"2+2=4" is true regardless of who you are or what you think (assuming you know how to do arithmetic). — khaled

:chin: So assuming you know how to play the game according to the rules that you believe it should be played by, it is true?

Mathematics is not objective.

If you don't want to use objective like that then let's call it "inter-subjective". Something that is subjective yet is the same for everyone (like 2+2=4). There is an inter-subjective morality. — khaled

If the whole world believed the same lie, it wouldn't make it true.

How would you ever know you have stumbled upon an objective anything? You don't, but some guesses are better than others. — khaled

Maybe so, but they're still only guesses, and the brightest minds have been wrong on countless occasions about things they thought were true. Horrible things have been done under the guise of ignorantly believing one has all the answers.

Again, I see no justification for the use of force.

For instance: "Gravity doesn't exist" is an attempt at an objective statement. It is easily found to be false. "Gravity exists" is a better attempt. — khaled

Debatable.

We don't know what gravity is, so we don't know if it exists or not. We found a way to predict how a certain phenomenon works to a degree that is accurate enough for our practical purposes.

It would be more prudent not to fool oneself and state "I don't know if gravity exists". To know one's own ignorance is the first step towards wisdom.

Reason requires premises. Those premises are moral intuitions. — khaled

Are all premises moral intuitions?

Definitely not feasible as a basis for impositions on other individuals. — Tzeentch

Why? — khaled

Because moral intuitions differ of course. If I had a moral intuitions that makes me believe stoning women for adultery is fair and just (In certain parts of the world a lot of people even agree with me - must mean I have some "better guess than others"), should I just start imposing that on the people around me because I believe it is right?

The system that provides as much as it can of both is objective. — khaled

You and I must have a wildly different idea of what the word "objective" means.

If for instance, 51% of people think A is the best president and 49% think B is the best president, the best thing to do, objectively, is to have the 51% be under A and the 49% be under B. That’s clearly not feasible, but it’s the ideal solution is it not? Do you have a better solution in mind? — khaled

I don't need to come with solutions, because I am not in the business of wishing to control other people. I cannot give solutions to fix something that is fundamentally broken.

You're the only one seeing problems. — khaled

You are seeing these problems as well. You spoke about them openly. And obviously there are entire collections of philosophy that discuss these problems; a discussion that is as old as philosophy itself. You're choosing the dismiss these fundamental discussions for practical reasons, and I do not.

Ok think of the following scenario:

You must kill at least one person. If you press the red button, Jeff lives. If you press the blue button, Sarah lives. If you press neither, they both die. — khaled

I must nothing.

My tip would be, do not get involved in situations that have only bad outcomes.

So we can all have everything we want without hurting anyone else? — khaled

Sure that is possible, unless one's desires require one to impose them on other individuals. Then hurt is very likely to follow. Sadly, this is the case for much of humanity and the pursuit of their desires will inevitably lead them to cause much suffering.

It's a bit of an ironic question, isn't it? How can I have everything I want without hurting anyone else? Maybe you cannot have everything you want.

That's all you did here, acted like a 3 year old. — khaled

If you feel the need to get personal, maybe it is time you sit on the time-out chair for a little while.

"Objective" means "true for everyone". As in after passing the filter, everyone gets the same thing. That's not very difficult. Example: 2+2=4. — khaled

Mathematics, like language, is a mental game we practice. Saying "2 + 2 = 4" is no different than saying "this is a sentence = this is a sentence". It's a means of communication. These concepts do not exist outside of the human experience, and thus are completely subjective.

The claim is that there is also such an "objective morality", ... — khaled

The question is, how would you ever know that you have stumbled upon objective morality? And second, if one, by some miracle, was able to verify that their idea of morality was objective true,does that give one a right to impose it on others?

I take this to mean you agree that the source of morality is moral intuitions yes? — khaled

The source? Definitely not.

Intuition may give us some hint to what is moral and what is not, but it doesn't create morality, nor is it preferable over reason. Definitely not feasible as a basis for impositions on other individuals.

