4 ms·

Other animals don't have reasonable alternatives for survival. They are not intelligent enough, like us, to engage in farming practices that would allow them to

by moskie 11y ago

Other animals don't have reasonable alternatives for survival. They are not intelligent enough, like us, to engage in farming practices that would allow them to survive otherwise. They also don't have the faculties to have a nuanced understanding of right and wrong. And even if what those animals do is "wrong," two wrongs don't make a right. There are a great many things that make the idea you've presented unsound.

Amezarak 11y ago
> They also don't have the faculties to have a nuanced understanding of right and wrong. Let's not put our year 2015 Western ideas of 'right and wrong' on a pedestal as the objective moral truth. They may not have your understanding of right and wrong, but they do have an understanding of right and wrong. To quote Nietzsche, morality is just herd instinct in the individual. It's no coincidence that though human moralities have differed incredibly - you have everything from total pacifism to an obligation to perform ritual sacrifice on other human beings - it pretty much always reflects, to greater or lesser degree, the basic principle of in-group altrusim, which is probably genetically encoded at some level. (Interestingly, in the past few hundred years, Western societies have made the "in-group" increasingly inclusive. Perhaps we will one day include animals more than we do.) Animals, particularly more social animals, certainly have 'moral' instincts (that is, a herd instinct.) Instinct and thought are not opposites, they're just gradations on a scale.
- moskie 11y ago
  > They may not have your understanding of right and wrong, but they do have an understanding of right and wrong. Right, and I suppose I wasn't terribly clear in my wording, but I intended to communicate that all (or, most) animals have some sense of right and wrong, it's just that I believe we are capable of having a more "nuanced" one. Which, in my view, indicates that our actions should be held to a higher standard than that of animals. In the same sense that a person with mental disabilities that commits a crime might be held to a different standard than the average person, animals should be given some slack for similar reasons. Anyway, I essentially agree with you, and I advocate for the idea you mentioned, of increasing the inclusivity of our ethics.

by moskie 11y ago

Amezarak 11y ago

> They also don't have the faculties to have a nuanced understanding of right and wrong. Let's not put our year 2015 Western ideas of 'right and wrong' on a pedestal as the objective moral truth. They may not have your understanding of right and wrong, but they do have an understanding of right and wrong. To quote Nietzsche, morality is just herd instinct in the individual. It's no coincidence that though human moralities have differed incredibly - you have everything from total pacifism to an obligation to perform ritual sacrifice on other human beings - it pretty much always reflects, to greater or lesser degree, the basic principle of in-group altrusim, which is probably genetically encoded at some level. (Interestingly, in the past few hundred years, Western societies have made the "in-group" increasingly inclusive. Perhaps we will one day include animals more than we do.) Animals, particularly more social animals, certainly have 'moral' instincts (that is, a herd instinct.) Instinct and thought are not opposites, they're just gradations on a scale.

moskie 11y ago
> They may not have your understanding of right and wrong, but they do have an understanding of right and wrong. Right, and I suppose I wasn't terribly clear in my wording, but I intended to communicate that all (or, most) animals have some sense of right and wrong, it's just that I believe we are capable of having a more "nuanced" one. Which, in my view, indicates that our actions should be held to a higher standard than that of animals. In the same sense that a person with mental disabilities that commits a crime might be held to a different standard than the average person, animals should be given some slack for similar reasons. Anyway, I essentially agree with you, and I advocate for the idea you mentioned, of increasing the inclusivity of our ethics.