A very good philosophical question. The philosophy of particle physics is an academic topic. — RussellA

That's why the difference between being able to judge and not being able to judge is more philosophically important than the difference between the electron and the Higgs Boson. The former is about how we should behave, treat each other, and respond to how we are treated by others. The latter is about the physical nature of primary particles. Unless we come to realize primary particles are conscious entities, we don't need to concern ourselves with flinging them into each other at extreme speeds in order to smash them to pieces the way we concern ourselves with doing the same to people.

That's why the difference between being able to judge and not being able to judge is more philosophically important than the difference between the electron and the Higgs Boson. — Patterner

That means that philosophical questions about the nature of time, space and the Universe are less important than philosophical questions about the human mind.

Is it right that humans consider themselves more important than the world in which they live?

That's why the difference between being able to judge and not being able to judge is more philosophically important than the difference between the electron and the Higgs Boson.
— Patterner

That means that philosophical questions about the nature of time, space and the Universe are less important than philosophical questions about the human mind.

Is it right that humans consider themselves more important than the world in which they live? — RussellA

Yes, it is. Humans are more important. In some bizarre scenario in which a human is about to be killed, some glorious natural wonder is about to be destroyed, and I can only prevent one, I'm saving the human. It's not even a close call. I will say, "Damn! What a shame! That was very pretty!"

If the second thing in danger is a star, it's still not a close call.

I anticipate many tweaks to the scenario, and have already written out answers to what I think are the more likely ones. But I wanted to just say this much in this post.

But the criminal justice system will only work if the criminal laws are moral. — RussellA

Why do you think that is the case? Does morality precede legality? Or vice versa?

Would you accept as a citizen of a country criminal laws that were not moral? — RussellA

If you are a citizen of a country, then would you have choice not to accept the legal system?

Why do you think that is the case? Does morality precede legality? Or vice versa? — Corvus

It is the moral thing that morality precedes legality, even if that is not always the case.

I don't think the public would accept a legal system that was not fundamentally moral. Sooner or later they would revolt and overthrow the system.

If you are a citizen of a country, then would you have choice not to accept the legal system? — Corvus

True. I have no choice, regardless of whether I believe the system to be immoral or not. Though I could emigrate.

Humans are more important. — Patterner

For humans, humans are more important than cats.
For cats, cats are more important than mice.
For mice, mice are more important than cockroaches
For cockroaches, cockroaches are more important than bed bugs.

Philosophically, is it right that one part of nature is more important than another part of nature?

Humans are more important.
— Patterner

For humans, humans are more important than cats.
For cats, cats are more important than mice.
For mice, mice are more important than cockroaches
For cockroaches, cockroaches are more important than bed bugs.

Philosophically, is it right that one part of nature is more important than another part of nature? — RussellA

Yes, it is. It's a judgement call, and that is my judgement.

As to why the ability to judge should be argued to be of special importance—it very obviously is
— Janus

Why is the ability to judge of "special" importance? I agree that it is an important philosophical question, but why more important than other philosophical questions, such as those of space, time, existence, consciousness, the quantum theory, knowledge, the origin of the Universe, etc? — RussellA

As to why the ability to judge should be argued to be of special importance—it very obviously is, but only in a few domains I can think of: for examples, the domain of argument itself (obviously) and the domain of adaptability and the domains of the arts and sciences. — Janus

:roll: Try reading and quoting the whole thing in context.

For what it's worth I agree with your arguments against human exceptionalism.

Yes, it is. Humans are more important. In some bizarre scenario in which a human is about to be killed, some glorious natural wonder is about to be destroyed, and I can only prevent one, I'm saving the human. It's not even a close call. I will say, "Damn! What a shame! That was very pretty!" — Patterner

All that says is that humans are more important to you. Could be just your conditioning. I'd save the natural wonder unless the person was important to me. I'd save my dog before a person who meant nothing to me.

All that says is that humans are more important to you. — Janus

Of course. We're talking about subjective judgement.

I don't think the public would accept a legal system that was not fundamentally moral. Sooner or later they would revolt and overthrow the system. — RussellA

Isn't it itself an act of moral wrongness to break the law, revolt and overthrow the system? You are committing more serious moral wrongness under the excuse of moral wrongness. It sounds like a contradiction to me. According to Socrates, even bad law is law. Breaking law is morally wrong.