What happens when those intuitions conflict? — Tzeentch

Usually people fight, sadly. — khaled

It seems that the desire to impose one's opinions on others always leads there, yes. Food for thought, perhaps.

The objective answer would be the one that satisfies the most intuitions. — khaled

That is a very poor definition of something objective. If 51% of intuitions think A, and 49% of intuitions think B, is A objective?

There is such a thing as unreasonable doubt. What you're doing is an example. — khaled

Not really.

I'm simply not taking the shortcuts you are taking.

What you're doing is essentially saying "There's all these problems with my ideas, but I'll call them all irrelevant and dismiss them for practical reasons", and then be surprised when things don't work out very well. As you said yourself:

It's completely unjustified. It's a practical limitation. — khaled

What a surprise then that the world is filled with suffering and injustice, if we allow ourselves such liberties.

But I don't believe such a practical limitation exists, and that calling things "practical limitations" is a way we make our methods match our desires.

Before we start, are you just the kind of ridiculous skeptic that thinks no objective truth is possible in anything? — khaled

Considering everything you observe has to go through the subjective filter of your mind, it is a given that objective truth ("ultimate reality") is, and I'll put it cautiously, extremely difficult to access for humans.

It cannot be immoral if it is the only option. — khaled

Well, it's not really the only option, is it? Besides, one may wonder whether the choices one has made have lead them to a situation one is put in harms way of deranged individuals. There's a nice parallel with citizens and governments.

Our moral intuitions. — khaled

What happens when those intuitions conflict?

Statistical analysis, methods of sampling, etc. There are classes on that if you’re interested. — khaled

Results from these methods would not be open to different interpretations? I think they clearly are. Is there even any real discussion as to whether they are? It's one of the first thing I was taught in academics.

Yes though the experiment wasn’t done as I described (not that I know of). Because that’s not needed. — khaled

According to the subjective opinion of whom?

False. There is a medical definition:“ Intoxication is the term used to describe any change in perception, mood, thinking processes and motor skills that results from the effect of a drug(s) on our central nervous system.” — khaled

By that definition half the world is driving while intoxicated when they step in the car every morning after they've had a cup of coffee. It should be obvious that such definitions don't deal in anything objective. They are practical tools and not all that relevant for philosophical ends.

Because a formal system to distinguish people that are ok to drink and drive and people who aren’t will inevitably be abused leading to more people drunk driving and more accidents. It’s a practical limitation. — khaled

It's arbitrary, based on convenience. That's not a justification, which is what I asked for.

That’s a silly opinion, and so I have no reason to listen to it. — khaled

And yet, here you are.

Okay, I'm seeing "life = conflict." — James Riley

Maybe? It would take only one of the two persons in our example to stop imposing and there'd be no conflict.

I'm resolved that the operative question is the one I raised about reasonableness of the perception of imposition. It's not that there there is no imposition. There is. Rather, is the perception of that imposition reasonable? — James Riley

Reason sure is a great councillor. My issue is that most humans seem to lack a propensity for it, and those who desire power (which are those who inevitably come to power) possess it least of all.

Would you let a psychotic killer kill you or a member of your family? — khaled

No. Like I said, there are situations where force is the only option, but even then I'd regard the use of it as immoral and as a personal failure.

What "sometimes" practically entails is different from what it should entail. Might makes what happens. Might doesn't make right.

Yes governments or even majorities can determine that Jews don't deserve to live. That doesn't have anything to do with ethics. — khaled

Ok, so then we're back to the same question I asked ; if we have established that might cannot make right, then what determines what is right? What is the source?

The data, for one. — khaled

Data is often open to multiple interpretations. What determines which interpretation is the right one?

Of all the people that think they can drive fine while drunk, a majority are wrong. — khaled

Is that true? How many people drive while intoxicated and how many of those cause accidents? And apart from that, what justifies the use of force to impose on all drunk drivers, when only a part of them would go on to cause accidents?

Also the simple fact that measurable deterioration in your performance exists when you're drunk. — khaled

Sure, but where one draws the line is a subjective matter, and not every drunk driver is the same (and we're not testing all of them).

