Double Standards of Secular Morality

[Redac]

But if success is the result of some form of above average trait, then wouldn't it be bad for us to have those at the lower rung populating faster than those at the top?

Even middle-class couples are starting to have fewer children, or even no children at all.

If those on the lower rungs are having more children, then they're more successful in an evolutionary sense than the people at the top. Whether you like it or not is up to you, but they are by definition more successful. Why would you see that as a bad thing?

I've had many discussions with atheists who were very enthusiastic about their belief of intrinsic evils. They'll often point back to the Old Testament and claim that God encouraged these intrinsically immoral acts. Would you disagree?

Being an atheist only means one doesn't believe in any sort of deity. It doesn't preclude the belief in objective morality, and indeed many hold such views.

 

[Nooj]

So if not murdering is more than a social norm, then what else is it?

People have their own morality. That is something different than a social norm.

If nothing is intrinsically evil, what makes murder different from misplacing the fork on the dinner table? Is it just the fact that proper silverware setting isn't enforced by law?

I don't understand what you're asking me.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Why humans should be moral?
I don´t know. I just observe that each of them puts a lot of effort in the consideration of moral questions (what is the good thing to do, what *should* I do). So they are capable of moral considerations, and they make use of it. I don´t know how to answer a "Why should...?" question when all observations point to the fact that it is already the case. It´s what humans do.

Why should birds fly? Well, they simply do. They have wings and they are capable of flying. Whilst elephants don´t and aren´t. Postulating that elephants should be able to fly would be absurd. Postulating that birds should be able to fly is a moot point.

Most people do more than shrug their shoulders and say "I dunno, they just do." Some actually look for answers. Yes, you wrote humans have morality because we are capable of abstract thinking, but when I point out other animals can too you simply belittle it:

So what?
If you think that animals are capable of abstraction to the point of considering, communicating, discussing and negotiating moral questions - why are there so few non-human participants here on this forum?
I mean, why don´t you simply go ahead and discuss with your cats if it´s right to have sex outside marriage, negotiate with a crocodile if it´s morally ok to kill sentient beings. I wish you best luck and more power to you.

I wasn't arguing that animals should be judged by human standards - I was arguing that the things which we once thought were unqiue to humans have been found in other animals - so cannot be used to explain why humans have morality and animals don't.
And cut the sarcasm while you're at it.

------------------------

Being an atheist only means one doesn't believe in any sort of deity. It doesn't preclude the belief in objective morality, and indeed many hold such views.

If nothing is intrinsically evil, what makes murder different from misplacing the fork on the dinner table? Is it just the fact that proper silverware setting isn't enforced by law?

I don't understand what you're asking me.

Malum in se versus Malum prohibitum.
How do we tell the difference between something that is inherently wrong and something that is wrong simply because it breaks the rules? And of course the idea that something is inherently wrong assumes that some kind of objective morality exists.

 

[quatona]

Most people do more than shrug their shoulders and say "I dunno, they just do." Some actually look for answers.

Now, I tried to explain why I have problems even understanding the question.
Try to answer the question "Why do birds fly?" in the way you want me to answer "Why do humans have morality?" so I get an idea of the nature of the response you are seeking. Or "Why can humans build computers, and dogs don´t?".

Yes, you wrote humans have morality because we are capable of abstract thinking, but when I point out other animals can too you simply belittle it:

Well, I really thought we were talking about the capability of moral considerations.
I don´t know what e.g. a dog being able to recognize a dog has to do with that. I also don´t even know how that requires abstract thinking. But even if you are determined to call it a rudimentary form of abstract thinking, it´s still far from what I thought was the topic.

I wasn't arguing that animals should be judged by human standards - I was arguing that the things which we once thought were unqiue to humans have been found in other animals -

Personally, I have never had any doubt whatsoever that dogs are able to recognize dogs.
But, yes, science still comes up with new findings. I agree.

so cannot be used to explain why humans have morality and animals don't.

