Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

@MattDavis,

Then what constitutes an "arbitrary decision?"

0 Replies

@aspvenom,

aspvenom wrote:

Ok, then what code do you think is behind the law that puts us humans imposing these limits on themselves especially with animals?

What moral code? The applicable code, I would presume.

aspvenom wrote:

And regarding the jaywalk example, although all laws are not necessarily based on morality, at-least we can agree that there are laws which are based on morality.

Sure.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

1. In your opinion, is it true that many people believe they are acting morally when actually what they doing is following a set of mores (that aren't really morals)?

Yes. You seem to be an example of that.

maxdancona wrote:

2. Are you confident that what you are following are actually morals and that you aren't fooling yourself and really following mores?

As confident as I can be.

maxdancona wrote:

3. If the answers to #1 and #2 are "yes", doesn't that imply that most people, throughout history, although they may have been sincere in there mores, were not living morally (i.e. by the true moral concepts)?

I have no way of knowing, but I wouldn't be surprised.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

What moral code? The applicable code, I would presume.

I asked code, specifically, to imply what is the reasoning such behind the law, not wanting to corner anyone with "moral code." It can't be arbitrary can it?
So an applicable moral code to moral agents is implied to exist regarding animals who are not moral agents. Don't you consider applying such an applicable moral code in the form of laws regarding sentient animals make such animals "subjects" of moral consideration, even though these animals are not imposing limits on human conduct. We as moral agents are considering the well being of non-moral agents suggests that we are giving such sentient beings consideration upon the basis of a moral code. Doesn't that satisfy the condition of giving sentient beings moral consideration?

Aren't animals ethics derived from a code of morality?

1 Reply

@aspvenom,

aspvenom wrote:

I asked code, specifically, to imply what is the reasoning such behind the law, not wanting to corner anyone with "moral code." It can't be arbitrary can it?

I agree that morality must be consistent in its application.

aspvenom wrote:

So an applicable moral code to moral agents is implied to exist regarding animals who are not moral agents. Don't you consider applying such an applicable moral code in the form of laws regarding sentient animals make such animals "subjects" of moral consideration, even though these animals are not imposing limits on human conduct.

It might make them objects of moral consideration, but then that just highlights the ambiguous nature of the concept of "moral consideration." If by "moral consideration" one means "to treat as a moral agent," then I reject the notion that moral consideration can be extended to non-humans. On the other hand, if by "moral consideration" one means "to treat in some moral fashion, regardless of the object's status as a moral agent," then I would agree that animals can be the objects of moral consideration.

aspvenom wrote:

We as moral agents are considering the well being of non-moral agents suggests that we are giving such sentient beings consideration upon the basis of a moral code. Doesn't that satisfy the condition of giving sentient beings moral consideration?

Depends on your definition.

aspvenom wrote:

Aren't animals ethics derived from a code of morality?

Well, I reject the notion of "animal ethics." To the extent, however, that humans have ethical rules regarding the treatment of animals, those rules are certainly derived from a moral code.

3 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

On the other hand, if by "moral consideration" one means "to treat in some moral fashion, regardless of the object's status as a moral agent," then I would agree that animals can be the objects of moral consideration.

That's what I thought. I think that's what some people where trying to mean when they were talking about non-moral agents, and extending moral consideration to such non-moral agents.

1 Reply

@aspvenom,

I'm perfectly happy with a definition of "moral consideration" that does not imply that non-humans are moral agents or that they have moral claims on humans.

0 Replies

Play with the words all you want, but the fact is many people who are part of “the class of being capable of moral considerations” feel that moral considerations can, and rightly should, be extended to all sorts of life…and even to substance not normally considered as “living”…such as “the planet Earth.”

Joe’s original assertion that “moral consideration only extends to those who belong to the class of beings capable of moral consideration”—far from being the "this is coming from GOD" he made it sound as though it were, is only his personal opinion…and a rather callous, insensitive, and uncharitable one, in my opinion.

The fact that he is now “perfectly happy with a definition of 'moral consideration' that does not imply that non-humans are moral agents or that they have moral claims on humans” is valuable only for its entertainment considerations. For some reason, when I read it the first time, I imagined him being locked in a cage with a gorilla attempting to make the case logically and calmly to that animal.

0 Replies

what is the reference of moral being??? of course urself there cant b any else

so the proper subjects are who u are realizing objectively a respect to their existence as else to u from what u recognize being same too

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Joe wrote:

It might make them objects of moral consideration, but then that just highlights the ambiguous nature of the concept of "moral consideration." If by "moral consideration" one means "to treat as a moral agent," then I reject the notion that moral consideration can be extended to non-humans. On the other hand, if by "moral consideration" one means "to treat in some moral fashion, regardless of the object's status as a moral agent," then I would agree that animals can be the objects of moral consideration.

I am shamed to admit it but, It wasn't until reading this that I realized the huge blunder I made by stating my question as
"Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?".
What I meant to ask is:
"Who are the proper objects of moral consideration?"
Embarrassed

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

LOL, that clears it up then.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

I was looking at the problem from the perspective of what you mean to be objects of moral consideration. By aspvenom's contribution, a big misunderstanding has been cleared between us.
I'm pondering a question regarding the subject and the object confusion we encountered in our discussion, but in a different context. Carl Jung has said that introvert sees value in the subject while extroverts find it in the object. Any thoughts? Then there was Martin Buber, who had the idea that you have to recognize everything else as a subject. It all comes down to language in the end.

1 Reply

objects by definition are never moral, moral being conscious objective abstractions in terms of value so only in free space moral considerations exist

objects are positive constant realities of things

the issue in ur way of seeing is what u reveal lacking totally the sense of reality so also its true value

reality is without cause, u cannot decide to b real it must b u, this is how reality at the end is obvious
same for things, that is how things true existence are what is never created nor related to creations at all
true things are to true absolute existence realities

the value of reality is constant value
wat is real is what is constant and the value of constant is positive superiority, so evolution sense to perfections of being

1 Reply

@imans,

Thanks imans.
Of all the responses you have made and I have attempted to read,
this one is by far the most clear.

0 Replies

@Bennet,

Bennet wrote:

I'm pondering a question regarding the subject and the object confusion we encountered in our discussion, but in a different context. Carl Jung has said that introvert sees value in the subject while extroverts find it in the object. Any thoughts?

I don't know enough about Jungian psychology to comment.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

I would just suggest that the introvert finds his subjective life more interesting while the extrovert prefers his "objective" world.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

If true that would seem to make introversion in some sense an obstacle to ethical behavior. Not just in the conventional sense of "selfishness", but in the sense of having difficulty in considering the interests of others.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

introvert is never superior while truth is superiority so existence is exclusively superior realities freedom, for positive individual life realisations as superior selves realities

introvert is what cant mean smthg more, so always lean on what exist already to mean anything or somthg
while what exist already is truly the best as it is without addin any to
that is why introverts are retarded and to evil life oriented

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

How far should consideration extend?

I think we should try and extend moral consideration to everyone and if we can succeed at doing that then we could possibly use more time toward other nonhuman things.

Don't get me wrong because I think that we should consider all life forms but I think that we should focus most of our attention on humans for now because I think we still have a long way to go.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I think we should try and extend moral consideration to everyone and if we can succeed at doing that then we could possibly use more time toward other nonhuman things.

I totally agree with that.
From my personal experience I haven't noticed, however, that it diverts any significant amount of my time or effort to be vegan. In many ways I feel as though it has made me better able to empathize with fellow humans.
After all if you are able to feel some empathy for a snake, how hard could it be to empathize with even a psychopath?

3 Replies

Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know