True. I have no choice, regardless of whether I believe the system to be immoral or not. Though I could emigrate. — RussellA

Emigration? What if the new country had more hidden injustice in the system? Would you not regret? There is no utopia or paradise in this world. It is a product of dialectical transformation from the ancient beginning. You have options to get adjusted to the system whatever system you live in, and flourish under the system knowing it and abiding by it.

OK, I had thought that you were claiming that humans are more important than other animals per se, and not merely in your opinion. If that is how you feel, of course there is no argument against it other than to question just why you might feel that way. I mean it's easy to understand why you would feel that way when it comes to friends or loved ones. Do you think one should feel that way, even when it comes to those you don't know personally?

Isn't it itself an act of moral wrongness to break the law, revolt and overthrow the system? — Corvus

No, as only moral laws are valid. It is not morally wrong to break a law that itself is not moral.

I agree that it is the moral thing to do to follow the laws of the country.

However, the assumption is that laws are founded on moral principles. Only laws founded on moral principles are valid laws. If a law is not founded on moral principles then it is an invalid law. Therefore, the moral thing to do is to follow valid laws, and valid laws are founded on principles of morality. It is not immoral to not follow invalid laws, those laws that are not based on principles of morality.

Breaking a law not founded on moral principles is not morally wrong.

You have options to get adjusted to the system whatever system you live in, and flourish under the system knowing it and abiding by it — Corvus

Even if the system is morally wrong? In abiding by a system that is morally wrong, then one is condoning it, meaning that abiding to a morally wrong system is in itself an immoral act.

Breaking a law not founded on moral principles is not morally wrong. — RussellA

Well, Socrates wouldn't agree with that claim, I guess.

Even if the system is morally wrong? In abiding by a system that is morally wrong, then one is condoning it, meaning that abiding to a morally wrong system is in itself an immoral act. — RussellA

Morality and legality is not the same. Just because you feel your country's legal system doesn't suit your taste, it doesn't mean the moral system is also wrong too.

No, as only moral laws are valid. It is not morally wrong to break a law that itself is not moral. — RussellA

Morality only judges the moral actions of the folks. Legality judges the acts and also hand down the punishments according the law, hence legality precedes morality. It matters to folks' life physically. Morality only affects the folks reputations. Hence legality comes first. Would you not agree?

Morality only judges the moral actions of the folks. Legality judges the acts and also hand down the punishments according the law, hence legality precedes morality. — Corvus

The law could state that the punishment for stealing anything valued up to £50 was the amputation of the right hand.

You are right that the law judges the act and hands down a punishment according to the law.

Are you arguing that a particular law must be followed by a society even if that society believes that that particular law is morally wrong?

Are you arguing that a particular law must be followed by a society even if that society believes that that particular law is morally wrong? — RussellA

Isn't the law formally accepted legal system by the people of the society? Wouldn't it be self contradiction to say your country's legal system is wrong, when the people have accepted their legal system to protect the society?

The law could state that the punishment for stealing anything valued up to £50 was the amputation of the right hand. — RussellA

Isn't this an appeal to extreme case fallacy?

Isn't the law formally accepted legal system by the people of the society? — Corvus

I don't think that society would willingly accept a legal system that was immoral. I have no evidence, but I am sure that this is the case.

Isn't this an appeal to extreme case fallacy? — Corvus

Being an extreme case doesn't make it a fallacy.

I don't think that society would willingly accept a legal system that was immoral. I have no evidence, but I am sure that this is the case. — RussellA

No one forces a society to accept their own legal system. The members of the society accept sets of legal system and laws themselves. Do you honestly believe someone else who are not a member of the society or country forces certain legal system or laws into the societies and countries?

Being an extreme case doesn't make it a fallacy. — RussellA

Appealing to Extremes is a formal fallacy.

Appealing to Extremes is a formal fallacy. — Corvus

Being an extreme case doesn't in itself make a logical fallacy.

I agree that an extreme case, where an argument is exaggerated to such a hyperbolic degree that it distorts the argument, would be a logical fallacy.

However, an extreme case, where an argument is not exaggerated to such a hyperbolic degree that it distorts the argument, would not be a logical fallacy.

The Argument from hallucination deals with an extreme case and is used as an argument against Direct Realism. That it is an extreme case does not mean that it is not a valid argument.

