Opposing moral categories.

[ObserveandReport]

Why can't their be opposing moral categories within the same species if their is wide variance of characteristics amongst that species? So generally we don't consider the moral implications of how we slaughter animals and if this is due to an intelligence difference, we have a problem. There are people in this world so smart, that many of us are closer in intelligence to animals than those super geniuses. If telepathic aliens came down and saw us with our "primitive tools" and "primitive communications" might they not feel equally indifferent (and justifiably so) about subjugating and eating us? I have listened to UPB twice now (though t has been some time since I have), and Stefan argues that any moral system that uses separate moral categories is invalid. At this moment I'm forgetting his precise arguments. Any thoughts?

this may actually be a tacit argument for ethical veganism. (also, I'm bringing this up, not because I'm trolling UPB I quite like it, but because I'm legitimately confused)

A quick googling found the passage I was referring to! "Not only is it illogical, it contradicts an observable fact of reality, which is that human beings as a species share common characteristics, and so cannot be subjected to opposing rules. Biologists have no problems classifying certain organisms as “human” - 45 - because they share common and easily identifiable characteristics – it is only moralists who seem to find this level of consistency impossible." Perhaps he develops this argument in a video or another piece of literature I have yet to read. Point me the right way please. Also, I realize it would be completely unfair to expect Stefan to defend or sketch every moral proposition he assents to in one book. 

[Will Torbald]

The right way ->

 

The argument is not about opposing moral categories within a species, it's about opposing "universal" moral categories. And if the morality is not "universal" then it's just opinion or aesthetics or culture. But if you can make two opposing so called "universals" it's not a universal at all.

[ObserveandReport]

I'm 7:37 in and so far the distinction Stefan draws is that animals cannot compare options to a standard. How he makes this determination is beyond me. If his argument is that animals do not speak language, I'm not sure he's right. I'd say he might be right that some form of language may be necessary for comparison, but how would we know whether animals have their own language? I'll keep on listening.

I'm 7:37 in and so far the distinction Stefan draws is that animals cannot compare options to a standard. How he makes this determination is beyond me. If his argument is that animals do not speak language, I'm not sure he's right. I'd say he might be right that some form of language may be necessary for comparison, but how would we know whether animals have their own language? I'll keep on listening.

So it did come down to language. We don't witness language, therefore no comparison of options to an ideal standard. Got it. If animals had primitive forms of language, would we be able to detect this? Stefan seems to think so. I am less certain. In fact, because of the different neural and physical structures of animals compared to that of humans, it might be quite a bit harder to determine whether or not they have language. Just one thought about how animals might have language that would escape our detection: Imagine that in the gorilla world there are may body language signs and cues that are obvious to them as gorillas, but non-obvious to us humans who rely on vocalized language to transmit the same information. However, when these are couple with certain vocalizations, that themselves would be inadequate at transmitting more than a sliver of simple information, what results is a complex system of communication. Beyond sophistication, abstraction might be similarly hard to detect due to a anthropocentric bias.

 

While dogs may be incapable of language, that doesn't mean they will be forever. That is, it is not a scientific certainty. Evolution could go a number of ways. This could happen for cows, apes, pigs. Stefan points out why it is unlikely for animals to have this latent capacity as of now. I agree. Might it not develop though? Might it be latent in the sense that we are just too early in the evolutionary history?

 

This does shave off the geniuses to normal people argument. Also, I think my alien argument falls by the wayside too. If aliens had sufficiently advanced technology to get here, I imagine they would be smart enough to discover how complex our language was, such that we are capable of abstraction. I guess the real fear is that they are so sophisticated that they consider our capacity to reason morally as inconsequential. That is, they have some moral reasoning that is so advanced, that by comparison we might as well be ants picking the juiciest leaves to eat. Is our ability to abstract unlimited in its capacity or is such a requirement unnecessary for Stefan's arguments to follow?

Edited May 8, 2016 by ObserveandReport

[Will Torbald]

If I remember well, since I listened to it a few months ago, is that it's language capable of grammar and highly conceptual forms. Apes and monkeys do communicate by transmitting basic information like a howl that means eagle, or a howl that means jaguar, but they don't go beyond it. While it may leave some gray areas to the question "is this animal sentient enough for morality?" it is not a pressing issue in the world. We don't hunt apes or farm chimps, we do it to animals we know are very unintelligent compared to us. If there were aliens that were smarter than us, we would compare them to our most intelligent geniuses, but so far none of them look at us like ants. Having a brain with an IQ farther than 200 doesn't seem to create tyrants, while instead low or moderate IQ seems far more effective in producing dictatorial megalomaniacs.

[dsayers]

It's a question of ownership. Humans understand the consequences of their actions and so they are responsible for them. We can comprehend that to assault means to use one's body to deny another the use of their body and the inherent contradiction therein.

[labmath2]

You are missing the two cases where humans are allowed to occupy different moral categories, children and mentally impaired.

[ObserveandReport]

It's a question of ownership. Humans understand the consequences of their actions and so they are responsible for them. We can comprehend that to assault means to use one's body to deny another the use of their body and the inherent contradiction therein.

And while undoubtedly most animals lack this, or anything close, what about the smartest of other animals? Particularly dolphins (mostly kept in captivity, not eaten) and pigs come to mind. As Will pointed out, most great apes are not really in the equation because they are not being hunted (though their habitats' destruction might be problematic and that is widespread). 

 

Even if none of the above mattered, I'd ask why the cutoff is fully understanding as opposed to the gradations between, say, human and snail? What makes the full ability to reason as opposed to some lesser abillity key?

 

If I remember well, since I listened to it a few months ago, is that it's language capable of grammar and highly conceptual forms. Apes and monkeys do communicate by transmitting basic information like a howl that means eagle, or a howl that means jaguar, but they don't go beyond it. While it may leave some gray areas to the question "is this animal sentient enough for morality?" it is not a pressing issue in the world. We don't hunt apes or farm chimps, we do it to animals we know are very unintelligent compared to us. 

It was my understanding that pigs rank among the most intelligent non-human species in the world. I agree with your grey area statement. Considering the widespread eating and raising of animals (especially pigs) it might be worthy of our investigation. Additionally, there might be some principle that we out to hedge our bets, such that where we can easily avoid the widespread pain caused to animals (I'm thinking factory farming here) we ought to. 

 

You are missing the two cases where humans are allowed to occupy different moral categories, children and mentally impaired.

I think this is where we get pulled into the slipperiness of "capacity." I despise that word. While children differ from animals (most likely) in that they will one day have the full duties and rights of a person, it seems that the mentally impaired lack that distinction. This I'd say is quite interesting. Do you happen to know Stefan's take on the rights of those who are mentally impaired?