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

Great Debates
21

Oh great, another thread questioning the morality of eating meat.

Look, humans eat meat. So do other predator species. It has nothing to do with morality.

In fact, animals have been known to chow down on humans. They’d do it more often if we hadn’t killed off so many of them. We’re good at killing. We like it a lot. If we don’t do it ourselves, we rush to watch movies and TV shows about killing. If there’s a murder on the street, a crowd always gathers. We love killing. All predator species do.

If we’d acknowledge this inborn urge, I think we’d understand ourselves a lot better.

As a confirmed omnivore, I intend to go on eating meat. It is my animal nature. Morality is a man-made concept. Therefore, morality’s protections apply ultimately only to mankind.

Besides, animals taste good.

22

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you only said that it would be wrong to harm simple humans, but you never explained why.

Severely mentally disabled humans have no more potential than some dolphins. Why is it wrong to treat them worst than dolphins?

It would be perfectly consistent if you were to draw the intelligence line across all species. Then it would be ok to treat humans with brain defects like animals, or to treat animals like simple humans. But I don’t see any moral distinction that justifies not treating them the same.

23

I agree that if a gross jellyfish said “hello I have a super-brain” we should treat it like a person, but terribly disabled people with animal like brains… this takes me back to the first question.

I cant tell you why it makes a difference, but I know I would not treat a simple human like a beast. Could you do that? I think you would be a bad person to do that.

24

Because we don’t really know for sure in most cases how bad off such a person is. And because historically so many people have treated even the moderately mentally disabled as vermin to be killed; so it’s best to show more consideration than is likely warranted than less, as a safety margin.

25

Actually, I would treat animals like we currently treat simple humans.

Der Trihs, what about human fetuses? They have potential to become humans, why can we kill them?

26

I would treat some animals like that. I don’t believe in the binary model of morality; with humans on one side of a bright line, and everything else on the other. I believe in a hierarchy of moral relevance; with a normal human deserving more consideration than an ape; an ape deserving more than a rat; a rat deserving more than an insect. The smartest animals, and the most damaged humans overlap IMHO.

27

Because they are mindless. Their potential only matters if you intend to keep them.

You are talking about two different uses of the word potential; in the case of the mentally disabled, our knowledge of the brain is shaky enough that we generally can only estimate just what is going on in the heads of the severely disabled; they are potentially more aware than we think they are. In the case of a fetus, the potential is all in what they may become in the future, not what they are right now. In one case the potential is hypothetical; in the other, it is future.

28

I don’t think intelligence is what makes people special. Is a smart person ontologically better than a stupid one? Just the thought makes me cringe. Something like imagination or awareness might be more like it.

If you asked most people about the most significant times of their life, you wouldn’t find too many talking about writing poetry or proving a mathematical theorem. Most would talk about falling in love, spending time with their children–things that we share with wolves and chimps and African greys. But if we treated animals the way we say we’re supposed to treat people, medical research would grind to a halt, agriculture would be less efficient (growing crops; don’t think vegetarians aren’t drenched in the blood of bunnies), and a lot of us would suffer and die as a result. I can’t think of a good justification for human-centricism. I act like there is one anyway. We depend on it at least as much as the antebellum south depended on slavery. But that’s not a good analogy. Is it? :eek:

29

“Gut feelings” get a bad rap.

Just as physical feelings exist for the purpose of preserving the health of our bodies, emotional feelings exist as an indicator of what is emotionally healthy/unhealthy for us.

For people who value our emotional component and learn to deal appropriately with emotion they become yet another tool along with our intellect to guide us in good decisions.

This sucks for people who are unable to make decisions without empirical evidence.

30

That is not a funny thing to say. You are like the people who would make themselves think those are beasts, but you are worse because they knew what they were doing, you pretend not to think like that.

And why would you say old people in africa are not human animals?

31

I’m not trying to be funny. I’m trying to say I’m uncomfortable, but I’m not ready to join PETA and watch people die of cancer while saying, “Oh well, at least the lab mice are safe.” I don’t understand the rest of your post.

It helps if feelings are supported by some kind of rational argument, though, because feelings can make mistakes. Human reason isn’t perfect, either, but at least when someone makes a logical error you can point it out. If someone says, “I don’t think gays should be allowed near children because it creeps me out,” what can you say to them? “No it doesn’t”?