Do you think no opinion is better than another? — khaled

Opinions are all equally silly (including mine) and should never be a basis for the use of force.

If you have a point to make, make it.

Is standing your ground and refusing to move out of the way of someone walking down the sidewalk an imposition? — James Riley

Yes.

Is the refusal to go around someone who is standing there minding his own business the imposition? — James Riley

Yes.

Is it the individual, or society that says sidewalks are made for walking, not standing? And if it is society that says it, is that society imposing upon my right to stand my ground? — James Riley

Societies don't impose. Individuals in that society do. In many instances, it is the societal structure that gives those individuals the power to do so.

No, not really.

Then, what would I call it? — Cheshire

I don't know. What would you call it?

If one lets it turn into one. Sure.

Suppose I refuse to stand aside while you walk down the sidewalk. — Cheshire

That is an imposition.

Has my mere persisting as a physical being managed to become an "imposition" .... — Cheshire

Yes, for it was not a mere persisting. The refusal implies to consciously attempt to deny.

At the extremes any perceived opposition to one's will becomes another's "imposition". — Cheshire

Whenever other individuals are made the subject of one's desires, impositions almost always follow.

Unless you want to argue that limiting one's ability to trespass is an imposition. — Cheshire

Depending on the situation it sure can be.

It's not matter of cardinal order. — Cheshire

It is what you are implying, by stating impositions are right in circumstance A, and wrong in circumstance B.

So again I'll ask:

What's the source of such a right? — Tzeentch

Even if that were the case, two wrongs don't make a right.

When someone imposes on society, ... — Cheshire

Well, the individual was there before society, so who was the first to impose?

... , it gives some agent - reason- to act on the right to limit another's actions. — Cheshire

What's the source of such a right?

The public pays for the roads and as a result should claim some right to use them. — Cheshire

So does the drunk driver.

A critical mass of drunk drivers would make roads unusable — Cheshire

A critical mass of cars would also make the roads unusuable.

Really, it's the intoxicated driver imposing their will in other's space. — Cheshire

I would say that depends on the drunk driver. Some drunk drivers may drive perfectly safe while intoxicated. But maybe you are right. So when someone imposes, that gives another a right to impose as well? After the drunk driver is imposed upon does he then also get a right to impose back? How does this system work?

So could the opposite, so I don’t see your point. Very weird critique. Literally any action could be based on an ignorant idea of reality. So we shouldn’t act or what? — khaled

I view the use of force as categorically undesirable and immoral, and if I were ever to feel that the use of force is the only option, I would have to tread extremely carefully.

It rarely is the only option. What makes individuals choose to use force is generally because they find it preferable over the alternatives. (Which is the case with the car/work example).

Would you impose a law to not drink and drive if there wasn’t one and you could? — khaled

No, I have no desire to impose anything on anyone.

Sometimes. Again, it’s not as simple as “me want X so me take X”. — khaled

That what is right is determined by who’s strong? — khaled

It is my suspicion that whatever "sometimes" entails is dictated by governments and by majority opinion of whatever society one happens to live in. So whether you realize it or not, it rests upon the principle of "might makes right", as does everything that is imposed by governments or majorities.

There is a difference. The people who drink and drive gain nothing from drinking and driving. They can simply drink after they’ve arrived or take a cab. I can’t help but drive to work (in reality I don’t drive, I’m just going with your example).

In other words, forcing people to not drink while driving harms them much much less than the harm they cause by being allowed to drink and drive. — khaled

That seems to be your opinion, however the opinion of the person who wishes to drink and drive could be completely contrary. Perhaps they are of the opinion they can drive perfectly fine and have never caused an accident while intoxicated. (And who knows, maybe they are right?)

What makes one opinion better than the other?

One would be that your imposition harms me more than it prevents harm from you such as here: — khaled

That idea could be based on an entirely ignorant idea of reality.

But if I don't drive I can't get to work, and I can't make money, ... — khaled

So because you desire things, you gain a right to impose?

... and I can't live. — khaled

Debatable. I don't drive and somehow I am still alive.

