Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

@joefromchicago,

FACT: All forms of life on planet earth have always seen the consumption of other life forms; it's called "natural" aspect of survival.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

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?

No. I did not mean it as a veiled insult.
I did label the position as moral relativism, which I believe is an accurate label.
I did not point this out as an insult, but I did mean it as a lament.
I lament because, I feel as though taking such a position won't offer much in the way of a discussion of my OP.

If moral relativism is granted, then questions of "should" or "ought" have no meaning outside of a cultural reference. This moves the discussion of ethics from domain of philosophy to the domain of anthropology.

I am not claiming that a position of moral relativism is invalid. I am just pointing out that dismissing the possibility of objective or absolute ethical truth claims, leaves little to discuss philosophically.
In the same way that dismissing the possibility of objective or absolute epistemological truth claims leaves little to discuss philosophically (as in your debate with igm).

Since you asked about my views:
I do believe that ethical truth claims can be evaluated on merits not dependent upon specific cultural conventions. (If there is interest, perhaps I will create a forum to discuss this.)

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

How strict logical classification operates:
An overlapping of individuals between two classes does not infer that all members of one class are also members of the other class.
Example:

Quote:

class #1=[A B C D E F G]
class #2=[X A B C D E F]
class #3=[A B C D E F]

All members of class #3 are also members of class #1,
however all members of class #1 are not members of class #3.
Class #1 and class #3 are not the same class.
All members of class #3 are also members of class #2,
however all members of class #2 are not members of class #3.
Class #2 and class #3 are not the same class.

The most you can infer from

Quote:

All members of class #3 are also members of class #1

and

Quote:

All members of class #3 are also members of class #2

is that class #1 and class#2 have an overlap (that they both share some members in common) it does not imply that they share all members in common.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

What you stated has:
Class #1=[all humans]
Class #2=[all beings deserving of moral consideration]
Class #3=[all beings capable of moral consideration]

You claimed that Class #2 includes all of Class #3 (valid)
You claimed that Class #3 includes most of Class #1 therefor all of Class #1 is included in Class #2 (invalid).

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

If moral relativism is granted, then questions of "should" or "ought" have no meaning outside of a cultural reference. This moves the discussion of ethics from domain of philosophy to the domain of anthropology.

There is nothing to move. The domain of philosophy itself is entirely within the domain of anthropology.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

There is nothing to move. The domain of philosophy itself is entirely within the domain of anthropology.

That is true only if you take a culturally relativistic view of all knowledge.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

I don't consider Math and Science to be part of philosophy. I don't want to get into a discussion of the word. Most of the things that I hear philosophers talk about are culturally relative.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I disagree about math and science, but I guess I won't elaborate since you don't want to discuss it.
What do you want to discuss then (on the forum I created to discuss philosophy)?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

I am here to discuss the proper subjects of moral consideration, which I believe to be a function of culture.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

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.

You may see it as right or wrong, but I see it as a variable range in a given context from an individual's perspective. Some may see the duty aspect of moral experience suggests the reality of justice, which is inherently relational and thus irreducible to any interpretation of morality as mere personal fulfillment. They see the joviality aspect of moral experience to be a suggestive reality of desire-for-the-good, which is inherently personal and thus irreducible to an interpretation of morality as mere social or divine obligation.
Now my question of interest is why do you think it is simply wrong to extend moral consideration outside the class of beings capable of moral consideration?
I'd like to point out that the idea of a being capable of moral consideration extending moral consideration outside the class of beings who are capable of moral consideration is a vague idea.
The first thing that must be clarified is what does one mean by the phrase moral consideration as it is being used? And there is the aspect of equality. Should all humans be morally considered equally? Or should all sentient beings be morally considered equally?
From daily observation do sentient beings outside the class of beings who are capable of moral consideration, extended moral considerations, albeit it may not be on equal footing with a human being? The line of reasoning that suggests no moral consideration be extended to sentient beings not capable of moral consideration just doesn't hold up in ordinary moral discourse. With such a construct creating animal suffering and being cruel to sentient beings not capable of moral considerations changes from being an immoral act to an amoral act.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

