The human-centricism of morals. Any good justification beyond "a gut feeling"?

If dine on a hamburger, you’d pass for an average American, but dine on a American and you’re Hannibal Lector. If you experiment on lab rats, that can not give consent, you’re a scientist, but if you experiment on scientists without their consent you’ve committed crimes against humanity.

What I’m getting at is the human/nonhuman divide on what’s acceptable in our common morality. Inflicting suffering on animals is okay if it benefits humans enough to, in the general view, justify it. The apparent messing being what’s good for humanity is Good™ with no satisfying clarification as to WHY that is.

The best I’ve heard is people are just more concerned with people. What I mean by that is there’s a certain benefit in knowing your pal you’re off hunting with won’t turn on you as easily as he will that food rabbit you’ve both been raising.

Further there’s a certain group mentality that we inherit. It’s been said that, and I paraphrase from an unremembered source:

Certainly this could be extended to “me and my species against all others”, but is this a good morality? It’s certainly an understandable morality for a competitive, yet social species to develop, but does have an value beyond the sole benefit of humanity? I can’t see any.
I’ve also heard it explained as animals aren’t as smart as humans so don’t get certain rights of projection, but assuming intelligence is the dividing metric, would super intelligent aliens get a free pass for experimenting on humans if it benefited them? I’d sure hope not.

Now to avoid getting side tracked with accusations of hypocrisy, let’s pretend I’m eating a bowl of kittens while typing this, so my Sick Fuckism is already established, and not open to debate.

We have traded “rules” with one another, sorta like treaties. You don’t kill me and I won’t kill you. Don’t steal from me and I won’t steal from you. Our moms say “How would you like it if someone did that to you?” while a bunch of sources also say “Do unto others…”

That’s the only reason why we’re human-centric, and that’s all the reason I need.

“Morality” is biologically ingrained. Humans are a social species, evolved to survive in communities, not as individuals. This is largely expressed in the empathic response and (as with a variety of other animals) an aversion to eating our own species.

our “morality” does not tend to be universalized towards all humans, though, at least not at the same level of intensity. We have concentric rings of importance. Immediate family first, followed by other perceptions of immediate community or tribe, then other similar communities organized around other common principles (e.g. different tribe, but same language…me accept), etc. Universal love for all humanity is a nice ideal, but one that is seldom, if ever fully felt or actualized. Our brains are wired to segregate people into “my tribe” or “not my tribe.”

The empathic respons still does work for animals, though. Humans do not, as a rule, tend to approve of or tolerate causing gratuitous suffering to animals.

I agree with the golden rule.

The question I’m posing is why aren’t animals included in the group “others”? Because you haven’t traded rules with them?
Diogenes the Cynic, I get what you’re saying, maybe I’m just making the mistake of asking why a fish breath water and expecting an answer beyond fish biology.

Animals cannot make rules to establish meaningful interaction. That is why we call them beasts. A beast is animal that is like a human but simple in the mind, like a beast. Animals are simple in the mind so we call them beasts. Beasts are too simple to interact with so we use them as needed, but try to be as nice about it as possible because we are not beast animals we are human animals.

The problem with that is would super intelligent aliens that decided we’re simple minded then have license to use us they felt they needed?

Actually another problem with the simple minded argument is in the past humans applied that definition to other humans. Deciding that other groups were savages to either be ethnically cleansed or enslaved.

I imagine how nice they could be would scale up with the rest of their intelligence. Humans have more concern for other creatures than beasts do, and especially more so for the more intelligent beasts.
As these aliens are smarter than us, and as we are smarter then beasts, hopefully there will be enough intelligence around for them to be as nice to us as they can without significantly inconveniencing themselves.

Of course, them being the super intelligent aliens, how they treat us is entirely up to them. Not much we could do about it.

One flaw with that analogy, is that intelligence and emotional complexity are not wholly relative. Something like a simple animal or plant doesn’t just suffer less or have less awareness than we do; it has no capacity for suffering, no awareness at all. A being that is as intellectually superior to us as we are to insects shouldn’t treat us like we treat insects, because we have qualities that insects don’t have at all. We can kill millions of insects, without inflicting suffering; use them as tools without interfering with their nonexistent plans for their life; we can genetically engineer them without interfering with their nonexistent opinion on the proper direction for their species, and so on.