If you don't want the risk stay at home, you don't need to impose on me to avoid said risk. — khaled

If you don't want to deal with people who drink and drive, stay at home then!

The covid situation hasn't changed your mind? — khaled

No.

Complete strangers are in fact affecting me. — khaled

In what way?

I don't understand why you ask me a question if you're going to decide the answer yourself.. — khaled

I thought the answer I gave was more relevant than the question, but I am still interested in your take on it.

I think that's backwards. The people who are genuinely connected are connected because they agree much more often than not, or agree on the most important things. They don't need to inject opinions because they already agree. — khaled

I was reacting to the idea that I am supposedly connected to paranoid schizophrenics who are a "danger" to me, which is why I supposedly should care about their opinions.

I don't believe in connections to complete strangers, and as I said, most people who profess as much use it as a pretense to meddle in other people's lives; it's a desire for power and control over others. ("We all breathe the same air, so would you kindly breathe a little less?")

Individuals who seem to genuinely feel connected to strangers or "mankind" out of understanding and compassion do not impose. You said it yourself; one cannot know if they are fit to impose their opinions on others, one may be unknowingly ignorant.

That is.... exactly what they are used for. — khaled

And it is my view that this has nothing to do with connection and everything with individual desire for power.

For instance, I would definitely impose on a driver not to drink and drive, especially if I'm in the car. And I think I would be right to do so. — khaled

If it works that way, why shouldn't I get to impose what I believe is right on everyone I "feel a connection" to?

I'd like you to stop driving altogether, for traffic accidents form a tangible risk to my health, and so does the pollution coming from your car!

The simple answer is, what is "right" is decided simply by whoever has the power to impose (in your example, you wouldn't be imposing anything - the state would).

In other words: might makes right, is the underlying principle of what has been proposed, and it just so happens to coincide with your view, which is why you seem to support it. Would you be as eager for impositions if it didn't?

I doubt you will hold this view if the Schizophrenic believes you to be the leader of the operation to assassinate them however. — khaled

The paranoid schizophrenics are out to get me!

Yes. Which I'm sure you occasionally try to do, like on AN threads. — khaled

I post on this forum to test my ideas, not to convince strangers. Whether people like those ideas or find them convincing is of no interest - only their arguments are.

That's really the only problem I have with your view. We're interconnected, ... — khaled

You and I are not connected beyond this conversation. I don't believe in an interconnectedness with people whom I have never met or influenced in any meaningful way.

Allusions to interconnectedness (especially on this forum) sooner or later always seem to turn into impositions of one's opinions on how others should live their lives. Apparently the "interconnectedness" that these people feel never turns into a respect for the views of the people they supposedly feel so connected with, but instead it turns into entitlements - it is a mask hiding a simple desire for power over others. I find such argumentation to come across as incredibly phoney.

Food for thought perhaps; the persons who seem to genuinely feel interconnectedness also seem to have very little desire to inject their opinions into other people's private lives.

PS: A bit of a tangent, but not aimed at you personally.

That they are schizophrenic is your opinion (and most everyone else's). Not the schizophrenic's. And yet it would not be commendable for him to push on absolutely convinced of what he sees. Even if to him, that is what is concordant with reality. — khaled

And that's fine. Again, I view philosophy as being a personal thing, between myself and reality, and no one else. Other views can help by scrutinizing one's ideas, or open up new avenues of thought, but my own judgement should take precedence. Correspondingly, I don't expect nor want people to adopt my views. If the schizophrenic believes they will be happy amidst their "perception of reality", let them.

If I believe A and you believe B, that is because I see A as concordant with reality and you see B as concordant with reality. If one of us is wrong, and we only change our minds when we believe that the opposite view is concordant with reality, neither of us will change our view. — khaled

Yes, and?

Don't these things only matter if one is concerned with convincing others?

But if we had a method for unfailingly knowing what is concordant with reality and what isn't, ... — khaled

In practice it often means to discard those things that one can discern not to be reality, along the Socratic lines of knowing one does not know anything, acknowledging one's ignorance, etc.

If we don't have such a method, then we must decide for ourselves what is concordant and what isn't, ... — khaled

Indeed!

