1. Animals are moral subjects (they can suffer and enjoy).

2. Animals are not moral agents (they either lack free will or are less free than us; ought implies can). — Agent Smith

3. We are animals – which delude themselves that they are not, or more than, animals – "not moral agents" ... :chin:

What do you mean by "moral agent" and how does this differ from "moral subject"?

We're more in control of ourselves than animals i.e. relatively speaking, we do possess free will; plus this control can be improved with praxis.

Moral agents havta possess free will!

Moral subjects only need possess the capacity to suffer (and enjoy).

Nonetheless we are only animals. As I've pointed out , caring for oneself and one's kind (recognizing that others need care as one needs care) is moral conduct – 'moral' meaning non-reciprocally reducing harm. As a compatibilist (Dennett), Smith, I think free (uncoerced) action is the necessary condition for agency.

:up:

We have moral beliefs ("x is wrong"), and I propose these beliefs are rooted (non-verbally) in feelings of empathy. It feels wrong when we see someone being hurt. We apply abstract reasoning to verbalize this into a "rule". — Relativist

Empathy is psychologically subjective condition that we share with other advanced animals. It is itself rooted in ability to assess the mental state of another being. Aren't values more permanently independent of our temporary psychological states? How do we get from a condition of empathy (or hate) to values that can guide us in our actions?

Empathy is psychologically subjective condition that we share with other advanced animals. It is itself rooted in ability to assess the mental state of another being. — magritte

I don't agree that empathy entails assessing the mental state of others. Rather, it is a vicarious feeling - reacting as if it were happening to ourselves (hence it is also tied to self-preservation).

Aren't values more permanently independent of our temporary psychological states?

Why think they exist independently of the minds that hold them? The concept of Spider-Man can be shared despite there not existing such a person.

How do we get from a condition of empathy (or hate) to values that can guide us in our actions?

We develop semantic moral guidelines by abstract reasoning and language.

The relevant language is grounded in our common set of perceptions and emotions, and shaped by our social environment.

Quite obviously, morality does not exist in animals, by definition.
So, what more are you looking for with your question and topic Do animals have morality?

we are only animals. — 180 Proof

Are we?

Definitions of "animal":

"A living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli." (Oxford LEXICO)

Something that lives and moves but is not a human, bird, fish, or insect (Ccambridge Dictionary)

A living thing that is not a human being or plant (Britannica Dictionary)

It's indeed very straibge to meet this kind of view about humans in an intellectual place as this (is supposed to be)!

Are we? — Alkis Piskas

Yes.

Morality is a universal-equalibrium, of typically consortia, who majestically judge each other; it is the super-frequency (ref. Sea) that is acceptable in the consort.

Sentience, or mental roaming, allows one to judge themselves. Sentient species often create laws, and laws make sense because of morality. For example: Morality is the reason(ref. Super frequency) we do not support killing in the civilized world.

To kill is an act that is commonly detested, because it causes pain to the victim; we do not kill because it is agreed upon and enforced that it would be less productive and unethical, and how we reach an agreement is through our sense of morality. Consortia preserved to the present day because past elements were moral, and in effort to continue this pattern, we amend our lifestyles to fit the consort. Considering all beings and their way of life, it befits that we do not kill each other, so that we can continue to exist as members of the consort; it's not a random thought- it's rooted in logic- technically we ought not kill- not killing isn't a question of morality but an answer to a former question: how do we do good?

Any animal that interacts socially will have its own unique brand of morality. But as humans, we can only relate to human morality. That's the only morality that matters to us. Part of human morality is judging the morals of others. We will always judge animals to have something which falls short of the human standard.

Yes — 180 Proof

Great argument!
Plus, while you seem to not know what an "animal" is, you still ignored the three definitions of the word "animal" that I took the trouble to bring up for you. What a fruitful discussion!

Dictionaries are neither philosophical nor evidentiary. I proffered an argument (link) which you may consider or ignore.

I assume you mean your quote from an old thread on a related topic: "Only expressions of morality (codes of conduct, or normative conventions) are "social constructs". Humans are eusocial animals and instincts for (a) reciprocal harm ..."

Well, this contains an arbitrary personal statement --Humans are eusocial animals-- based on no evidence, proof or definition/description of "human" or "animal". In fact, it is based on absolutely nothing.
Someone else could well say that "An animal is any living creature that does not fly!" and whatever other crazy stuff.

So, do you really prefer such arbitrary and unfounded descriptions than standard definitions? Can a sensible discussion be based on them?

I know, a lot of people hate or disprove of dictionaries, esp. some "philosophical thinkers". Let's follow this attitude, throw away all encyclopedias and disctionaries and start living in a Tower of Babel!

We develop semantic moral guidelines by abstract reasoning and language.

The relevant language is grounded in our common set of perceptions and emotions, and shaped by our social environment. — Relativist

It's hard to imagine animals developing semantic moral guidelines by abstract reasoning and language. Until we can observe animals doing this, there is no reason to assume they are ethical creatures

Well, this contains an arbitrary personal statement --Humans are eusocial animals-- based on no evidence, — Alkis Piskas

:sweat: Okay, whatever ...

It's hard to imagine animals developing semantic moral guidelines by abstract reasoning and language. Until we can observe animals doing this, there is no reason to assume they are ethical creatures — Merkwurdichliebe

If "ethical" = adhering to semantic statements of "oughts", then you're right. My point was that many animals exhibit empathy, which I propose is the pre-verbal basis that grounds morality.

