Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:

Why would humans have such a system that doesn't apply to every other result of evolution (i.e. ants or chimpanzees)?

I happen to think that we should have a system that applies at least to animals. This is because I take suffering to be a universal bad. Animals (at least most) are capable of suffering.

So my point is, if it is morally wrong for a human male to force a human female to have sex, why isn't it morally wrong for a chimpanzee male to force a chimpanzee female to have sex?

I hold that the "who" that is obligated to behave ethically is a moral agent.
Moral agents are simply those capable of ethical behavior.

Some necessary capacities for moral agency:
Autonomy, being capable of directing one's own actions.
Intelligence/Empathy, understanding the consequences
that one's behavior has on another being.

Additionally, I think that the standards of behavior change in relation to a moral agent's capacities. (Sort of along the lines that "with great power comes great responsibility"). Having more autonomy creates more possible choices from which to decide upon a course of action. Having a greater understanding of the consequences of behavior creates a greater burden in having to think more deeply and over a longer time frame about those consequences to decide upon a course of action.

So finally with regards to how male chimps treat female chimps:
Male chimps are very violent (25% die at the hands of other chimps), and rape is prevalent.* This is very disturbing, but to qualify as unethical I need to establish what a chimp's capacity as a moral agent is. I do believe that they have at least some capacity in this regard. They definitely are autonomous. It has been seen on MRI that they have the same "mirror neurons" that humans use for imagining the perspectives of others, and behavioral studies suggest that they are capable of empathy and a fairly sophisticated capacity to understand consequences.

So YES I think that such examples of chimp behavior are unethical.

I would also like to point out:
Anthropologic studies* have demonstrated that for human "primitive" tribal cultures both prehistoric and contemporary, 25% of males also die at the hands of other males and rape is also prevalent.

And if it is wrong for human beings to kill useless members of society, why is is okay for ants?

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5251349)
OK.
I'll lighten up, but just a bit.
From previous experiences I understood you to be blunt when it suits your purposes.
I am wondering since (your explanation here) was the message you were trying to convey, would your purposes in this case have been better served by stating that message more explicitly the first time around?

I am still having some problems though with the way "apply" is used throughout the statement. This is because I can't find a way to tell who has the obligations, and who is the "benefactor of those obligations".

Or to restate this in an explicit question to you:
When 'those who are bound to observe the dictates of morality' are behaving morally, who's interests are they bound to consider?

This is what I have gathered so far about your position.
(Please correct me if I am wrong.)

perhaps wrote:

Those obligated to behave ethically (moral agents) are those who are capable of behaving ethically.
These moral agents are capable of purposeful conduct.
These moral agents do not include for example: infants, the insane, and the comatose.

Whose interests (if any) must be considered for a moral agent to make an ethical decision?

I am trying to understand your perspective better.
Your beliefs on morality still aligned with the your thoughts on it in another thread which I found interesting? Attack my argument: morality of eating meat

I have never had any success engaging Joe in discussion on anything. He seems to think anyone not accepting his take on things to be reason to dismiss that person as unworthy of his consideration.

Morality, however, obligates moral agents because it is obligatory

Where do the precepts of morality come from (i.e. the absolute rules that "moral agents" must follow)?

What can be Derived from Consciousness regarding "Self"?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is meant by 'consciousness' requires self-reference.

Consciousness is a manifestation of certain types of interactions within a complex but structured system. Certain complex structured system (like brains) exhibit behaviors that can be labeled as being conscious behaviors. One of the requirements of such systems is an ability to "represent the system within the system". Systems can be conscious, but they do do not have consciousness as in the sense that, consciousness exists somewhere (some physical place).
Consciousness should be treated semantically as we would treat other classifications of behaviors in systems. If a system exhibits cyclical behavior, you will not get a meaningful response by asking "where is the cyclicalness in the system?" The cyclical is a characteristic of the behavior of a system.
Because consciousness is simply the characteristic of something, it follows that it has no defined physical location. To suggest that it does have a physical location would be like asking where is the roundness in a circle.

Non-physicality of Self:
Self (with a capital S) is the label that occurs in conscious behaviors of systems and is used to point references back to the system.
It is the representation of the system, by the system.
It is the tool needed for 'self-reference.'
Self (capital S) is also not properly treated as a 'thing' (having physical location). It is a label that exists only as encoded in the consciousness behavior of the system.
From this view all concepts should not be treated as 'physical things' because concepts are labels encoded within a behavior.

Autonomous-ness of Self:
Autonomous simply means self-directed.
The behaviors of a system originate from within that system.
The cylical behavior of a solar system originates from within the solar system.
Systems that exhibit conscious behavior have a 'self' label and the representation that creates is Self (capital S) within the system, so it should interpret its own system behaviors as autonomous (that is, as Self directed behavior).

Continuous-ness of Self:
The label encoded within the conscious behaviors of a system should remain relatively unchanged, or if it does change, it must change in small enough increments so as that it can still be recognized for what it refers to by the system. (Since this was presupposed as a criteria of conscious behavior.)
Regardless of whether a label does or does not change, since conscious behavior ALWAYS requires self-reference the label must always be able to be correctly interpreted within the system. For as long as the system is exhibiting conscious behaviors, there must persist a representation within the system that is Self (capital S).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you mean "beneficiary," not "benefactor."

Your confusion may be due to mistakenly believing that all moral obligations are owed to some specific person. Morality, however, obligates moral agents because it is obligatory. As Kant pointed out, if you're not acting morally because you are morally obligated to act, then you're not acting morally.

Morality obligates. Morality dictates. Morality loves you.

Awww.... Sorry Max !
I love YOU too!
I love you all! As you are all my children.

I know you don't believe in me as I am only a concept.
As a concept I can only exist in the minds of a 'self' like you.
Since you don't believe in me I don't exist in you.
You, however, are only a 'self' and a 'self' is also a concept that can only exist in a mind. You believe in your 'self' so you exist in your mind.

Even though we don't both exist in your mind, I want you to know that I do still love you!

This is a textbook example of anthropomorphism. Morality obligates. Morality dictates. Morality loves you.

The question no one is answering is what gives Morality the right to obligate me to do anything?

It just exists on its own with no reason. It just is.