So you’re telling me that if a deer were lying by the side of the road all mangled from a car, you’d be no more or less concerned than if it was the mailman lying there all mangled? Sometimes I see dead deer on the side of the road and I fail to even mention it to my wife. You’d be the same way with a dead guy just lying there, like, oh well, dead deer, dead person, whatever?
Would you call an ambulance for the mailman or even stop and check on him? What about the deer, would you go down in the ditch and see how it was doing? Would you be offended when they refused to send an ambulance for the deer, discriminating against it on the basis of species?
It sounds like the script for absurdist theater, where both a child and the dog he’s walking get run over by a car and the good samaritan brings the dog home to the child’s mother and leaves the child in the street because the dog was cuter than the kid.
Assuming for the sake of argument that you truly believe as you say, is it your position that you are more enlightened or is it that you just want to let us know of your sociopathy?
Are you saying we should be humane to animals because they feel pain?
Sounds great, but that has nothing to do with my point. My point is simply that, as you just admitted: “we are the only ones that understand morality.”
The rest of the universe is innocent to moral quandries, neither seeking goodness, nor cultivating evil intentions. Only humans do these things. Only humans, animals that understand morality, can choose to be immoral (which would be knowing something is good and acting against it, or knowing something is bad and doing it anyway).
I don’t think you are being clear about your point. “Humanity has no moral value.” Since we are the only animals who play at morality, and saying humans have no moral value, are you saying there is nothing with any moral value? Or are you saying that innocent things that can’t deliberate on whether to be evil or not are innocent and therefore the things with moral value - only humans can be evil, so only humans have no moral value? I don’t think you are saying that, but that might give you some fodder to continue leveling your “moral value” playing field.
Only a human could distinguish a “sentient” being and only a human could “apply moral value” to anything.
Do you think anything has moral value inherent to it?
For me, it’s simple. Trying to just be a disinterested and scientific observer about it, I look around the earth at animal behavior, and it is quickly clear there is something paradigmatically different going on between humans and the world, as between any other animal and the world. Humans are nothing like the other animals, as much as all animals are nothing like plants, and plants are nothing like chemical compounds.
Based on the uniqueness of humanity’s ability to raise these questions and debate them, I see a unique value in humanity. Maybe it’s to the detriment of the universe that we live in it, but only we could care to consider this question, and I think that, in itself, is good.
Like if humanity was to go extinct, or roses were to go extinct, both would be bad and make the universe less interesting and beautiful. But what the human does is more unique compared to anything else, whereas what the rose does is comparable to what a carnation does.
If all of humanity were to disappear, the loss to the universe would be akin to if all life disappeared. There would be the loss of a type of existent thing that is unlike anything else.
How hard is it to see that nobody gives a damn about good and evil except people? Animals choosing to defend their young aren’t doing good - they are blossoming like a rose. Humans choosing NOT to defend their young are doing evil, and thereby, highlighting our ability to choose and be moral (or not). That makes us unique.
We are too indoctrinated by Darwin. Darwinianism doesn’t explain how the first DNA sequence arose, nor how information is transmitted when life begins. Darwin just explains how a yellow finch evolves into a green finch. So to say morality evolved from functioning animal behavior is, to me, to misapply Darwin’s insights, and misunderstand humanity.
Well, it’s a hard thing to work through. Let’s say you are a powerful politician, and your moral assumption is that your genes are the most important things in all the universe, and so you slash and graft as long as you can, making sure your heirs have the best chance of survival. That’s his morality.
So before we could talk about ‘should’, I think we’d have to first talk about the objective. Where are we trying to get with our morality? What is the object?
The least harm for the most humans? Or something?
Well, in your opinion, I’m sure that’s so. But what if you’re the powerful politician? Slavery might be quite beneficial to the survival of your genes.
Yeah, it’s fascinating… all the little cultural worlds intersecting out there. A bunch of tribes. Chimp mothers love their own children, while murdering and eating monkey mothers who also love their children.
Well, that’s the belief of those who do morality… yes. As I say and so far as I know, we humans are the only ones who give much consideration to those outside our species. Certainly the only ones who give thoughtful consideration, I think.
Sure. That’s a fine aspiration. Except for that freaking politician. Every time he chooses to be more moral, my social security check shrinks.
This argument is misplaced and it misunderstood the belief in morality among humans. First, people with mental disabilities shouldn’t be considered of low rationality and group them with animals.
The measure we use for people with mental disabilities and toddlers are culpability, not rationality. Another measure we use is agency: if some people are not culpable, why not? It’s because they do not possess agency. Third, people with full agency should be subject to punishment or accountability of their actions. Toddlers and those who have mental disabilities are not subject to the same level of punishment, if at all, than those with full possession of their agency.