Everyone will think they're doing it and it's those damn *insert group of different belief here* that are the problem! — khaled

I don't see those as a problem. (At least not one that concerns my practice of philosophy)

If individuals wish to remain ignorant, let them. What concern is that of mine?

Doesn’t seem very healthy either. A schizophrenic may be absolutely convinced of all sorts of plots and demons. But it would be way better for them to yield because people think differently. — khaled

A schizophrenic or otherwise delusional person is not healthy to begin with and first needs a psychiatrist, not philosophy.

If we could so easily extract truth out of reality, ... — khaled

I never said it was going to be easy.

Others’ perceptions are often important if not sometimes more important than our own. — khaled

Sometimes, but only to the degree one can find those perceptions to be concordant with reality. Again, it is truth that leads, not the opinions of others.

Changing your mind the second you think it contradicts reality, will lead to changing it too often I think. There is merit in some stubbornness. Too many greats were great precisely because they believed what was irrational for their time to believe, and slowly convinced the rest. — khaled

There's difference between when one finds their ideas in contradiction to reality, and one finds their ideas in contradiction to other people's opinions, of course.

If the latter is the case, by all means stay stubborn. Never yield your points just because a lot of people think differently. Philosophy is between you and reality.

There will be a future time where we look back at this era and think "How were we so stupid, that was so irrational". — khaled

Regardless of the time period, the majority of people has always been ignorant and I don't think that will ever change. There are always small specks of starlight in every time period: the Platos, Buddhas, Lao-Tzes of history, who carry the true torch of human advancement.

Regardless of time period, minds which are so inclined will look at the old sages and realize their wisdom is no less relevant today, and the masses no less ignorant, and that human advancement has taken baby steps, not leaps, over the course of thousands of years.

If you want to never be angry you have to be very detached from (not care much about) all your views — khaled

I'm not sure if that is true, but I think an attachment to views and ideas is unconstructive. Views and ideas should be dismissed the moment they are found to contradict with reality, and generally that dismissal is much easier if one does not feel any attachment to them.

An attachment only to what one can discern to be true! (though, in practice that will usually translate to dismissing everything one can discern to be untrue). While simultaneously aware of the fact that the truth does not need one's attachment or one's angry defense of it - it needs only to be unleashed.

Something I watched today made me consider the question of the OP, and conclude that it might be the other way around.

The internet and the massive exchange of information it brings doesn't destroy democracies, but it brings to light all the flaws that have crept into them. The corrupt power structures that have infested our democracies prefer to stay in the shadows, but amidst the exchange of information they cannot.

This is why we see a rise in attempts of states to regain control over the flow of information, and regain control over their populations. They're trying to creep back into the shadows, but the light of truth shines brighter.

Or you can think that every view has merit leading to constant doubt and anger when it comes to deeply held beliefs, but also meaning you will constantly improve your point of view and reach greater understanding. — khaled

I agree that doubt and scrutinizing one's own ideas is good for the reasons you listed. I'm not sure if anger is that constructive, though. It seems to often function as a mask to hide one's doubts and inhibit impartial observation.

Anger is vulnerability, and when opinions of others make one angry, perhaps it is out of fear they may be right?

After all, if an opinion is expressed that conflicts with one's own and one thinks it to be completely without merit, wouldn't the logical response be to laugh?

Personally I express my views and ideas here to have them scrutinized, and occasionally to help someone.

Flawed ideas can conquer the entire world, and generally they do a good part in ruining it in the process. Think fascism, communism, nazism, various religions. They've all done their part in making the world more miserable with their nonsense ideologies.

Curiously, they all share the same flaw. They all wish to impose their views on others through force (as does anything that is authoritarian). Apparently reason and dialogue are not well-suited for communicating their ideas.

Note that liberalism in the classical sense is the first, and perhaps the only ideology that acknowledged the issues with the use of force.

Look for the use of force anywhere, whether it's physical, intellectual, emotional, mental or otherwise, and you'll find bad ideas.

And war is quintessentially human. — frank

In my opinion, it is quintessentially inhuman; animal, degenerate.

