But do you imagine, as I believe some people did, and that perhaps some people still do, that non-human animals are just "wet" machines, biological analogues if you will of an automobile? — tim wood
And why would you suppose that, even if non-human animals don't have - not being human - certain human qualities that they cannot have non-human animal analogous behaviors. — tim wood
1. The difference between animals and humans (interspecies). [The Name A Trait Argument] — TheMadFool
2. The difference between one person and another (intraspecies). — TheMadFool
Why do we not or, at the very least, are reluctant to kill each other? — TheMadFool
Categorical. Make your case. What is morality that humans possess it and animals do not? If you retreat to the notion of human morality, then you have said nothing and are saying nothing.Humans possess morality, whereas animals do not. — Pinprick
1. The difference between animals and humans (interspecies). [The Name A Trait Argument]
— TheMadFool
This is what my post was addressing. Humans possess morality, whereas animals do not. — Pinprick
The difference between one person and another (intraspecies).
— TheMadFool
I’m not sure what this matters. Are you looking for justification for why we don’t endorse cannibalism? This justification, whatever it may be, doesn’t have to be related to the justification for eating non-human animals. I think we’re just biased towards our own species. We naturally react negatively to harming others (with some exceptions). — Pinprick
Alright. Let's get serious then....the second part of the question if our moral system likewise ascribes (not equal but rather) sufficient moral value to non-human animals. If not, the third and final part of the question asks us what is it that is true of humans that would have to be true of animals in order for us to ascribe sufficient moral value to condemn killing them for food. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
If you retreat to the notion of human morality, then you have said nothing and are saying nothing. — tim wood
For my part, I infer from observed behavior. — tim wood
It matters for the simple reason that the difference between animals and humans (moral sense is your example) can be found as a difference betweeen one human and another (saints & sinners). Ergo, if you kill animals because they lack moral sense, you can kill sinners as well. — TheMadFool
But I’m not applying it like that. It has to apply to all members of the species. So, for example, if it is demonstrated that one cow actually possesses morality, then it wouldn’t be permissible to kill/eat any cows. I think that’s just erring on the side of caution. If one cow has morality, maybe others do as well, so we shouldn’t kill any of them just in case.
So with humans it’s the same thing. The only way it would be permissible to kill/eat them would be if no humans had morality, which includes human doing the killing in the hypothetical example. So if no humans possessed morality, then no humans would object to killing/eating other humans. — Pinprick
I'm taking that to its logical conclusion: If I know for a fact that a person X lacks morals then, by the reasoning above, I should be allowed to kill X. — TheMadFool
2. Can we kill humans if they lack morals? — TheMadFool
For brevity, all I'll do here is point out that the name the trait argument works if we take traits singly — TheMadFool
That is a good point. Why is it that all the justification hinges on only one trait [rhetorical]? — Pinprick
Agree with this? — tim wood
Essentially they behave as they’re programmed to behave. — Pinprick
Your opponent doesn't even consider a simple proposition such as "it is acceptable to eat animals" or "it is wrong to eat humans" - likely because such specific maxims don't seem like they belong in a simple axiomatic system. — SophistiCat
By whom? That is, if you have no idea what wolf morality is, then how o you conclude they're immoral, except by some misplaced standard. And that does not address wolf or other animal behavior that seems based in some kind of moral choice - or behavior that seems analogous to human moral behavior.Whatever is considered wrong or bad. — Pinprick
By whom? — tim wood
That is, if you have no idea what wolf morality is, then how o you conclude they're immoral, except by some misplaced standard. — tim wood
And that does not address wolf or other animal behavior that seems based in some kind of moral choice - or behavior that seems analogous to human moral behavior. — tim wood
By whom?
— tim wood
In this case by the wolves.
That is, if you have no idea what wolf morality is, then how o you conclude they're immoral, except by some misplaced standard.
— tim wood
I’m not claiming that. I’m claiming they have no concept of moral/immoral (I.e. they lack morality). — Pinprick
And this is just plain untrue. Another example of a categorical statement by you, that if you thought about or even knew better, you would not make.Complexity in species only develops when there is evolutionary pressure to do so. — Pinprick
So, they determine wht they so not have on the basis of what they have no concept of? — tim wood
And this is just plain untrue. Another example of a categorical statement by you, that if you thought about or even knew better, you would not make. — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.