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 — Merkwurdichliebe

True! Like I suspected, there's evil (openly malicious) and then there's evil evil (mimicking good, doubling the sin).

Those are my favorite words to use here on tpf. — Merkwurdichliebe

I wouldn't say they're my favorites too, but my general ignorance doesn't permit me to abandon their use.

I wouldn't say they're my favorites too, but my general ignorance doesn't permit me to abandon their use. — Agent Smith

If I were to give philosophical advice, I would say: lean into it... embrace your ignorance and cultivate the use of such sophisticated terminologies.

If I were to give philosophical advice, I would say: lean into it... embrace your ignorance and cultivate the use of such sophisticated terminologies — Merkwurdichliebe

Ok! Danke.

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. — Merkwurdichliebe

Well, if the monkey was just experiencing sympathy (mirroring), then it might feel hunger when it realized another monkey was eating food; and I'm sure it did experience that. But it seems to take it one step further with the anger: "I should be fed if that monkey is being fed!"

Seems like an ethical situation when the monkey starts thinking about abstract ideas of what should or shouldn't be done. And if such thoughts aren't passing through its head, then what do you think is the source of its anger?

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. — Bird-Up

That's the best argument yet for animal morality. But it falls victim to the phenomenological dilemma, that we can never access morality in itself (noumenal), we are confined to morality as it seems to us (phenomenological)

Seems like an ethical situation when the monkey starts thinking about abstract ideas of what should or shouldn't be done. And if such thoughts aren't passing through its head, then what do you think is the source of its anger? — Bird-Up

I did not catch the part when the monkey was thinking (about abstract ideas of what should or shouldn't be done). Those thoughts never came close to occurring to me. I think the source of its anger was that it wanted to eat grapes over cucumber. I agree with the monkey. Grapes are tastier than cucumbers.

that was hilarious when the dumb monkey threw the blasted cucumber at the scientist

I did not catch the part when the monkey was thinking (about abstract ideas of what should or shouldn't be done). Those thoughts never came close to occurring to me. I think the source of its anger was that it wanted to eat grapes over cucumber. I agree with the monkey. Grapes are tastier than cucumbers. — Merkwurdichliebe

I just mean abstract in the simplest sense of the word: seeing scenarios in its head that aren't actually taking place in the world around it.

Grapes are tastier than cucumbers. But I found it interesting how the monkey's eyes are darting back and forth from the human to the other monkey. The sense of concern. It seems to be experiencing jealousy.

Isn't jealousy an inherently ethical notion? How can you feel that you are getting less than you deserve, without first having ideas about what is deserved?

Seems to be about exactly when the monkey gets angry, and the extent of how quickly the anger escalates. Strikes me as more than dissatisfaction with cucumbers.

that was hilarious when the dumb monkey threw the blasted cucumber at the scientist — Merkwurdichliebe

Ha yeah I like the part where he rattles the wall of his cage like a prisoner.

Isn't jealousy an inherently ethical notion? How can you feel that you are getting less than you deserve, without first having ideas about what is deserved?

Seems to be about exactly when the monkey gets angry, and the extent of how quickly the anger escalates. Strikes me as more than dissatisfaction with cucumber — Bird-Up

Perhaps jealousy is an ethically based idea. Whatever the case, it can only have significance as an ethical term for the ethical creature.

All of our interpretation of the monkey behaving on some moral knowledge or intuition is merely us projecting our ethical nature upon them.

As far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with the appetitive nature of the monkey. Perhaps it is acting selfishly, something we determine to be wrong as ethical creatures. For a nonethical creature, selfish behavior is a percieved means to acquire its want.

Ha yeah I like the part where he rattles the wall of his cage like a prisoner. — Bird-Up

It was pretty funny. How can you not love monkey business :blush:

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

Sure, we can say ethics is based on ethical ideas, but it begs the question: what's the basis of the ethical ideas? Moral imperatives aren't merely arbitrary propositions stored in the memory bank. No one needs to instruct you to behave in ways that contribute to self-preservation, nor apply this vicariously. These are grounded in feelings, not in words.

if feelings were the basis for morality, feelings of fear, or love are as equally valid?

All feelings lead us in intellectual directions. Words like "love" and "hate" have no meaning at all without the experience of the feeling. But sure, all feelings are valid and influence our intellectual directions. Hate and fear lead people to rationalize killing in war or for self-preservation.

Basically you are boiling this down to humans having a complex language and other animals not?

I agree. ‘Morality’ is a concept born through complex language. The objective origins of ‘morality’ would be something different from what we general call ‘morality’.

To even begin to address whether animals have some species of ‘morality’ would first require us to outline, on an objective level, what/where morality is and then be able to apply some kind of empirical unit to it that remains constant.