We cannot sentence a toddler who managed to unalive the parents to life in prison or execution. Similarly, we cannot send a person with mental disabilities to prison due to their negligence or mistake. We have other institutions to deal with these situations.
Let’s talk about animals. Do you wish to punish the wild animals for killing a camper in the woods? I certainly do not. So then if they’re not subject to full agency, they cannot be found culpable, and cannot be sent to prison.
Morality is not just for the good behavior. It is also for the bad behavior. I agree that morality includes the proper treatment of everyone, including animals, toddlers, and mentally disabled. But they certainly require special deliberation so that animals are not held to the same standard as civilized humans. Rather, the treatment should be that they don’t have an agency, therefore no culpability, and no punishment.
I find it relevant to note that I am not the one who impllied another to be a sociopath.
But to address your argument, if we had the same infrastructure for helping animals, my reaction would be identical.
As it stands, we live in a world where two separate systems conspire to make the lives of animals a living hell.
Our own society devalues them, as objects to care for only when it’s convenient.
While the natural systems (the environment), is based apon their suffering (predation, parasites, etc.).
Call it sociopathy. But if we are to consider not rational moral arguments, but rather my subjective emotional one. I would care more about the animal than the human.
Again, this is my own emotional reaction because I feal more conected to non-human animals. Rationally speaking I care about them the same amount.
And at the same time practically speaking I have less ability to help the dear than the human.
I believe in objective morality grounded in the will of all sentient beings, a principle I call Panvolia.
There is a distinct difference between having the ability to consider morality (which is not exclusive to humans, by the way), and being the only ones to whom morality applies.
I will assume, for charity’s sake, one more time, that you simply missed my counterpoint. Not all humans have the ability to consider morality.
Is a person with a mental disability, such that they cannot consider morality, not worthy of moral value?
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.
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.
Nope, just as you would admit a child is not culpable.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care about the terrible things that happen to animals in the wild, partly because of themselves, though ultimately because of cold, uncaring nature.
I don’t think we should punish humans who have agency. My morality pertains to caring about others, not to taking ones eye for an eye.
But he says it is the ground of morality… to benefit his own genes at whatever cost.
Personally, I’m hoping you can talk him out of that, but what will you say?
How will you argue it, I mean? Maybe he considers himself a prophet of God and is simply telling you what God means by “good moral thought.”
So I’m wondering how you would argue against that.
Forgive me, but that is fairly vague. Why would that definition preclude the Europeans from enslaving the Hawiians? It would benefit the majority, after all.
And do you mean “humans” when you speak of “the majority”?
Right. But he says that is what morality is. He’s angry when he’s overwhelmed by a superior force, but he understands that the other guys are just going about their own morality, working to benefit their own genes.
It means that morality seems to come down to point of view. The chimp is behaving morally. The monkey is behaving morally.
So do you think there is some kind of morality transcending POV? If so, I’d like to know more about it.
I will not attempt to talk him out of that; I will clearly fail. Instead, I will take more effective means, such as reporting his unjust actions, if I am to work within the system (despite the difficulty considering the inherently faulty capitalist system). Or to organize so that such people are not running our society.
And regarding God, that strategy appears to be the most impossible, considering how hesitant he is to respond to even his most devout followers, like ever.
(On a serious note, I am an atheist)
No, forgive me. I was attempting to summarize a much longer line of reasoning and clearly failed.
(Deep breath) Here we go.
For all sentient beings, there exists a series of choices and states most advantageous to them.
For those capable of using their reasoning (to a high enough degree), they are capable of approximating this collection of “best interests”, which I call their will.
But these beings cannot rely on their own power to forfill this will, and so must so must rely on others.
To organize these individuals, all individuals included must rely on some shared value.
This shared value ought to conform to the will of all included, as this is the purpose of this value.
For any individual, it is disadvantageous to exclude anyone from the collective will for arbitrary reasons; otherwise, they risk excluding themselves.
Humanity is an arbitrary value, as argued, so it cannot select those who ought to be included in the objective value.
Sentience, however, is the very foundation of what determines if something affects you; all other such traits decompose into this one.
(feel free to argue otherwise)
Therefore, we must care about the will of all sentient beings, a principle I call Panvolia.
My point earlier is simply that this value only applies generally and that some can get away with not following it temporarily.
(even if temporary means one’s entire life)
That is hopefully sufficient for explaining my basis for objective morality, as this does not rely on the feelings of any individual.
One has to do with whether any human has any moral value.
