity, it would have been complete chaos otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![hunbanban](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9a28c/32.png) [@hunbanban](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/hunbanban)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2026, 7:27am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/91 "2026-10-18T07:27:43Z")
I think there may be some errors in your understanding. First, reason does not determine morality. Many rational people are precisely those lacking in morality. For instance, merchants are rational and earn excessive profits, yet people do not regard them as moral. Reason is merely a tool employed by humans to achieve their aims. An evil person can equally use reason to accomplish their evil ends. Second, morality is not an external evaluation, but a fundamental human value. You abide by morality not because of external compulsion, but because of an inner recognition. For example, if I insult you, you will surely be angry — because deep down you want me to show you respect. Why do you want respect? Because each of us originates from moral good. No one can tolerate being insulted by others — that is precisely why. Likewise, we respect others because we recognize that they, like ourselves, possess moral good. Morality fundamentally serves one’s own need, not society’s need. People of different ethnicities and different nations can communicate with one another because we all share the same moral foundation. Otherwise, our exchanges would consist of either attacks and insults, or we would be like different species, utterly incapable of meaningful interaction. Third, we are human, not animals. The reason is that we possess something animals lack: morality. Animals do not reflect on why they should tolerate you in every situation, but humans do. Because the moral imperative of tolerance is itself a necessity we bear. Without tolerance and understanding, deep human interaction would simply be impossible. Perhaps in society you have encountered various hardships and witnessed moral decline. But even those morally degenerate people, in essence, can still manifest morality in certain respects. For example, a robber may still love his parents and fulfill his family responsibilities. Even those who appear deeply wicked still, in the depths of their hearts, harbor a certain longing for good. ---
**Author:** ![jordanbridger58](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ce7236/32.png) [@jordanbridger58](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/jordanbridger58)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2026, 7:40am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/92 "2026-10-18T07:40:00Z")
@Banno’s answer is the right shape, and I think it also answers the arbitrariness charge directly. Choosing humanity as the unit of moral concern was never a discovery about traits. It was a decision about practice - about how far we are willing to rehearse empathy. Singer’s expanding circle is a history of exactly that: every inclusion now taken as obvious (women, other races, other species, gradually) was first dismissed as arbitrary sentiment. The trait argument is always made from inside the current circle, defending its edge. So the question “why humanity?” has no non-circular answer, but that is not a weakness. It means the real question is the one Belial\_1 ends on: not which trait justifies inclusion, but what the act of including does to the one who includes. A morality you choose, knowing it is chosen, is not arbitrary. It is the only kind that was ever on offer. ---
**Author:** ![Banno](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/banno/32/55_2.png) [@Banno](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Banno)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2026, 9:09am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/93 "2026-10-18T09:09:21Z")
> [@jordanbridger58](#): > > A morality you choose, knowing it is chosen, is not arbitrary. It is the only kind that was ever on offer. The result being that it is utterly _precious_. ---
**Author:** ![Scorpion](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/scorpion/32/875_2.png) [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2026, 6:38am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/94 "2026-10-25T06:38:28Z")
> [!Info] > The question is not can they speak, nor can they think, but can they suffer? ~ Jeremy Bentham People have said that an adult horse is more intelligent than an infant or a mentally-challenged adult human. > [!Failure] > Religious morality shouldn’t have been left out ---
**Author:** ![Jay](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/jay/32/206_2.png) [@Jay](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Jay)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2026, 12:31pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184/95 "2026-10-25T12:31:51Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > The question is not can they speak, nor can they think, but can they suffer? ~ J. S. Mill Great quote – but it was Bentham, not Mill. [Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/humanity-is-of-no-moral-value/3184.md?page=4)