Being an extreme case doesn't in itself make a logical fallacy. — RussellA

It wouldn't be accepted as valid or meaningful arguments on the basis of either non relevant or highly unlikely example.

The Argument from hallucination deals with an extreme case and is used as an argument against Direct Realism. That it is an extreme case does not mean that it is not a valid argument. — RussellA

Again, the other party can reject the arguments on the basis of highly unlikely example or irrelevant example for the main point.

OK, I had thought that you were claiming that humans are more important than other animals per se, and not merely in your opinion. If that is how you feel, of course there is no argument against it other than to question just why you might feel that way. I mean it's easy to understand why you would feel that way when it comes to friends or loved ones. Do you think one should feel that way, even when it comes to those you don't know personally? — Janus

I don't know if one should. I do. I would cry my eyes out of I had to choose between saving the life of a beloved pet and a stranger, because I would save the stranger.

I feel the way I do for two reasons.

1) Life is extraordinary. Literally, by definition. It's a pretty huge universe. We can't claim to know terribly much of what's out there. But neither are we entirely ignorant, and we are not aware of any life anywhere other than on our planet. We don't even see signs of it, although there are possible signs that it's possible elsewhere. We haven't been able to create life from scratch, either by trying to follow any of the paths we think nature might have taken, or by stacking the deck as much as we can. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that rare things are worth more than common things. For that reason, imo, life is more valuable than non-life.

2) Awareness at the human level is, to our knowledge, unique to humans. That brute fact makes it even more rare - more valuable - than life. If there was only one flying species, I think that would be pretty special. If every oyster produced a pearl, it would still be very cool, even if the pearls did not demand as high a price. Elephant and walrus tusks are expensive because of their scarcity. My opinion is that human awareness is much more fascinating than wings, pearls, tusks, or anything else we are aware of. (If we could take it out of someone and put it into someone/thing else, I have no doubt it would be happening, with a worldwide crime organization behind it. Can you imagine how much such a thing word cost on the black market??) In support of that opinion, I offer every movie, book, and human conversation in history, as well as a pretty good percentage of all human thoughts.

And one aspect of human awareness is that it wants to continue. Life, in general, works to endure. The continuation of the species is always a primary focus of all species. But, in some species, the individuals are also working to stay alive. None moreso than humans.

Yes, it's subjective. I find human awareness/consciousness more fascinating and attractive than diamonds, chocolate, the aurora borealis, or anything else. Even more than music, which wouldn't exist without us. But I know different people feel different ways.

Yes, it's subjective. I find human awareness/consciousness more fascinating and attractive than diamonds, chocolate, the aurora borealis, or anything else. Even more than music, which wouldn't exist without us. But I know different people feel different ways. — Patterner

You have offered fairly extensive reasons for why you feel as you do. It left me wondering if you feel the way you do for those reasons or if they are just a rationalization of how you would feel regardless of whether you consciously formulated those reasons.

I have no argument against your feelings even though I don't share them. I find animal awareness just as fascinating as human awareness. Of course, my own awareness is the most fascinating since it is the only awareness I have direct access to. It is only on account of personal communication as well as the arts: literature, poetry, music and the visual arts that I have any access to the awareness of other humans, and of course that is a far greater access than I have to animal awarenesses, and also being human myself it is more familiar. But then my experience of the arts and literature etc., is my experience and not anyone else's.

I don't count human lives other than those I am familiar with as more important than animal lives though. And obviously an animal life, say one of my dogs, I am most familiar with is more important to me than most human lives. There is no way I would save a stranger at the expense of sacrificing one of my dogs; I would not consider it even for a moment. But then we are all different, eh?

You have offered fairly extensive reasons for why you feel as you do. Do you feel the way you do for those reasons or are they just a rationalization of how you would feel regardless of those reasons. — Janus

I'm not sure it's not the same thing, looked at from opposite directions. However, not rationalization, but explanation.

It serms to me everybody's mind is drawn to, or resonates with, certain things. I prefer Bach to Mozart, by a long shot. It's not a close call. It wasn't a decision. I didn't mull it over, weigh various qualities, and decide which I preferred. It was automatic. After having taken piano lessons for several years, teachers always giving me Mozart Mozart Mozart, I heard my first Bach piece. BAM! I didn't have to understand why, and couldn't have said at the time. It was just an instant, unquestionable reaction.