32

You don’t need hard evidence for people to believe in something. People that do believe in souls use that idea to shape their moral compass. Concerning the OP, It is a justification that I believe is a good one, I’m sure you disagree.

33

It’s not a very helpful or strong hypothesis with no evidence to back it up. It’s just a variation on “it’s magic.”

34

I definitely disagree. Not only is there “no hard evidence”; there’s no evidence at all, and evidence against. The evidence is, since damage to the brain damages the mind and drugs can distort the mind, destruction of the brain should destroy the mind. There is no rational reason to think anything else.

And while the idea may shape people’s moral compass, it does so in a negative fashion; it makes them LESS moral. They base their actions on the fantasy of a soul, which distorts their judgment; they judge people and animals on the condition or lack of a thing that does not exist.

Belief in the soul isn’t good in any way; it fails as a “justification” on all levels.

35

It’s not like you missed out on a committee meeting or something. It’s evolution, baby.

36

me against my brother
me and my brother against my family
me and my family against my tribe
me and my tribe against my nation
me and my nation against the world

This is the Jerry Springer junk we have been fed by main stream media for years. It’s called the dumbing down of America. Pretty soon we won’t have a moral compass. We will need the media to tell us what to think is right and wrong. The line is razor thin right now.

There was this movie a few years back called “Idiocracy”. Perhaps this is what we are evolving into?

37

For example, animals resort to circular definition all the time.

38

I see plenty of reason in ZPHOBIAZ’s argument that animals are too simple to be grouped with us, and plenty is Curtis Lemay’s argument that humans have souls while animals don’t, but the best argument is just good sense. Humans are humans. Animals are animals. Animals are not grouped with humans because animals are not humans. Humans can read, write, talk, do math, study the past, analyze the present, theorize about the future, think abstractly, philosophize, follow God, make art, educate others and themselves, etc… Animals can’t do any of those things. While a few people will claim that they view humans as a type of animal, they’re still willing to walk through doors that say “no animals allowed”. Everybody understands the difference even if they say they don’t.

We make moral decisions based on sense and reason. (Certainly not because of anything biologically ingrained, since plenty of people have been willing to kill their fellow countrymen, or even their family members.) Sense and reason say that animals should not be included in the group of humans. In fact, for the purpose of a working morality, they can’t be. You could say that chimpanzees are now the moral equivalent of humans, but it wouldn’t mean anything. You might convince humans not to engage in violence towards chimps, but you can’t convince chimps not to engage in violence towards humans. Adults chimpanzees are instinctively violent. Unless you believe that humans are morally required to submit to being killed by chimps, you have to do something to stop the chimps from attacking. You could move the chimps a long way away from humans, kill the chimps, or put the chimps in cages. But all three options mean treating chimps as inferior to humans. So in short, we have to treat chimps as inferior to humans because they are inferior to humans.

Treating things as they are does not mean treating things badly. By any reasonable measure, recent trends in thought have been bad for animal rights. While philosophers in academic departments churn out books and papers purporting to prove that animals have rights, the treatment of animals has gotten worse, as anyone who’s been to a slaughterhouse or factory farms can testify. Animals would be better off if we jettisoned all the modern, philosophical garbage and went back to the sensible beliefs that humans are the capstone of creation and as such, have a responsibility of stewardship for the lower levels of creation including animals.

When civil rights leaders said that black people were equal to white people, they were right. When members of PETA and other nutters say that animals are equal to people, they are wrong. Anything that a typical white person can do, a typical black person can do. But the vast majority of things that a person can do cannot be done by the most intelligent chimpanzee on the planet.

39

That very scenario has happened countless times already (in the past and maybe present times)

Slavery could be one bright shining example. The world’s view of third world countries being a close second.

With humans in general, it seems there are diminishing returns the further the human gets away from “you”

As was posted upthread:
I come first, then family then extended family, then my friends on down the line…

40

To me the major separation is the ability to communicate and to have some ability to control ones behaviour and enter into meaningful contracts, as said above. So far no animal really meets this criteria, other than the potential arguments regarding great apes etc.

With issues like cognitive damage or the like, its more that the contract is kept because society has found most utility with universal rights as a way of dealing with these issues. In many ways the contract is with the parent who is procreating rather than the person with the cognitive damage as such, ie if I have a child will it be treated as a human being? If I have an accident and get brain damage, how will I be treated?

And by making into the minimum level of sentience above, one avoids the super alien issue.