Is not a great ape and does not posses an intelligence or consciousness comparable to humans — khaled
We don't kill each other because humans are like each other. — TheMadFool
We should not kill any living organism (plant, animal or otherwise). — TheMadFool
You realize that species normality is a trait, right? — Cartesian trigger-puppets
Ok, so we should stop breathing, eating, drinking water, brushing our teeth, occupying space, and in other words, just stop living? You must be an antinatalist. Bacteria, viruses (kinda), insects, parasites, plants… we kill them in the trillions of trillions. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
Certum est, quia impossibile (It is certain, because it is impossible).
Credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd). — Tertullian
Btw, a large minority of humans are within the range of intelligence or consciousness comparable to that of agricultural animals. I’m not sure if framing it that way wouldn’t be another category error, but we’ll go with it anyway. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
Well, an easy one to start would be a god-like being, or an alien species with much higher intelligence, and probably the vast majority of sentient life throughout the universe, supposing there are some. Either way, I could cook up so many hypotheticals that I don’t know where to start. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
I discern an error in your reasoning that supposes that because non-human animals do not possess human moral reasoning (and how or why would they?) they possess nothing alike, similar, or comparable. — tim wood
I discern an error in your reasoning that supposes that because non-human animals do not possess human moral reasoning (and how or why would they?) they possess nothing alike, similar, or comparable. — tim wood
But to conclude that because they do not posses human morality they possess none whatever - that reminds to be demonstrated. — tim wood
That, I'm afraid, is not going to do the job. By your logic, we should be killing immoral people but that just doesn't seem the right thing to do. — TheMadFool
Same mistake! But why did you pass this by unnoticed?No, not really. But at the same time that doesn’t mean your friends cat understands right from wrong or good from bad. — Pinprick
Every other! You've been undone by your lack of precision both in thinking and language. Your question should have been, to make sense, "What other type of human morality is there other than human (morality)?" To which the obvious answer is, none. Or perhaps you think that morality can only be human. If that was what you meant, that becomes definitional, and you were bound to give notice of that.What other type of morality is there other than human? — Pinprick
Every other! You've been undone by your lack of precision both in thinking and language. — tim wood
Mama bear, mama cat, mama duck, all have very definite ideas as to what is right and wrong for their cubs, kittens, ducklings. — tim wood
You’re misunderstanding. Firstly, you’re applying it to individuals rather than species. I’m not saying any individual without morality is ok to kill. Secondly, being immoral isn’t the same thing as lacking the capacity to understand moral concepts, which is what I’m concerned with. Thirdly, were you to apply this to the entire species, it wouldn’t feel wrong to you. How could it? — Pinprick
And I have asked you to account for the complex behavior of an intelligent house cat.I’m asking you to be more precise. As it stands now, morality is a term that describes aspects of human thinking and behavior. — Pinprick
How did you come up with this conclusion? Read your question below again, please. Did I say there's no morality? Do not generalize.So, on your view, there should be no morality at all because there was none once upon a time in our evolutionary past? That is what is entailed by that logic. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
I said none -- because there is nothing that is true of animals that if true of humans would justify killing them for food. So, let me rephrase that. There was no justification given before for eating animals. Humans just did. And there isn't gonna be one now. There is no justification that is sufficient that would allow eating humans for food, and nothing for animals either.“What is true of animals that if true of humans would justify killing them for food?” — Cartesian trigger-puppets
Ready for the reductio to this view? Just think of all the things our ancestors believed necessary for their survival: world conquest, human sacrifice, slavery, etc. The list goes on. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
It also helps if said creature doesn't try or is unable to kill you. — Outlander
Is that the pc term for carnivore? — Merkwurdichliebe
Non-vegetarians could be omnivores (not meat only). Carnivores feed exclusively on meat. I dunno! — TheMadFool
Interestingly enough humans cannot be carnivores, exclusively, due to the noted occurrence of scurvy when without fruits or vegetables for prolonged periods, yet the main argument for vegetarianism is "not eating animal products" but that conveniently does not include breast milk for obvious reasons, while socially breast milk is not an "animal product" is surely is product from a mammal, so depending on how rigid your beliefs are we still do in fact require food product from mammals. — Outlander
Yes, of course. I am mistaken. — Merkwurdichliebe
:grin: It's a complicated argument for me. Sorry if my volte-face offends you. Not intentional. — TheMadFool
Really? Ok, "Is not a great ape and does not possess an intelligence or level consciousness comparable to or higher than humans." — khaled
I said none -- because there is nothing that is true of animals that if true of humans would justify killing them for food. — Caldwell
Yes, boundaries can be blurry, and moral ambiguity is a fact of life. If that disqualifies my ethics from being systematic, then so be it — SophistiCat
And it is because we are trait equalizing the traits true of a given human to that of a given animal. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
human already has that property, and thus it cannot be given to them, and likewise the animal doesn't have the property, thus they cannot offer it as a trait to give. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
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.