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?
Perhaps if that’s your definition of human, I just don’t see why this means anything.
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.
Same.
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?
Agreed.
(assuming you meant urbanization)
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
You can say that culpability doesn’t apply to both children and animal. I agree with that.
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.