I just laid out a system that counters this. If it doesn’t, please let me know.
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.
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.
They are sentient, so I care about them. But not because they are human.
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.
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.
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?
Yet not all humans do this, do they?
Where in this is there a response to my argument?
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.
An average over what? Should I eat a rotten apple since most apples are edible?
The validity of your argument rests on your ability to demonstrate these factors. (Specifically, what these factors are for humanity).
If humans are immoral monsters, then I would be ashamed of that. Do you perhaps have an argument to restore my faith in humanity?
We do not agree because sentient does not mean human; it refers to the ability to experience pleasure and pain.
The Humanities
Should you complain about a rotten apple since most apples are not?
Are things better, worse or the same for the descendants of these slaves?
If you want to be ashamed of being human, have at it. It is not anyone’s responsibility to prove you wrong about that.
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.
I knew what you said when you said it. And my question still stands: what makes someone human?
This was an analogy. Do you complain about those with mental disabilities?
I don’t think that’s what you meant to say.
Except yours, if you disagree about whether humanity possesses any inherent moral value.
A breath of fresh air to hear that someone on this thread holds that view.
I agree.
I would say that is the start. To me, morality stems from a pragmatic concern: that your best interests require you to consider others.
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.
I don’t claim that animals are or are not capable of restraining themselves from what they desire.
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?
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.
Generally, I leave them to complain about themselves, or their lives, or their illness.
No. I don’t consider the mentally ill to necessarily being “bad apples” I was focuing on your words
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.
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.
Many people have moral systems. I have one myself.
Each one is their own conception of morality.
Yes?
Who decides? A member of the family? Or a representative of the majority?
That isn’t what I meant to say, if that is what I said. My point is simpler. Only humans do 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.
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.
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.
1 Like
It certainly appears to me as if the monkey in this video is making a moral judgement.
1 Like
I agree. It qualifies as being more than just “apes” or even just “great apes”…
1 Like
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.
“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…
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).
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.
I only find this to be a strange way of wording this.
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.