The other has to do with whether it is good or bad to treat a biological human animal as worthy of moral value.
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?
I think all human beings do have intrinsic value, qua being human beings. All you need is a human mom and dad, and to me, from day one, no matter how you turned out or what abilities, you are most valuable.
I thought you were the one making any points to devalue any human beings, and I am trying to address that.
I am saying, for there to be a sense of any moral life, any sense of right and wrong or good deeds and bad deeds, one has to be able to consider, to deliberate - and humans do such deliberations. . Morality itself is born in a deliberation involving knowledge of good and bad placed into action by intention.
So we functioning humans are the source of morality, and that, in itself is good, and gives all human beings a unique moral value.
So I see your frustration about the mentally disabled.
But I don’t see why you would care if you thought no human being had any special moral value.
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. (I act as if each person is one of a kind and the last of its species so it must be protected and valued and loved unlike anything ever before or ever after. Such value comes into the universe at conception, and maintains until last breath.)
But that doesn’t mean someone who is mentally disabled can participate in moral life and be responsible for moral action. There is mental disability, psychological disease, even ignorance, and all of these can make one completely oblivious and innocent of potential evil action. But that doesn’t mean they stop being human, or lose our basic value.
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?
If by sentient, you mean human, I basically agree here. I believe there are moral facts and objective normativity. I believe that intention and will are essential components to moral life.
But if you mean humans do morality in complex ways and dogs do morality in simpler ways, that is just a theory to me, and it maybe a useful thought experiment to isolate and specify “what is morality”, but I don’t see morality in the universe except among human beings. I believe the other animals and the rest of the world is innocent, never interfering with habit, and only humans can intentionally take responsibility for what should be or should not have been, and build “good” or “bad” habits voluntarily.
The topic of morality is inexhaustible. In my view, we get a bit carried away by attributing morality solely to humans. Defining morality simply as the capacity to rationally understand morality is somewhat tautological and reductive.
“What is morality?”
“Well, it’s the ability to understand morality.”
It seems to me that this definition is missing something.
Another possible answer—from your perspective—might be: is it the capacity to be the center of morality and, consequently, to care for oneself?
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”?
The first framework is accessible to pack animals. The second, however, is generally attributed only to humans, as only they are capable of holding onto the abstraction of “rightness” clearly enough to abstain from the “desired.” On the other hand, 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?
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?
I don’t look upon your moral view as inspirational, but I see it as profoundly immoral, so much so that I don’t actually believe you. 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.
How about: “What being is of any moral value?”
A: “At least those beings who consider and deliberate moral value.”
Closer to the latter. The chess game of morality includes the following pieces: Reason, knowledge, belief, deliberation, objectified law, personal choice or judgment and decision, intentional action or omission, and consequences in the world apart from the actor for which the actor takes responsibility and/or is accountable. And of course the game of morality only makes sense where there are two or more people at the least.
It seems to me that if you remove any one of these pieces, or remove all other people from the world, there is no sense playing the morality game.
So morality inquires into the agent’s mind when he or she is deliberately causing harm, or withholding harm, or sacrificing for sake of others, or withholding sacrifice for sake of others. And we are all forced to play.
I think we personify animals to make them make sense to us. I wouldn’t be too quick to drag animals away from their innocence and their utter obliviousness to the morality game.
We tend to find it easy to see animals as moral actors when they do something good or seemingly heroic, or make us happy. What is the hippo that eats the tail off of its defeated and retreating rival doing? Or the chimp who eats the face and genitals off of a rival?
I can imagine other explanations, innocent explanations for animal behavior, and it makes sense to me that if they could play at reason, knowledge, belief, deliberation, objectified law, personal choice or judgment and decision, intentional action or omission, and consequences in the world apart from the actor for which the actor takes responsibility and/or is accountable, they would begin to form political parties, advance moral education and protest toilet oppression and the need for new laws that don’t allow faces to be eaten off in anger.
Well… Actually, my questions were intended for the thread’s author. Had I known beforehand that you would be the one answering, I would have asked completely different questions =)
On the whole, you are familiar with my approach to understanding the phenomenon of “morality” (at least in broad strokes).
And yes, I really don’t want to be too quick to strip animals of “morality,” nor do I want to hastily attribute “morality” to them. At the same time, however, anthropocentric claims—in the sense that only humans possess morality—go too far.
I once articulated the difficulty inherent in studying morality. To grasp it, one must step outside its boundaries and conduct “immoral” experiments—but would we ourselves remain human in the process? And isn’t morality a defining characteristic of what it means to be human?
Those are the kinds of questions I would have asked you. =)