another typical reply from somebody with zero argument.

Yep.

Yep. — Banno

Finally, you admit...
I so happy :blush:

We aim to please.

We aim to please. — Banno

We? How many of you are there?

Where I work, no one is considered indispensable. There's a long queue of people willing and able to fill my and my colleagues' shoes. No one precious I'm afraid; my organization is just a giant machine run with replaceable parts - if I "malfunction", the company simply recruits another person with the same qualifications and experience.

This is the paradox: When hiring, we look for talented people (mission critical personnel). When firing, we do so as if all that mattered not.

It squares with how people seem to be under the impression that life is unfair but death is.

Also, you shouldn't confuse physical violence with verbal abuse because it leads to ethical dilemmas. They differ qualitatively as was proven in the classic line: "sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". — Merkwurdichliebe

How do you square that with the classic line, “The pen is mightier than the sword”? because written words are more potent than spoken ones? as in the classic line “Say it, forget it; write it, regret it”?

Still, I’d rather have sticks and stones thrown at me than be thrust through with a sword. After all, when Steven was stoned, the Bible says he fell asleep.

When we say that humans are equal, it seems that it means that humans deserve equal moral consideration. So do human beings deserve equal moral consideration ?

It seems to me that moral consideration only applies if we assume some ethical system based on moral agents and their characteristics and abilities as opposed to some abstract and/or external entity, such as the will of a god.

Therefore, if morality comes from something external to agents, then the question is meaningless because no agent deserves moral consideration. But if it comes from the humanity of people themselves, then every human being must be treated equally. But if you take a utilitarian or Kantian position, then there are additional criteria, so some humans -fetuses, people in permanent vegetative states, and possibly infants I think- would be excluded.

Perfect Sphere!

Therefore, if morality comes from something external to agents, then the question is meaningless because no agent deserves moral consideration. — Hello Human

Hm. In my belief, we tend to express morality to those who are incapable of morality( e.g, animals, plants, ants). This seems to be a question of preference, but does call into question that they are in some part, deserving of moral consideration. This illustrates a sort of "god" "subject" relationship, or maybe something a little less extreme, a "ruler" "people" relationship. Therefore, should it not follow that something besides a moral agent could conduct or inform our morality? (e.g we are all the same based on the universe, or based on death, therefore everyone is equal)

Where I work, no one is considered indispensable. There's a long queue of people willing and able to fill my and my colleagues' shoes. No one precious I'm afraid; my organization is just a giant machine run with replaceable parts - if I "malfunction", the company simply recruits another person with the same qualifications and experience. — Agent Smith

No one considered, or does not appear, indispensable? In fact, after they fired you, they proceeded to recruit someone with the same qualifications and experience...That would denote a form of preciousness, in my opinion.

Therefore, should it not follow that something besides a moral agent could conduct or inform our morality? (e.g we are all the same based on the universe, or based on death, therefore everyone is equal) — john27

It seems to me it is possible. But the meaning of 'equal' changes. If you say that we are all equal because we all must conform to God's will, then we are all equal in duty. But that is not the definition of equality given earlier. Assuming that morality comes from outside agents, we can say that we have equal rights and responsibilities, based on whatever external source of morality you take. It's close to the previous definition, but not quite the same.

Additionally, moral consideration is actually useless in that case. If you have your own responsibilities and rights to some external source of morality, why care about other people at all ? Wouldn't it be more rational to look after your own moral worth only ? Perhaps if that source of morality requires you to care for others equally, then yes, you can still say we are equal.

No one considered, or does not appear, indispensable? In fact, after they fired you, they proceeded to recruit someone with the same qualifications and experience...That would denote a form of preciousness, in my opinion — john27

I realized a job is kinda like a relationship. It takes a whole lot of blood, sweat, and tears (hyperbole) to keep the flame of desire burning. One has to constantly reinvent oneself for your employer to pull out the golden handcuffs.