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 — Merkwurdichliebe

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain why so many people and even scientists believe humans are animals and describe them as such: It's the narrow view that characterizes them. They all consider one only part of the human being: the physical/physiological one. Indeed,

"Although humans and animals (technically “non-human animals”) may look different, at a physiological and anatomical level they are remarkably similar." (https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/the-animal-model/)

But another part of humans is ignored: the non-physical/physiological one. This is where "ethics", which you mentioned, belongs. This is where mind --thinking, logic, imagination, etc.-- belongs. This part classifies humans in a separate category of life and living creatures of its own.

That the belief that humans are animals is only superficial and not actual is reflected in everyday life in a lot of ways: animal protection, animal cruelty, people loving or hating animals, wild animals & zoos, animal life, can animals do this and that?, and so one. There's a single category of doctors that treat animals: the veterinarians. There are dozens of categories of doctors who treat humans. It's not just a question of complexity; it's a question of diversity.

All that clearly show the differentiation humans actual make between themselves and animals.

Tell me again then that "Humans are only animals".

Sure, we can say ethics is based on ethical ideas, but it begs the question: what's the basis of the ethical ideas? — Relativist

A creature capable of abstract reasoning.

Moral imperatives aren't merely arbitrary propositions stored in the memory bank. No one needs to instruct you to behave in ways that contribute to self-preservation, nor apply this vicariously. These are grounded in feelings, not in words.

Conceptions of good and evil are quite arbitrary, which would make their corresponding moral imperatives arbitrary at their core because they are grounded in a knowledge of good and evil, and a conviction in that knowledge. Any feelings involved with moral imperatives are intuitive rather than emotive.

And, there you go, randomly bringing up "self-preservation", which has nothing to do with morality, unless you assign it an ethical value.

:up:

Excellent analysis! :up:

The moral agent is an agent who can do the wrong and the right. Are the wrong and the right only present in the human animal?

Sure, we can say ethics is based on ethical ideas, but it begs the question: what's the basis of the ethical ideas?
— Relativist

A creature capable of abstract reasoning. — Merkwurdichliebe

Describe a scenario whereby ungrounded abstract reasoning leads to the golden rule. My position is that the relevant abstract reasoning is grounded in feelings. You disagree, and indicated the grounding is nothing more than abstract reasoning itself - no other ground.

Conceptions of good and evil are ... grounded in a knowledge of good and evil — Merkwurdichliebe

Circular.

:pray:
Glad you agree with keeping and using disctionaries! :smile:

My position is that ... the grounding is nothing more than ... ground. — Relativist

You make quite a tautology here.

Grapes are tastier than cucumbers. — Bird-Up

Fresh cucumbers Worldwide sales for cucumbers exports by country totaled US$2.84 billion in 2020 — Google

:chin:

:chin: — Agent Smith

I don't mind a cucumber, but I do wonder why people continue to buy certain boring-tasting plants. Would it be off-topic to turn a discussion about animal morality into a debate about the ethics of cauliflower? Why are we still eating cauliflower in 2022? We aren't ancient peasants struggling to procrastinate starvation for one more week.

:snicker:

My position is that ... the grounding is nothing more than ... ground.
— Relativist

You make quite a tautology here. — Merkwurdichliebe

That's not a point I made. You omitted relevant words, and I think you know that.

If you're hinting that I did the same, I need you to explain. What I left out was your assertion that conceptions of good/evil are arbitrary, but this doesn't seem to change what you consider to be the grounding. You simply indicated it was arbitrary BECAUSE of being "grounded in a knowledge of good and evil". So it sure seemed to me you were saying the concepts were grounded in the knowledge, which makes no sense. If this is a misunderstanding, then please clarify.

You know what, Good and Bad are simply sublimations of Pleasure and Pain. They could be considered euphemisms like "passed away" is for "dead". Psychologically speaking, we don't like ourselves that much, we're too animal you see and so we wanna bootstrap ourselves out of the animal kingdom onto a higher rung in the great chain of being. That was the bad news. The good news? We at the very least recognize our own shortcomings/flaws/defects/folly...this is our curse. :snicker:

:smirk:

The lion is under attack. Ten hyenas bite the poor thing from all sides. He won't make it...

Then... Another lion arrives and scares the hyenas off. The poor lion jumps his brother to thank him and both run away happily.

Why are we still eating cauliflower in 2022? — Bird-Up

Dress it up with breading and buffalo sauce and you might change your mind :wink:.

Animal brains are mapped differently than sentient animals, so even if they have neurons/mirror neurons, their use is dissimilar to the degree of sentience. Therefore they do not think about right or wrong, they just be, rightly or wrongly.

Does an animal stop before it kills its prey and reconsider 'should I do this?', no, it doesn't have mirror neurons firing at necessary time consistencies.

Therefore, unless tamed or trained animals do not understand what's good, and do not have morality(i.e. free of moral burden).