“We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.”

The opening words of the Charter of the United Nations, and one of the few things that seperates human civilization from chimpanzees.

Interestingly this isn't a liberal point against central planning. You'd think it would be, but it turns out they need to protect liberalism from democracy, so they approve of authoritarianism. — frank

Then they do not apply their ideas consistently, and thus hold little merit.

Central planning works for military operations, so why not use the same techniques for meeting the basic needs of citizens like food, shelter, and healthcare? — frank

Because military operations, war, are the most inhumane of human activities, concerned mainly with how to kill human beings as efficiently as possible. I can accept that such practices are a necessity if one wishes to conduct war, but to voluntarily invite them into other parts of society?

I'n sure one's household could be made to run a lot more efficiently were one to apply some military principles in running it - whether that is going to lead to a happy family? I have my doubts.

Central planning requires powerful governments, and individuals to wield that power. The vast majority of individuals is completely unfit to wield any type of power over others, let alone power of such magnitude over millions of people.

Your government just wants a say inside your body. It's all for your own good; don't worry about it.

In my experience, depression is a symptom of dissonant (that is to say false) views of the self and the world at large.

There are many intellectual paths one could take in life, however your subconscious is now telling you that yours has led you to a dead end and it's telling you through depression.

A nihilistic philosophy is almost certain to be dissonant with the human experience. Humans simply experience things as having value, whether we're able to objectively confirm that or not.

Perhaps an interesting thought could be, why you prefer to take a nihilistic outlook on life, which is just as uncertain of a supposition as an outlook that claims things do have value. The logical stance would be an agnostic one; maybe things have value, maybe they don't. Why do you prefer to pick the belief that rejects value? Why pick a belief at all? That in itself implies a preference for things not having value, which is a contradiction in itself.

I've yet to meet a person whose professed views entirely contradict their lived experience in which it does not lead to them becoming miserable.

No, there's authoritarian liberalism. — frank

That seems like an oxymoron to me. I think someone who is considered an authoritarian liberal is in fact just simply an authoritarian.

A collective can be democratic in theory. — frank

And democracies can be authoritarian or tyrannical, if the system or the majority has rotten enough.

Collectivism is not about government handouts. — frank

Indeed. Much like in my example, it is about coercion, bribery and indoctrination.

(sorry, "left" and 'right" just cause confusion. It's collectivist and liberal.) — frank

I prefer the term "authoritarianism", for which collectivism is a euphemism. If 'liberal' means freedom-loving, then by all means I am a liberal.

The collective is like the European colonizers bribing the natives with beads and necklaces.

"Here is a shiny car and ten different brands of shampoo. Now go fight those colored people in a desert on the other side of the world."

Every single solitary thing that you love or like, and which you currently enjoy (beyond the non-human natural environment), was brought to you by the left, by society, by civic minded people. — James Riley

You what now

Again, "moral" is an articulation – generalization – of eusocial group behavior which exercises-reinforces empathic responses in group members. — 180 Proof

In my view, morality is not tied to group behavior; acknowledging the absence of ultimate answers, to live a moral life is to strive to live in accordance with truth. Whether the truth gives rise to empathy in the individual is not relevant to it, nor is the question of whether living in accordance with truth is beneficial to whatever group one arbitrarily is thought to be a part of.

Groups are by their very definition a generalization and thus an inaccurate representation of truth and not useful in determining what is true and moral and what is not.

Volition ("free will") is enabled-constrained in a web of normative behaviors (i.e. adaptive habits) for maintaining, or optimizing, individual flourishing and collective sustainability, and therefore, at least in compatibilist terms, "free will" is neither an independent nor determinative variable. — 180 Proof

Yet, I could use my free will to act contrary to my individual flourishing or collective sustainability if I so desired. So I don't think such a constraint is present, except there where it is self-imposed, out of free will. Though, the sense of free will seems to not be present in all individuals to the same degree.

Perhaps then free will must first be attained, through a process of self-mastery.