Sure it can. Abstract thinking to the point of considering morality has not been found in animals, so that´s a perfect explanation at this point. It´s not even an explanation, it´s a mere observation.

 

[Nooj]

Malum in se versus Malum prohibitum.
How do we tell the difference between something that is inherently wrong and something that is wrong simply because it breaks the rules? And of course the idea that something is inherently wrong assumes that some kind of objective morality exists.

I think that it is nonsensical to say that something is inherently wrong without saying that it is inherently wrong to someone.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I think that it is nonsensical to say that something is inherently wrong without saying that it is inherently wrong to someone.

Sorry if I sound patronising but I think you misunderstood the definitions. Malum in se means something that is by nature is wrong, while Malum Prohibitum means something that is wrong simply because it is against the law.

For example, making and selling alcohol during prohibition was illegal but most people don't consider drinking alcohol immoral. That's malum prohibitum. Most people consider pederasty to be immoral, even though it ancient Greece it was perfectly legal. That's malum in se.

--------------------------------------

Try to answer the question "Why do birds fly?" in the way you want me to answer "Why do humans have morality?" so I get an idea of the nature of the response you are seeking. Or "Why can humans build computers, and dogs don´t?".

Flying isn't unqiue to birds, and not all birds can fly. Some animals evolved to fly because it benefits them somehow. Similarly some animals (such as penguins) have lost their ability to fly because it no longer benefits them. Put simply, most traits have evolved because they are somehow useful - traits which weren't useful (or animals which lacked these useful traits) died out.

In evolutionary terms, is morality useful? That's a surprisingly hard question to answer. Plenty of 'immoral' societies lasted for hundreds of years. And of course no-one can quite agree on what is moral and what isn't.

Abstract thinking to the point of considering morality has not been found in animals, so that´s a perfect explanation at this point. It´s not even an explanation, it´s a mere observation.

To answer your question with (yet another) question, at what point does abstract thinking become moral consideration? If you mean the ability to understand how our actions affect others, it seems animals can do this too.

As I said, it's getting more and more difficult to see what separates us from animals.

 

[quatona]

Flying isn't unqiue to birds, and not all birds can fly.

Yes, so? I didn´t say that all birds can fly nor that flying is unique to birds - and this is completely irrelevant for my point. Some species can fly, others can´t.
The human species has a complex, highly abstracted way of conceptualizing morality. We don´t see that in other animals.

Some animals evolved to fly because it benefits them somehow. Similarly some animals (such as penguins) have lost their ability to fly because it no longer benefits them. Put simply, most traits have evolved because they are somehow useful - traits which weren't useful (or animals which lacked these useful traits) died out.

Yup. I´m not a scientist, but that sounds like a fairly accurate - though very simplified - summary of evolution theory.

In evolutionary terms, is morality useful? That's a surprisingly hard question to answer.

No, at the current point everything points to the conclusion that their ability to conceptualize morality benefits the human species. It is an incredible numerous and evolutionary successful species. Nothing points to the fact that with increasing complexity and multitude of moral systems the survival of the species decreases. Quite the opposite.

Plenty of 'immoral' societies lasted for hundreds of years.

So? Major evolutionary changes doesn´t make statements about societies, but about species. It doesn´t deal in decades or centuries. I have told you this before. Major evolutionary changes require a long time of trial and error.
As you said, some animals could fly for a long period of time and then lost the ability. Others couldn´t fly and later could.
What point is it you are trying to make with all these statements?

Besides, these "immoral" societies weren´t amoral. They had their moralities. That you or I have a different morality is a different problem. Don´t confuse "moral - as opposed to amoral" and "moral - as opposed to immoral (by standards of your moral or whoseever system).

And of course no-one can quite agree on what is moral and what isn't.

No-one can quite agree what´s good music, either. Yet, the ability to play instruments and compose complex music is there. I´m not sure what your point is, here.

To answer your question with (yet another) question, at what point does abstract thinking become moral consideration?
If you mean the ability to understand how our actions affect others, it seems animals can do this too.