Now I can say why, because I took classes in things like music theory, counterpoint, and music history. Why would there be no reasons? And if there are reasons, why wouldn't I be able to name them?

The two main factors are counterpoint and rhythm. Bach is the undisputed king of counterpoint. Can't imagine how many fugues he wrote. He probably spoke in fugue. :rofl: And the Baroque Era is sometimes called the Age of Unflagging Rhythm. It just goes on and on, driving, breathless. I'm not rationalizing my love of Bach's music with these things, and I'd love it without them. They are the reasons I love it - the things my mind is drawn to/resonates with - and I'm describing them.

Frankly, I did leave out a big aspect of my regard for human consciousness. It blows my mind that a clump of matter is aware of its own existence, its own awareness, its own thoughts. We are aware of some things that no other species is. There are also many things we are aware of that other species are also aware of, but which we are aware of to a much greater degree. We think in ways, and about things, nothing else we know of does. We can have end goals that can only be years or decades off, which require various components that, individually, don't have any obvious connection to them, and that will never exist anywhere in the universe but for us. And we bring them into being. The blind laws of physics do not bring about everything that can exist. We are doing things that the universe cannot do without us. Knowingly and intentionally, which are qualities no other part of the universe possesses. Absolutely mind blowing to me.

But I know there are any number of people who don't feel that way.

It wouldn't be accepted as valid or meaningful arguments on the basis of either non relevant or highly unlikely example. — Corvus

Hardly highly unlikely. "In the 21st century, hudud, including amputation of limbs, is part of the legal systems of Brunei, Iran, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen" (www.studycountry.com)

Again, the other party can reject the arguments on the basis of highly unlikely example or irrelevant example for the main point. — Corvus

Direct Realists may reject the Argument from Hallucination, but many Indirect Realists accept it as a valid argument.

Hardly highly unlikely. "In the 21st century, hudud, including amputation of limbs, is part of the legal systems of Brunei, Iran, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen" (www.studycountry.com) — RussellA

Not quite sure on these countries at all, as my interest is not in legalities. But let us think this way. They have very harsh punishment in the legal system which will protect the innocent normal folks from the crimes.

You may live in some western country with very lenient or loose legal system, which let the criminals over power the society. You and your family are not protected well from the criminals. You or your family could easily become victim of the crimes, and suffer horrendous harm or damage from the crimes. So, it is not bad thing to have the strict legal system in some aspect, would you not agree?

Direct Realists may reject the Argument from Hallucination, but many Indirect Realists accept it as a valid argument. — RussellA

Hallucination is not extreme case. It is a subjective case.

So, it is not bad thing to have the strict legal system in some aspect, would you not agree? — Corvus

I agree, as long as society thinks that a strict legal system is moral.

Hallucination is not extreme case. It is a subjective case. — Corvus

The Argument from Hallucination against Direct Realism is making an objective case against Direct Realism.

I agree, as long as society thinks that a strict legal system is moral. — RussellA

:ok:

The Argument from Hallucination against Direct Realism is making an objective case against Direct Realism. — RussellA

The contents and states of one's subjective and private mental experience cannot be presented as the basis of the objective evidence in the arguments. It could only be suggested as a possible point of consideration.

The nature of things is perceived as true because it alone is the yardstick by which every judgement is measured. Unfortunately whenever one has perceived the nature of things the content of that perception becomes a judgement, and we compare prior judgements with that one. We thus end up in the bizarre situation of measuring a yardstick against a picture of itself.

Luckily, the picture is never a perfect representation, and that other yardstick, the one which is neither a copy or a copy of a copy, resides in the mismatch between the two. Nature determines the truth of things because what it means to decide the truth of judgements is to hold them up to nature, and not our {implicit} judgements of our {explicit} judgements. Even though the latter judgements of our judgements count as nature, until we inevitably realise otherwise.

The contents and states of one's subjective and private mental experience cannot be presented as the basis of the objective evidence in the arguments — Corvus

If in a room of 100 people, 1 person says that they see the ghost of Napoleon, but the other 99 say that they don't, then this is objective evidence that that 1 person is suffering an hallucination.

I agree that the subjective mental experience of a single person cannot be presented as objective evidence, but the subjective mental experience of 99 people in agreement can be presented as objective evidence.

The more people in agreement, the less subjective the evidence and the more objective.