If you say that we are all equal because we all must conform to God's will, then we are all equal in duty. — Hello Human

Well, if we are all equal in duty, or something else, I don't necessarily see how that would belittle an equality of moral consideration. For example, death is sure to come to all, so why treat others differently?

moral consideration is actually useless in that case. If you have your own responsibilities and rights to some external source of morality, why care about other people at all ? Wouldn't it be more rational to look after your own moral worth only ? — Hello Human

Not necessarily, because in that respect I could not differentiate myself from others, morally. I'd be treating everyone how I would treat myself.

I realized a job is kinda like a relationship. It takes a whole lot of blood, sweat, and tears (hyperbole) to keep the flame of desire burning. One has to constantly reinvent oneself for your employer to pull out the golden handcuffs. — Agent Smith

Do we not constantly reinvent ourselves, day by day?

(I know that's a dumb retort, but still felt like asking it)

Not necessarily, because in that respect I could not differentiate myself from others, morally. I'd be treating everyone how I would treat myself. — john27

How are you handling your task of brushing the teeth of 7 billion people every morning and after each meal? Or, more literally to the word, if you buy a chocolate bar to treat yourself, each time you muster up enough dough to buy seven billion chocolate bars, one for everyone? :-)

Or, even more closely to the word: how do you treat yourself when you commit a moral failure? I don't know, but do you treat others the same way when they either commit the same moral failure, or when you perceive them to commit the same moral failure? :-)

What if they commit an act of moral failure that you never commit? :-)

(I know these are dumb questions but I still felt like asking them.)

How are you handling your task of brushing the teeth of 7 billion people every morning and after each meal? Or, more literally to the word, if you buy a chocolate bar to treat yourself, each time you muster up enough dough to buy seven billion chocolate bars, one for everyone? :-) — god must be atheist

Well, assuming that everyone is treating another by how they would treat themselves, I would buy one chocolate bar, and then give someone else another. Then, by moral implication he would be forced to buy a chocolate bar, and give someone another, and then...poof! 7 billion people with one chocolate bar, minus one; someone has one extra.

So what does this someone do, with his/her extra chocolate bar? Well, like any sane man/woman, he eats them both. However! That does not follow the moral code, and is thus a moral failure.

How do we judge him?

Well, we think to ourselves, what if I had two chocolate bars, and was forced to eat both because everyone else had one, would I be liable to punishment? No! And thus, he is forgiven.

How do you square that with the classic line, “The pen is mightier than the sword”? because written words are more potent than spoken ones? as in the classic line “Say it, forget it; write it, regret it”? — Leghorn

I don't see why you are distinguishing between spoken and written words when you initially were speaking of verbally abusing a hypothetical old woman.

That line is about pens and swords, not words. A pen is not properly classified as a weapon (like a sword), so nobody expects to be stabbed in the neck with one. That makes it mightier.

Still, I’d rather have sticks and stones thrown at me than be thrust through with a sword. After all, when Steven was stoned, the Bible says he fell asleep.

I sometimes fall asleep when I get stoned also.

A pen is not properly classified as a weapon (like a sword), so nobody expects to be stabbed in the neck with one. — Merkwurdichliebe

But that is not how a pen is mighty, Merky, as you well know. It’s because swords can only destroy individual bodies, whereas writings can transform collective souls.

I sometimes fall asleep when I get stoned also. — Merkwurdichliebe

I suppose that is why I have forgiven you: your unparalleled humor.

Well, if we are all equal in duty, or something else, I don't necessarily see how that would belittle an equality of moral consideration. For example, death is sure to come to all, so why treat others differently? — john27

Treating others the same in that case would be out of empathy, not out of their actual moral worth.

Treating others the same in that case would be out of empathy, not out of their actual moral worth. — Hello Human

Empathy for our universal moral worth? I don't see how it would...Death isn't something to be empathized with, after all. At least, in some cases anyway.

it’s not empathy for our moral worth, it’s moral worth from empathy. Basically, as you understand that you are more alike than different from other people, you would value them like you because if you are the same, then you have the same value.

Well I guess it's just a matter of perspective. I see your point.