Your arguments confuse me. On the one hand you ask why humans of all have morality, next you keep trying to tell me that other species have morality, too.
Probably other animals have some way of coceiving size and quantity ("more food is better, bigger prey is better") but that doesn´t render them mathematicians. If you insist, we could call that "rudimentary mathematics", but it´s still miles apart and very different from the complex system "mathematics" as humans can think in.
In the same way you may call signs of empathy with other animals "rudimentary morality" - but it´s still miles apart and very different from the complexity of the abstract and complex human thinking about morality and ethics.
You do acknowledge the differences (else you wouldn´t feel ridiculed when I ask you to have your discussion about morality with your pets). On the other hand you do everything to make it appear the same.

I´m curious: Let´s, for arguments sake, say some or all other animals have some sort of moral concepts. What now? So be it. Let them have their own morality. What´s the problem? What´s the implication? What am I to do with this insight? Does it in any way support the point of the OP?

As I said, it's getting more and more difficult to see what separates us from animals.

I don´t think it´s all that hard. As I occasionally say: If we ignore the differences any two things appear the same.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Besides, these "immoral" societies weren´t amoral. They had their moralities. That you or I have a different morality is a different problem. Don´t confuse "moral - as opposed to amoral" and "moral - as opposed to immoral (by standards of your moral or whoseever system).

As I mentioned earlier, organisation and agreeability is much better at building society than actual morality. Most people consider human sacrifice immoral because it we kept killing people this was society would fall apart - but the Aztecs sacrifced thousands of people, and they had one of the largest empires in America.

No Aztec question whether sacrificing people was right or wrong. This agreeability - and not whether their actions were 'moral' or not - is partly what made them so successful.

Your arguments confuse me. On the one hand you ask why humans of all have morality, next you keep trying to tell me that other species have morality, too.

Yes, you seem easily confused ...
I'm not arguing that animals have morality. I'm arguing that traits (in this case, abstract thinking) which we think give humans a sense of morality are also found in animals - but few people consider animals moral beings. Therefore abstract thinking probably isn't t what makes humans moral.

Understand?

 

[quatona]

As I mentioned earlier, organisation and agreeability is much better at building society than actual morality.

This may or may not be so, I tend to disagree, but let´s say for arguments sake you are correct.
But why are you bringing this up in a context that you have initially framed to be a matter of evolution? Why do you ignore my objection that evolution is not about successful/unsuccessful societies or individuals or whatever, but about survival success of species?

Most people consider human sacrifice immoral because it we kept killing people this was society would fall apart - but the Aztecs sacrifced thousands of people, and they had one of the largest empires in America.

Yes, there are different versions of morality out there. And even within one group morality changes over time. Undisputed. Now, what´s your point? Evolution is not about political power or financial success of a particular society. Evolution is about developing successful survival traits of a species.

No Aztec question whether sacrificing people was right or wrong. This agreeability - and not whether their actions were 'moral' or not - is partly what made them so successful.

Firstly, you would have to define "success" so that we do not end in false equivocations. Success in business, success in art, success in personal relationships, success in cleaning your car, success in terms of political power and success in terms of evolution are entirely different things.
Besides I am curious where you get your knowledge what each individual Aztec was thinking.

But back to your statement: I tend to agree that agreement on goals, strong or even unquestionable convictions (this includes convictions of the moral kind) and not being held back by doubts can be a helpful trait for a society to gain - at least temporary - political power.
Now what?
The Aztecs have died out, and their empire collapsed.
If evolution were about political success of nations (which it isn´t!) the whole story would prove that they were evolutionary unsuccessful.

Yes, you seem easily confused ...

Unnecessary comment, at best.

I'm not arguing that animals have morality. I'm arguing that traits (in this case, abstract thinking) which we think give humans a sense of morality are also found in animals - but few people consider animals moral beings. Therefore abstract thinking probably isn't t what makes humans moral.

Understand?