I'm not trying to reject all that is absolutist by dictum. I would prefer to live open minded in philosophical matters: dialectic, quantum, imaginative journey, holding tenacious to the moral of ethics for making life better each day and not contribution to an inverse of wisdom.
That being said, the whole problem of “absolutism” versus relativism/nihilism” is only a problem if you insist on using epistemological foundationalism to justify your position. There is no realm of “absolutely correct” that we could somehow access to finally resolve the question. This “final reference”, usually called certainty, has been the misguided fantasy of Western philosophy at least since Plato. “Right” and “wrong” need to be oriented towards the “absolute” so that they can expand and adapt to the lived problems of real people. But they can’t be “absolutely absolute” or “certain” not only because that’s logically incompatible with the world as we know it, but also because when we truly believe that, we become ready to enslave, oppress, and kill in order to impose our notion of “right” (think about the Inquisition, or the “White Man’s burden”, or totalitarianism both it and its Nazi and Communist forms, or even the absolute belief in “democracy” that led America to to bring it to Iraq by force).

I think it'd be better to find another way to think about knowledge and justification besides epistemological foundationalism. It simply can’t help us talk about moral problems.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

So a culture is then free to grant moral consideration however it sees fit?
If a culture holds that women are not worthy of moral consideration, then women are not worthy of moral consideration. Case closed. Nothing more to discuss.
What more is there to discuss other than the specific ethical values of specific cultures. It doesn't have much philosophical interest for me to know that in some cultures it is morally right to perform female circumcision, while in others it is wrong. They are then both equally valid ways of treating women in their respective cultures.

1 Reply

@Bennet,

Well stated, Bennet. As humans, "absolutes" are not possible, and right and wrong are subjective to individuals.

0 Replies

@Bennet,

Do you think that it is meaningful to compare ethics across cultural bounds?
Is it possible to make the claim that human sacrifice was wrong, if we know of cultures in which it was considered right? Is it possible to claim that human slavery was wrong, if we know cultures in which it was considered right.
Is slavery NOW wrong, but in 1600 it WAS right?

1 Reply

@Bennet,

Bennet wrote:

The line of reasoning that suggests no moral consideration be extended to sentient beings not capable of moral consideration just doesn't hold up in ordinary moral discourse. With such a construct creating animal suffering and being cruel to sentient beings not capable of moral considerations changes from being an immoral act to an amoral act.

I whole-heartedly agree.
I think a much more intuitive criteria would be to grant consideration for a being's suffering based on it's capacity to suffer.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Are these interrogative questions aimed at me because you portray me as some sort of a proponent of moral relativism or more specifically cultural relativism? Have you ever considered me as being a proponent of moral pluralism who view moral reality to be consisting of multiple and competing moral values?

MattDavis wrote:

Do you think that it is meaningful to compare ethics across cultural bounds?

Why would it be meaningless? International businesses do allocate funds in R&D and marketing programs that compare ethics across different cultures in order to minimize ethical conflicts and better understand ethical systems of foreign nations. Personally I'm fascinated by ethical differences across different cultures around the world.

MattDavis wrote:

Is it possible to make the claim that human sacrifice was wrong, if we know of cultures in which it was considered right?
Is it possible to claim that human slavery was wrong, if we know cultures in which it was considered right.
Is slavery NOW wrong, but in 1600 it WAS right?

You'll get varied response, depending on who you ask and what their values with respect to their moral theories are based upon, depending on whether their ethics be be grounded in ethical relativism or ethical objectivism; until of course some time in the future when philosopher(s) find an ultimate unified moral theory. Regarding slavery or human sacrifice, my moral values align to the moral claims of ethical objectivism, and so is it with the subject of rape. And that is no matter the time or place, such actions are morally wrong and unethical.

2 Replies

@Bennet,

I agree that rape, clitorectomies, capital punishment, etc. etc. are wrong--but I am saying only that they are wrong for ME. They may be seen as necessary and right by other individuals and cultural systems. As such I see morals as BOTH relativistic and absolutistic, not one or the other.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Yes, you captured what I was meaning to say better than I did.

1 Reply

@Bennet,

Perhaps I was misunderstanding you. :^(
I think what you are saying is that some things are universally immoral (murder,rape,..), but some things are merely moral or immoral in reference to a grounding culture.
Is my understanding now correct?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

I think what you are saying is that some things are universally immoral (murder,rape,..), but some things are merely moral or immoral in reference to a grounding culture.
Is my understanding now correct?

Yes, at least for me. However, I don't know if it is also true for the rest of the six billion plus people living in the world, nor do I intent to speak for them.

1 Reply

Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know