Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

@joefromchicago,

How is an infant capable of moral consideration?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

How is an infant capable of moral consideration?

You tell me. I never said it was.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The point was that there are a limited number of planets capable of sustaining life (as we know it)...and because of that, every planet capable of doing so MUST be protected.

Protected in what way?:
Preserved in the state in which it is "discovered"?
Kept with at least some life forms on it?
All species preserved?
All extinction events overted (in opposition to natural selection)?
Extinction events that are a consequence of one species' technology overted?

Do any individual organism require consideration or would it be justifiable to kill/maim/torture/imprison some in order to protect the planet?

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

MattDavis wrote:

How is an infant capable of moral consideration?

You tell me. I never said it was.

I thought by stated that infants belong to the class of being capable of moral consideration, you meant that they were capable of moral consideration.
I don't understand how they can belong to class of beings capable without themselves being capable, is that not the definition by which the category is named?

joefromchicago wrote:

MattDavis wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Moral consideration only extends to those who belong to the class of beings capable of moral consideration.

Are infants or severely emotionally and/or intellectually undeveloped adults in this class?

Yes.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

I thought by stated that infants belong to the class of being capable of moral consideration, you meant that they were capable of moral consideration.
I don't understand how they can belong to class of beings capable without themselves being capable, is that not the definition by which the category is named?

It's very easy.

Are humans capable of moral consideration?

Are human infants members of the class of humans?

If the answer to those questions is "yes," then human infants belong to the class of beings capable of moral consideration, regardless of whether or not they themselves are capable of moral consideration.

MattDavis wrote:

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

You're new here, so I'm going to give you a pass this time. Talk to me like that again, though, and you'll find it will be a very short dialogue.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

I am not a big fan of ethical philosophy. There is value to cataloging the legions of competing moral systems, but this is a job for sociologists rather than philosophers.

And to answer your previous question... moral relativism is absolutely not the same as moral nihilism.

I speak English. English is part of my culture and is a perfectly good language and a perfectly good way to communicating my ideas and feelings.

However I don't see English as a Universal language. As a matter of fact I don't believe that there is any Universal language. I see English as just one of thousands of equally good languages each of which works well for its speakers.

This is linguistic relativism. Linguistic nihilism would mean the belief that language doesn't exist.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

It's very easy.
Are humans capable of moral consideration?
Are human infants members of the class of humans?

If the answer to those questions is "yes," then human infants belong to the class of beings capable of moral consideration, regardless of whether or not they themselves are capable of moral consideration.

The class in question is not "humans" the class in question is "beings capable of moral consideration".
You stated that infant (humans) are in the class "beings capable of moral consideration".
You are implying that because some humans are capable of moral consideration, then all humans should be thus classified as such.

MattDavis wrote:
Are you being intentionally obtuse?

joefromchicago wrote:

You're new here, so I'm going to give you a pass this time. Talk to me like that again, though, and you'll find it will be a very short dialogue.

I apologize. I honestly was pretty sure that you were either joking or toying with me.
Perhaps over the construction "Infants or severely emotionally and/or intellectually undeveloped humans...". Do to your answer of "yes" meaning that you thought one or the other but not necessarily both.

So again I apologize I don't think you are obtuse.
I now simply think you are making an error in handling classes as described above.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

However I don't see English as a Universal language. As a matter of fact I don't believe that there is any Universal language. I see English as just one of thousands of equally good languages each of which works well for its speakers.

This is linguistic relativism. Linguistic nihilism would mean the belief that language doesn't exist.

I think we disagree as to what nihilism means.
Nihilism (in reference to ethics) means that there is no position or ethical system that is inherently superior to any other position. They contend that their is no Absolute or higher ethic to appeal to. They do not contend that positions or ethical systems do not exist.
A linguistic nihilist would not believe that language does not exist, he or she would believe that their is no higher standard by which to judge a language (much like your stated position on language).

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

The class in question is not "humans" the class in question is "beings capable of moral consideration".
You stated that infant (humans) are in the class "beings capable of moral consideration".
You are implying that because some humans are capable of moral consideration, then all humans should be thus classified as such.

No, I'm saying that humans constitute a class of beings that are capable of moral consideration, and that human infants are members of that class by virtue of being members of the class of humans. "Beings that are capable of moral consideration," therefore, is a class of classes, not a class of individuals, although, for all we know, humans constitute the only members of both classes and the limits of those classes are coterminous.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Do you think that infants are capable of moral reasoning?
If not, then why by your criteria should we grant them moral consideration?

1 Reply

joefromchicago wrote:

Moral consideration only extends to those who belong to the class of beings capable of moral consideration.