Yes, I have understood this part long ago. What confuses me is that I keep addressing it, and instead of responding to my points you simply repeat it.
Did you read my previous posts in which I kept pointing out how "abstract thinking" and other capabilities come in degrees?
You needn´t agree with this (you needn´t even understand exactly what it is that I am trying to say) - but it would be a sort of a relief to me if you´d give me a sign that you have heard it, instead of keeping barking up a tree I´m not sitting on.
My points simply and persistently being ignored just makes me frustrated.

Would you like me to reword my statements about rudimentary abstract thinking vs. complex abstract thinking, about rudimentary ability to count vs. complex mathematics, about rudimentary signs of empathy vs. complex systems of moral concepts, or would you prefer to re-read it in my previous posts?

"Therefore abstract thinking probably isn't t what makes humans moral."
The particularities and the complexity of human abstract thinking reflects in the particularities and the complexity of human moral conceptualization.
I´m assuming that the particularities and degrees of their moral considerations reflect the particularities degrees of their ability to abstract thinking in other species, as well.
The mere fact that you wouldn´t try to teach your cat not to have sex outside marriage indicates to me that you acknowledge those differences. Subsuming all those different shades, forms and degrees under "abstract thinking" (which, depending on the definition used, surely can be done) doesn´t make those differences go away. I am talking about those differences.

Understand?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

My points simply and persistently being ignored just makes me frustrated.

You weren't being ignored. Whenever I made a point you replied by using sarcasm, completely missing the point or simply saying "So what?" You tend to disagree? I'm not surprised.

You are however being ignored now. Feel free to add a witty remark to show everyone you won the argument. The thread's come to a natural end anyway.

 

[quatona]

You weren't being ignored.

Certain points and statements were persistently left unaddressed.

Whenever I made a point you replied by using sarcasm, completely missing the point or simply saying "So what?" You tend to disagree? I'm not surprised.

Yes, I disagree. There were long passages in my posts that were completely free of sarcasm, that didn´t have "so what?" in it.
I am not disagreeing that most of the time I missed the point. That was the main problem, and I told you that openly and repeatedly. I didn´t know what the point was, and I still don´t.
When a person misses the point that can have various reasons.

You are however being ignored now. Feel free to add a witty remark to show everyone you won the argument.

Angry and frustrated, eh? Sorry I made you angry - internet conversations should be fun. If it´s not that´s a good reason to just stop it - I agree with you.

Won which argument? I missed your point so I can´t feel I won the argument even if that had been my intention (my idea of conversations is not about winning or losing, anyway).
My overall feeling was and is "I have no idea what point this lady is actually trying to make".

 

[Mling]

Has anybody pointed out yet that, in many ways, our judgment of human and animal behavior is very similar?

When a human is overwhelmed by emotion and does something bad, we call it a crime of passion. The same thing done in a careful, premeditated way is judged much more harshly. We sympathize with the mother who finds out that her child was molested and immediately kills the molester. We have less sympathy for somebody who kills for the insurance money.

Likewise, if a wild animal attacks somebody, we may have a strong sense of fear or sadness, but we don't condemn the animal as morally bad. They're just doing what they do. If a trained, loved pet dog attacks their family without provocation, we *do* wrestle with the question of why they did it, and sometimes decide that it was just a bad dog who shouldn't have been trusted.

The underlying factor seems to be instinct vs. choice. In animals and people both, people generally feel that instincts are morally neutral, but choosing to do harm when you are able to choose otherwise is evil. Incidentally, humans are thought to.have much more choice than other animals, so we end up being judged more often.

 

[Redac]

Has anybody pointed out yet that, in many ways, our judgment of human and animal behavior is very similar?

When a human is overwhelmed by emotion and does something bad, we call it a crime of passion. The same thing done in a careful, premeditated way is judged much more harshly. We sympathize with the mother who finds out that her child was molested and immediately kills the molester. We have less sympathy for somebody who kills for the insurance money.

Likewise, if a wild animal attacks somebody, we may have a strong sense of fear or sadness, but we don't condemn the animal as morally bad. They're just doing what they do. If a trained, loved pet dog attacks their family without provocation, we *do* wrestle with the question of why they did it, and sometimes decide that it was just a bad dog who shouldn't have been trusted.