:up:

If "ethical" = adhering to semantic statements of "oughts", then you're right. My point was that many animals exhibit empathy, which I propose is the pre-verbal basis that grounds morality. — Relativist

Abstract reasoning and language are the necessary interface by which the ethical is accessed and apprehended. For a creature to be ethical, it would require it to be capable of abstract reasoning and language which could then be developed into ethical ideas.

Ethical ideas of course begin as conceptions of good and evil, which are universal principles that can be codified into a specific set of rules that often become convention. Everything ethical is based in a knowledge of good and evil, and an irrational conviction in that knowledge. If rule following is to be considered ethical, it must refer back to that knowledge and conviction, otherwise it is simply rote behavior - nonethical.

My point is that, at its core, ethics depends on and is based in a belief in ethical ideas, not in feelings like empathy. In fact, if feelings were the basis for morality, feelings of fear, or love are as equally valid? Empathy is as arbitrary as any other.

Moral agents havta possess free will! — Agent Smith

Yes, free will is necessary for ethics, because it is the only criterion by which an ethical creature can be held accountable. The notion of accountability is as necessary as good and evil insofar as ethical ideas are concerned.

The interesting part is when we consider perfection. Is it possible for a moral agent to be unwavering in all ethical matters? Personally, I don't think so. It's only speculation, but this suggests to me that free will is something exercised (or, perhaps, accessible to us) only sporadically or contingently. Or, perhaps, we're all hopeless sinners as the judeochristians assert. Who knows?

moral conduct – 'moral' meaning non-reciprocally reducing harm. — 180 Proof

That's pretty far fetched. where did you come up with that?

We're born sinners, (slightly) more evil than good. Evil it seems is the default (re selfish genes); plus the good too are ultimately selfish (altruism is a sham). Hence, to be moral, one must resist our nature, our innate instinct to think only about our own welfare. Free Won't instead of Free Will.

we are only animals. — 180 Proof

It's indeed very strange to meet this kind of view about humans in an intellectual place as this (is supposed to be)! — Alkis Piskas

Perplexing indeed.

Someone else could well say that "An animal is any living creature that does not fly!" and whatever other crazy stuff. — Alkis Piskas

Let's just agree: humans are only animals. But then it must also be granted that: no other animals are human but humans. That alone puts humans in a unique place in the animal kingdom, one that may have exclusive access to ethics.

altruism is a sham — Agent Smith

Its the worst kind of selfishness.

Hence, to be moral, one must resist our nature, our innate instinct to think only about our own welfare. Free Won't instead of Free Will. — Agent Smith

There is speculation in various belief systems that our original nature is thrown out of balance at birth or shortly thereafter. Nevertheless, the overwhelming evidence shows that people are constitutionally fucked in the head.

"Free won't" is what Socrates did with his Socratic ignorance. And Diogenes did to an extreme with his cynicism. It begins with a special kind of doubt called the suspension of belief.

My point is that, at its core, ethics depends on and is based in a belief in ethical ideas, not in feelings like empathy. — Merkwurdichliebe

I would be curious to know what you thought of that video of a monkey getting outraged by unequal pay. Is the monkey just experiencing sympathy? Seems like he has some strong ethical opinions about what ought to be done. I doubt he's read the bible yet.


( https://youtu.be/meiU6TxysCg )
"Two Monkeys Were Paid Unequally: Excerpt from Frans de Waal's TED Talk"

Its the worst kind of selfishness. — Merkwurdichliebe

I wouldn't say that. Which is more impressive, a sinner trying to be good or a saint doing good?

suspension of belief. — Merkwurdichliebe

That's a good one! Epoché! The assumption being knowledge is impossible! The words "might", "maybe", "possibly", "could be", etc. exist for a very good reason then, oui?

I would be curious to know what you thought of that video of a monkey getting outraged by unequal pay. — Bird-Up

Well first, great video. Monkeys are hysterical.

What I noticed intitially, was that there was no mention of ethics or morality in the entire video. So im curious where you made the connection that, anything the monkeys did, demonstrated their behavior to be of an ethical nature.

I would be interested to see a post experiment interview, and hear what those monkeys had to say about their experience with unfairness.

Which is more impressive, a sinner trying to be good or a saint doing good? — Agent Smith

I don't believe in saints, but that's me, I could be wrong, it's a terrible tragedy. I just don't trust people that over-advertise their righteousness and benevolence. And a sinner trying to be (sincerely) good always impresses me. I have soft spot for redemption.

The words "might", "maybe", "possibly", "could be", etc. exist for a very good reason then, oui? — Agent Smith

Those are my favorite words to use here on tpf.

knowledge is impossible! — Agent Smith

That is philosophical speculation's Achilles heel. The postmodernist got that one, a really rigid and uptight version. But Socrates had it first, and a much cooler version.

The words "might", "maybe", "possibly", "could be", etc. exist for a very good reason then, oui? — Agent Smith

I like the phase: "I don't not believe it".

Aren't values more permanently independent of our temporary psychological states? — magritte

Of course, dummy . :kiss: Just kidding, you're not dumb.

But I agree, values are less transient than feelings. They are the elements of moral conviction, the ideas that bind the moral agent to his knowledge of good and evil.