Morality is trying to be good.

I am trying to make sense of this whole sentience thing. — TiredThinker

There it is. First lesson is free.

What is moral? — TiredThinker

Non-reciprocal judgments, conduct and relationships which strive to prevent increases in harm and/or reduce suffering.

What gives us superiority over animals and the behaviors they can't break the compulsions to do?

Language ... efficiently coordinates, or synchronizes, the activities of two or more brains (just as each CNS adaptively coordinates each organism's perceptions & behaviors).

I am trying to make sense of this whole sentience thing.

Sentients have a high aptitude for empathy.

What is moral? — TiredThinker

What gives us superiority over animals and the behaviors they can't break the compulsions to do? — TiredThinker

Good questions. It appears you're broaching the issue of agency (free will) vis-à-vis morality. The answer then must be obvious - we're if not truly free, more free than animals and thus morality is, not necessarily a mark of superiority, rather a heavy cross to bear.

What's interesting is animals behave morally (the harm they do is always unintended and if intended it's always out of necessity - humans condone such) while not knowing what morality is ( :chin: ) and humans behave immorally (the harm they do is sometimes intended - humans don't condone such). The paradox: Animals know nothing about morality and yet behave morally while humans know something about morality and still behave immorally. That's what's being implied by the OP.

A little learning is a dangerous thing — Alexander Pope

How do we resolve this paradox?

It's plain as the nose on your face that the acts committed by animals and humans are indistinguishable - killing, for instance, is done by both humans and animals. So, what's the difference that calls for separate judgments for a human killing (bad) and an animal killing (not bad)? The answer: knowledge of morality & free will (agency). Hence, the OP asks, "what is moral?" [knowledge of morality] and links it to animals [free will (agency)].

Are both knowledge of morality and free will equal in terms of moral significance? Does one carry more weight than the other?

Let's see how many different scenarios are possible and how each is viewed, morally speaking

1. Yes moral knowledge, Yes free will [good and bad apply]
2. Yes moral knowledge, No free will [good and bad don't apply]
3. No moral knowledge, Yes free will [ignorantia juris non excusat but then innocence] ???
4. No moral knowledge, No free will [good and bad don't apply]

As you can see there's some controversy regarding possibility 3 because the law doesn't excuse people who are ignorant of the law (bad) but, at the same time, innocence is considered a virtue (good). We need to give up one of the two, either ignorantia juris non excusat or innocence.

Which one will it be?

The difficulty arises when we assign value to moral knowledge. Instead of breaking our heads over the issue, the easiest, best (?), solution seems to be ignoring knowledge of morality completely - taking it out of the equation as it were.

Thus, the four possibilities above reduce to (moral knowledge removed because we seem to be confused, in two minds, about it)

1. Yes free will [good and bad apply]
2. No free will [good and bad don't apply]

Nothing seems out of place.

In other words, morality is, at the end of the day, an inquiry into free willl!

What is moral? (moral knowledge) is not important because whether you know right from wrong or not, if free will is missing, good and bad are N/A (not applicable).

Do we have free will?

As the booming voice in Bender And God says: Possible. Probable

In other words, morality is, at the end of the day, an inquiry into free will! — TheMadFool

"A man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills." ~Arthur Schopenhauer

Non-reciprocal judgments, conduct and relationships which strive to prevent harm and/or reduce suffering. — 180 Proof

Nice. :up:

I know we have what have been called "mirror neurons" to aide in empathy. For example when I get punched in the shoulder it may actually hurt me, but when someone witnesses the visual of it they can practically feel the impact themselves with a neuron located near the actual sensory neuron in the viewer. But is this true empathy? When apes see someone in their group choking they all as a group start coughing in the event that the choking one ate poison that they have all possibly consumed. This is just a group survival behavior. It does nothing towards empathy towards other forms of life that ate not as familiar.

On a different note a person who is a psychopath may know the harm they do, but they don't empathize about it in the sense of feeling it. Are they immoral due to biological deficiency? Their intelligence is certainly there.

"A man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills." ~Arthur Schopenhauer — 180 Proof

:up: That ultimately boils down to human nature in general and how it shapes a unique individual nature in particular. Human nature seems to be real - we can identify some traits a first-year student in psychology can rattle off without missing a beat - and though it's universal in that it applies to everyone, variations in type and degree give individuals their one-of-a-kind character.

It's not that simple though. What seems germane to the issue of free will is how human nature seems self-contradictory e.g. some are selfish, some are generous; some are kind, others mean; some good, some bad; etc. Am I to then say human nature = {(selfish & generous), (kind & mean), (good & bad),...}. That doesn't add up, right? or does it?

Human nature, in my humble opinion, implies some traits predominate over others. Thus, though we're capable of geneorsity, the majority of us are selfish, etc. This is true - psychologists will vouch for that. However, this is not what interests me. What really gets me stoked is the minority - those who can resist and even overcome human nature. My logic is simple: If X can resist/overcome human nature and X and I are both human then, I too can do the same and resist/overcome human nature.

Free will then isn't about determining/choosing our preferences (determining what he wills) - that seems an impossibility and there are metapaphysical implications that'll sidetrack us - but about resisting/overcoming them. It kinda squares with how the world works - freedom (free will) seems more meaningful in the presence of oppression (our preferences, preferences we had no hand in adopting, influencing our choices).

Free will then isn't about determining/choosing our preferences (determining what he wills) - that seems an impossibility and there are me[taph]ysical implications that'll sidetrack us - but about resisting/overcoming them. It kinda squares with how the world works - freedom (free will) seems more meaningful in the presence of oppression (our preferences, preferences we had no hand in adopting, influencing our choices). — TheMadFool

Yes – veto, not volo. Quite a Nietzschean/Spinozist (stoic) sentiment. Or as Camus says

Knowing whether or not man is free involves knowing whether he can have a master. 

What is a rebel? A man who says no.

Yes – veto, not volo. Quite a Nietzschean/Spinozist (stoic) sentiment. Or as Camus says
Knowing whether or not man is free involves knowing whether he can have a master. 

What is a rebel? A man who says no. — 180 Proof

:up: Yes, negation/refusal/denial seems to be the key to freedom.

1. Preferences [forced down our throats]
2. Do X & Don't Do Y [from 1]
3. Yes to 2 [slave (to one's preferences)]
4. No to 2 [Freedom]

Morality is whatever the current society believes is acceptable.

What is moral? Self interest of a collective.

You know what it is. We all know what brings pain and what brings pleasure, the difference between the two. You knew by the time you were a few years old. We fool ourselves into thinking pain induced unto others for the pleasure of one's self or beneficial group can be moral if it may (possibly) change an ingrained lifestyle (religion) of another to that of one which is deemed greater, more fruitful, and more prosperous. That is to say, we become fooled by those who know this to be but a visage for material or some other gain, an attractive call to arms of which the root message is "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it". Which is a rare occurrence, yet not unheard of. It becomes a philosophical battle of net positive versus net negative, ironically one of which philosophers are generally barred, unheard, or otherwise ignored.