The underlying factor seems to be instinct vs. choice. In animals and people both, people generally feel that instincts are morally neutral, but choosing to do harm when you are able to choose otherwise is evil. Incidentally, humans are thought to.have much more choice than other animals, so we end up being judged more often.

In the case of the pet dog, I think it's because as a culture we tend to humanize the animals we keep as pets. We don't like to consider the fact that it's really just an animal without our ability of higher cognition.

 

[GrayAngel]

Has anybody pointed out yet that, in many ways, our judgment of human and animal behavior is very similar?

When a human is overwhelmed by emotion and does something bad, we call it a crime of passion. The same thing done in a careful, premeditated way is judged much more harshly. We sympathize with the mother who finds out that her child was molested and immediately kills the molester. We have less sympathy for somebody who kills for the insurance money.

Likewise, if a wild animal attacks somebody, we may have a strong sense of fear or sadness, but we don't condemn the animal as morally bad. They're just doing what they do. If a trained, loved pet dog attacks their family without provocation, we *do* wrestle with the question of why they did it, and sometimes decide that it was just a bad dog who shouldn't have been trusted.

The underlying factor seems to be instinct vs. choice. In animals and people both, people generally feel that instincts are morally neutral, but choosing to do harm when you are able to choose otherwise is evil. Incidentally, humans are thought to.have much more choice than other animals, so we end up being judged more often.

That's a good point, but I agree with Redac. Pets, particularly dogs, are expected to behave civilized, almost like people. Some people even refer to their pets as family, although I don't think most would consider their dog of equal importance to their children.

 

[quatona]

Has anybody pointed out yet that, in many ways, our judgment of human and animal behavior is very similar?

I´d like to point out that I do not want to be included in this "we".

Likewise, if a wild animal attacks somebody, we may have a strong sense of fear or sadness, but we don't condemn the animal as morally bad. They're just doing what they do. If a trained, loved pet dog attacks their family without provocation, we *do* wrestle with the question of why they did it, and sometimes decide that it was just a bad dog who shouldn't have been trusted.

Personally, I am rather wrestling with the question if the classical conditioning humans exercise on animals is reliable.

The underlying factor seems to be instinct vs. choice. In animals and people both, people generally feel that instincts are morally neutral, but choosing to do harm when you are able to choose otherwise is evil.

I think this is a very good point.
For me personally, however, that´s not the reason why I talk about morality/ethics with my fellow humans but not with other animals.

Incidentally, humans are thought to.have much more choice than other animals, so we end up being judged more often.

Again: Good point. Personally, though, I don´t believe there´s choice (in the way that would help with constituting guilt).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that we might treat animals as morally exempt because they don't respond to our style of morality very well, which is heavily dependent on abstract thought, understanding human language and also the primacy of human interests.

 

[Jro]

I think this is a very good point.
For me personally, however, that´s not the reason why I talk about morality/ethics with my fellow humans but not with other animals.

I think that's a mistake (no offense). Chimpanzees, ravens and dolphins have all demonstrated a complex system of behaviors that I'd be willing to argue are moral systems. Even when we look at behavior like ground squirrels warning their relatives of danger, we see something like the precursors of our own behavior.

 

[quatona]

I think that's a mistake (no offense). Chimpanzees, ravens and dolphins have all demonstrated a complex system of behaviors that I'd be willing to argue are moral systems. Even when we look at behavior like ground squirrels warning their relatives of danger, we see something like the precursors of our own behavior.

So what about my post exactly was a mistake?

 

[Jro]

So what about my post exactly was a mistake?

Well, I'm not sure if I read your post incorrectly, but I read it as "I view humans as moral agents but do not view animals that way."

 

[quatona]

Well, I'm not sure if I read your post incorrectly, but I read it as "I view humans as moral agents but do not view animals that way."

Sorry, but I really have no idea how that can be read from my post. I was merely talking about my reasons why for not discussing ethics with non-human animals.