If that was entirely truly, then there wouldn't be any vegans who avoided meat on moral grounds. But I think you've made a very important point which our laws and legal system in our society adheres to. I submit that we owe moral consideration to all those capable of moral consideration themselves. (I am willing to accept that this would include some primates). Of course, people are complex and not everyone thinks similarly, and so there is this diversity of interpretation of material and spiritual values which effects each individual person uniquely and leads them to form moral opinions which may or may not be constant with their peers in all cases. Although the idea that moral consideration only extends to those who belong to the class of beings capable of moral consideration is more on the macro scale or looking at it from the society as a whole perspective, I also think each individuals have a personal sense of morality, like opinions on opinion, which I'd like to think of as offshoots from the social moral stricture which may differ on an individual basis. For example, some think that moral consideration are owed to all that can benefit from it, that is, all that has the capacity to suffer, while to others it's a matter of knowing what they can get away with.
It is another debate if whether it is necessary to draw a line somewhere to separate our species from the others regards to moral consideration. I think the essence of the answer can be seen in this discussion- our understanding of morality. Perhaps we shouldn't leave out empathy, guilt, anger, as well as empathetic bias in the moral domain. In other words being able to sympathize, empathize, or feel guilt towards an object or a pet or an animal can make a class of beings capable of moral consideration to extend the class of moral consideration to things of different class than its own class of beings capable of moral considerations. As far as personal morals are concerned, if you ask ten people you will get ten different meanings of morals according to each persons beliefs, for example one person may think it is morally justifiable to punish their children by employing a time out for an hour,another may say such a punishment as vicious or immoral. My personal opinion on this discussion is that the proper subjects of moral consideration are subjective and to a certain extent, dependent on who/ who all you ask.

2 Replies

@Bennet,

another moral relativist

3 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Thanks for your participation in this discussion.
So far you are the only person who has claimed anything other than Moral Relativism, which basically amounts to "it depends on who you ask".

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

It is meaningless to talk about the practice of "morality" outside situations in which no dilemma operates because we automatically operate according to our social conditioning. It is only when potentially disonant situations arise that decisions have to be made which the (social) self is aware that it will be "stuck with". One common solution is of course to compartmentalize aspects of "self". For example, that aspect of self which condemns "stealing" is separated from that which "avoids taxation". Observation of self will reveal a multitude of such compartments as solutions to dilemmas (moral or otherwise). By this argument, the word "proper" might take on an air of impracticality.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

To Bennett, you wrote:

Quote:

another moral relativist

Sounds to me like a put-down that you wanted to present as something less than a put-down, Matt. Am I wrong about that?

To Joe, you wrote:

Quote:

Thanks for your participation in this discussion.
So far you are the only person who has claimed anything other than Moral Relativism, which basically amounts to "it depends on who you ask".

Apparently Joe is NOT the only one "claiming" that. You seem to be claiming the same thing...although you are doing it in a way that makes it difficult to actually pin down.

"Morality", as I see it, can be different for each person. It is an objective consideration...and can, once again in my opinion, apply to all sorts of things. As I see it, suggesting it applies ONLY to “those who belong to the class of beings capable of moral consideration”…is simply keyboard practice in typing English words.

Are you, Matt, saying moral relativism is wanting or lacking in some way?

1 Reply

I suspect this joker does intend "moral relativist" as a put-down. Acknowledging that morality is subjective is not evidence of "moral relativism." Mores differ from group to group, but each group holds its own mores to be supreme and unalterable. Quite apart from that, any claim that morality is objective partakes of the supernatural--that there is some kind of moral force which imbues the universe, whether one calls it got or gives it some other character.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

What is the alternative to being a moral relativist? How can you be certain that your ideas about morality are any better than other peoples ideas?

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

Do you think that infants are capable of moral reasoning?
If not, then why by your criteria should we grant them moral consideration?

I must not be explaining my position very clearly, so let me go over it again. Infants are not capable of moral reasoning. They are, however, members of a class that consists of all humans. That class, in turn, is a member of a class of all classes that are capable of moral consideration. All members of the class of humans, therefore, are, by the transitive property, members of the class of beings that are capable of moral consideration, even though some individual members may not be capable of such consideration.

To take an analogy: "human beings" is a class of beings that is capable of building skyscrapers. That is true even though not every member of that class is an architect or an engineer. We grant infants and the comatose and psychopaths moral consideration not because they are individually capable of moral consideration, but because they belong to a class that, as a class, is capable of such consideration.

2 Replies

Matt, it will do you no good at all to focus on the entirety of what Joe had to say. He is a lawyer and can talk his way through concrete.

The specific word in his post that should be the focus of your attention and further questions should be the word "only."

0 Replies

@Bennet,

Bennet wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Moral consideration only extends to those who belong to the class of beings capable of moral consideration.

If that was entirely truly, then there wouldn't be any vegans who avoided meat on moral grounds.

Why would you conclude that? If a vegan refuses to eat meat because she believes that all animals are entitled to moral consideration, it could simply be that she is wrong.

2 Replies

Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know