Hi, Taq.
Sorry it's taken so long: I was at a family wedding this weekend.
Taq writes:
Bluejay writes:
No fair! You didn't quote my whole sentence...
Sorry if you feel misquoted. I was trying to show that I disagreed with the premise of your argument, the "if" part.
Oh. Then, in that case, I retract my outrage.
-----
Taq writes:
But does this [depraved indifference] extend to the rest of the animal kingdom? I would say no. I think this is tied in with the Naturalistic fallacy. The fallacy is that if something is natural it is good. That is wrong.
I think I'm confused most by why there are "right" and "wrong" for our actions, but not for other organisms' actions. I understand that we shouldn't expect sub-sentient organisms to grasp the concept of morality and adjust their behaviors accordingly, but that's not the point.
The standards can be different for different beings for one of two reasons: (1) morality is subjective, as are the criteria for determining what is and isn't to be considered a moral agent; (2) morality is objective, and an
amoral entity is one that is not expected to act morally due to some logical, objective criterion (e.g. sentience or competence).
We're obviously not talking about the first situation here, and, if we were, this whole discussion would be pointless.
So, let's focus on the second situation. In this case, the actions of amoral beings are still right or wrong, but are simply excused or forgiven because there is no expectation of morality from them. But, they are still objectively right or wrong. And, since
we are expected to act morally, aren't we also expected to stop something "wrong" from happening if we have the means?
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.