Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 3:33 am
Looks like you are not aware of many things or knowledge that are essential to the relevant topics we discussed.
IWP:
VA does not consider animals moral agents.
I don't deny animals [higher] possess what we would termed as moral elements, e.g. incest avoidance, and others.
What IWP alluded to is my insistence that human morality should not be extended to non-humans animals.
I claim morality should only be confined to humans.
The point is one of the moral element or maxim is 'no human ought to kill humans' and this is not practical to extend it to other animals.
The reason is humans has evolved [since 6 million years ago] to eat animals [meat, etc.] for survival, thus has to kill animals for food.
This cannot be changed overnight or even in the next many-generations.
As such, morality [re the moral element above] cannot be extended to non-humans [animals].
In food production and other circumstances it is inevitable that humans will kill insects and other small animals.
Some will even extend from animals to all living things, including bacteria and viruses. Millions and billions of such are killed with antibiotics and in other circumstances by human actions.
So, at present, it is not practical to include living non-humans within morality practiced by humans.
Nevertheless, as a virtue* [not morality] humans should be compassionate and be considerate to animals to the best of their abilities.
* I consider virtue to be independent of morality.
1) Notice first that VA misses the point I was making completely. I did not argue THAT animals were moral agents or in favor of not killing and eating them. I certainly could make such an argument, but that was not my point.
My point was that a central point in VA's belief system is that morality is innate (and from there objective).
The irony is that with animals MORE morality is innate than in humans. This is because non-human animals generally have to mature much faster than humans. The nature/nurture ratio is much higher in animals. Certainly packs of wolves train their young to respect the alpha and such, but in general humans are trained in morality and have to be to a greater degree. We are more neuroplastic regarding behavior (and attitude).
So, the irony is that a foundational part of VA's schema is that morality is objective because it is innate while at the same time he denies animals being moral agents even though their morality - sense of fairness, for example, is much more built in.
2) Notice this:
This cannot be changed overnight or even in the next many-generations.
As such, morality [re the moral element above] cannot be extended to non-humans [animals].
Sentence one: it cannot happen soon.
Sentence two: it cannot happen.
The second problem with this framing of the issue is that it is binary. The possibility of reducing the killing of animals is not considered. If it was moral, then we could do what we could. If it isn't a moral obligation, well, then we don't need to. But basically his argument is we can't completely eliminate the killing of animals, so it's not a moral consideration. Which is a category confusion.
3) Let's remember also that VA presents contradictory messages about what objective morality is.
Above he talks about
The point is one of the moral element or maxim is 'no human ought to kill humans' and this is not practical to extend it to other animals.
That's deontology. A rule about behavior. But many other times he has talked about morality being related to shifting in attitudes: for example, towards compassion and empathy. In fact he has called deontological morality primitive and not the real morality, berating people for not remembering he has said this -when they point out, for example, all variations in deontological rules out there. But he seems to forget this himself when he presents human morality in a deontological form. Now he does put it in citation marks. So, perhaps it isn't to be taken as deontology...
BUTTTTTT! Here's the problem.
He talks about compassion, in relation to animals, as virtue, which isn't morality. And back when he talked a lot about mirror neurons and empathy he exactly described the enhancement of virtues, like compassion and empathy AS OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Not that crude deontological stuff, but changing people so that had more of certain traits like compassion which would in turn lead to fewer homicides. That was the real morality.
But here it is relegated to a mere virtue, these character traits.
Which is why I consider VA belief system to be an ad hoc flexible non-system which develops in reaction to criticism by simply changing to an appropriate defense or offensive in reaction to the latest critique. Rather than a coherent belief system.
Which isn't necessarily a problem if it is openly admitted to be such. I think a lot of people move through life changing priorities, criteria, rules without internal consistency.