That’s not true for humans; we DO have a capacity to suffer, plans for our lives, an opinion on what humans are supposed to be like.

You are mistaken. Other groups of humans are not less intelligent. They are men, not beasts, even the ones who live in forests have the minds like human animals, not beast animals.

People were wrong in history, and some picked being wrong to make excuses for treating human animals like beast animals.

You are a bad person if you still belive some species of humans are beast animals.

Edit: But some people can be born like beast animals, this is from defects in the brain. It can happen in any species of human. With them it is still not ok to treat them like beast animals. That is called being mean. It is also bad.

They might think they did, and if they were truly, incomprehensibly more advanced than us, on a totally different plane of mentality, I think they might even be right. This is how many religious people feel about God, after all: it is OK that he causes or allows all sorts of things that cause humans horrible suffering (earthquakes, extermination camps, whatever) because in some way that is far beyond our understanding these things are all for the good. (Please note, I am not endorsing that argument about God. I doubt whether this sort of qualitatively superior intelligence, in gods or in aliens, is really possible. But I do not know that it is not possible, so I am willing to consider it hypothetically.)

Human being are qualitatively more cognitively advanced than animals, and it is not particularly because we have bigger brains (some animals have bigger brains than us) or are quantitatively more “intelligent” (whatever that means). It is because we have language, a highly flexible representational system that allows us to quite easily represent and think about things (such as complex hypotheticals, implications, and abstractions like principles and rules) that animals show no signs of being able to conceive. I do not think animals can conceive of what language is, or what it does for us (they would need to have language in order to do so), and likewise, if there were aliens with something that in the same sort of way made them qualitatively more cognitively advanced than us, we would not be able to understand it at all, and we can’t imagine anything that could possibly be like that.

But if you are just talking about aliens that are just quantitatively smarter than us, that have a very much higher IQ so that, for instance, they could solve math problems in seconds that would take the best humans many hours, or could consider every possible sequence of moves in a chess game for many moves ahead (like chess computers do), that would be different. There would still be the possibility (and probably actuality) of communication back and forth between them and us, and we ought to be able in principle to understand their concepts, including their ethical concepts, even though it might take us a lot more time and work to understand than it would for them. With aliens like that there could still be moral reciprocity, the sort of trading of rules and “treaties” that Chessic Sense talks about, but that we cannot have with animals, because they simply cannot understand such things.

Of course, merely quantitatively more intelligent aliens (or even somewhat stupider ones, who just happened to be more technologically advanced than we are) might still kill or enslave us, as European colonists killed and enslaved native human populations in the past, but they would almost certainly be able to recognize that that was wrong by their own moral code, as indeed, many descendants of Europeans today recognize that what their ancestors did to non-Europeans was wrong.

I am fairly sure that, even at the time, European colonists, and other historical conquerors, generally recognized that there was something morally problematic about what they were doing, even if they felt it was ultimately justified by what they saw as some greater good. The “white man’s burden” was largely a burden of guilt, but guilt taken on, so they thought, to ultimately make the world a better place: more Christian, more rational, wealthier, or whatever. They may just have been rationalizing their greed, but the very fact that they felt the need to rationalize implies that the guilt was really felt.

Animals do not have souls-humans do.

What is a “soul?”

According to Wiktionary:

What about aliens?

“Spirit” is a meaningless word. “Essence of a person” is a meaningless phrase. “Thoughts and personality” are emergent properties of the brain. Animals have these emergent properties too, though they are not as complex as with humans.

How can emergent properties of the brain continue to exist without a brain? What is your evidence that this occurs for humans? What is your evdience that it does not occur for animals?

There’s no evidence for any such thing as souls; and if they existed, why would they be morally relevant?

Cite? There is no such thing as a soul.

The problem with this argument is that some animals are smarter than some humans. Some Chimps have been trained to become as smart as 3 year old humans. A new born baby is intellectually inferior to many of the smarter animals.

Last I checked we can’t kill new born humans even if no other human has any interest in them. Like in the case of an abandoned baby. Yet we can kill much smarter dolphins as much as we want.

At what point is someone intelligent enough to be treated humanely? If the standard is as low as a new born human, then there should be no reason for mistreating a lot of animals.

Human animals have potential beast animals do not. I also already explained about simple humans, which can be of any human species.

That could make hurting them even worse that hurting other human beings. If we suffer on earth, we can make up for it in heaven. For animals, their life on earth is it.