It seems that through observation of the self one can gain insight into the biological drives behind one's behavior, and override these behaviors - something animals are not capable of. Moving sub- or unconscious processes to the level of the conscious, thus allowing adjustment to take place.

This is why creatures, whether they be human or animal, that lack the faculties described previously, cannot be thought of as moral agents. They are essentially automatons.

To be a moral agent then is perhaps a great priviledge to begin with.

Your libertarian(?) view, Tzeentch, seems to elevate Human primates "above" nature – "transcendence" typical of idealists and/or ""free will" theodicists – as if we're somehow "mysteriously more than" evolved mammals (i.e. with "souls" à la homunculi), ... — 180 Proof

Hardly all humans manage to elevate themselves above nature, in fact most don't. So I would not make such a generalization about humanity as a whole. I believe every individual has at its essence at least the potential to become something greater than a simple animal - to master the self and become free, thus to become a moral agent, be able to strive towards truth and Good, and to live a life wrought with meaning.

..., we're talking about wholly incommensurate conceptions of morality and, in effect, past each other. — 180 Proof

Undoubtedly, but I don't mind.

Yes. Human primates, non-human primates, cetaceans, elephants ... groom feed protect & even adopt each other's young; cooperately gather / provide & share "goods"; discourage / punish free-riders; form friendship bonds (outside of kinship & mating); and mourn their dead. — 180 Proof

I don't see any of these behaviors as essentially moral.

Humans are animals so the behaviors are, at minimum, strongly correlated. — 180 Proof

I disagree. The faculties I described previously (self-awareness, reflection, reason, capability for deeper than surface-level understanding, etc.) signify a fundamental difference between human beings and animals. Every individual that possesses these faculties has the choice whether to act as an animal or cultivate that which makes them human. In practice that means that some individuals act like animals, that much I can get behind.

Further, I would make the point that social or empathic behavior is not the same as being moral.

Social behavior comes in many shapes, from behaviors out of selfless compassion and love, to self-preserving, self-aggrandizing or downright manipulative. As such, not all socially cooperative behavior is moral.

Empathy is an emotion, and emotions aren't moral or immoral; they just are. Empathy can lead to moral action, but the emotion of empathy itself does not make a person moral.

Moral actions consist of three elements, all of which are required for an action to be considered moral (will elaborate if needed):

1. The individual acts with a just intention.
2. The individual possesses the power to make their intention reality.
3. The intended outcome (essentially a confirmation of 2.)

Behavior that stems from empathy can, but does not necessarily tick these boxes.

Let's cut this matter up into two questions:

Are animals moral agents?

The lack of self-awareness, reflection, reason and capability for deeper than surface level understanding I have seen in all my interactions with animals would imply they are not. Animals seem to be a slave to whatever input is given to them, and unable to analyse that input in the way that (some?) humans can.


Is animal behavior a measure for the morality of human behavior?

The fact that animals seem to act almost exclusively on base necessities and selfpreservation, and shun virtually no actions to meet those ends, attests to little more than a 'rule of the jungle', ergo 'might makes right' concept underlying their behavior. Hardly a guide for moral human conduct.


Further, I would make the point that social or empathic behavior is not the same as being moral. The real question is how that behavior holds up when self-preservation (or self-aggrandisement) is no longer the driving force behind it, or when social or empathic behavior would be at odds with self-preservation. In both humans and animals we see 'morals' go out of the window as soon as they are no longer useful, thus such morals were a meaningless facade and not a matter of principle.

I view that as cherry-picking, though.

That animals may seem to show signs of empathy at times, does not change the fact that they kill, rape and dominate. Just like some humans, yes. Maybe some human behaviors can then be understood through that lens.

Is that then also moral behavior? If not, we're back at square one with the question what is moral and what is not.

Since animals are not moral agents, I never understood efforts made to explain morality through animal behavior.

Further, it makes no sense to view morality from a groupwide (or 'herd' or 'species') perspective. A group consists of individuals who are each moral agents, but the concept of that group is just a generalization and itself not a moral agent.

The group sooner becomes a patsy, a tool to avoid personal accountability for one's actions, rather than a tool of understanding.