Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?

[Sculptor1]

It's still rubbish, because its about the content of the brain, not its relative mass.

It's mass (or neuron count) limits what kinds of "content" it can manifest.

No it is no.
You can use a can to store petrol, oil , or dirty water.

[Sculptor1]

Well duh?? I am making moral judgements??

Yes: "Since Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler had more neurons than a female Labrador with her puppies you would have to conclude that wiping out millions of humans for greed and gain is more moral than giving up the substance of your own body to feed babies."

You're rendering judgment on the morality of Genghis Khan and Labradors. Which is irrelevant to the question of the moral standing of humans or Labradors.

GIve the boy a prize.
I suggest there is more morality in a bitch than a dictator, yet the dictator has more neural matter.
QED the thesis is BS.
Unless you want to argue the essential morality of Hitler; i'll leave it there.

[GrayArea]

Explain how i'm running myself in ever decreasing circles. You didn't really counterargue any of my points. Also, neural activity is not something that can be measured and put on a hierarchy, unlike computing power.

Good Grief!
That being the case then why are we even talking about this absurd wretched article?

Because I want to talk about it, and you're responding to me.

If, as you say, " neural activity is not something that can be measured and put on a hierarchy,", then the conversation os over.

As you can see from the fact that I've already pulled out several paragraphs regarding this topic prior to our current replies, it's not. Just because neural activities of different organisms cannot be measured "mechanically" doesn't mean that they are all the same. Just because we can't distinguish them 100%, doesn't mean we can't distinguish them at all. It's still possible to spot differences.

[GE Morton]

I suggest there is more morality in a bitch than a dictator, yet the dictator has more neural matter.

You're clearly unable to grasp the difference between moral standing and moral agency. Hence you continue to post irrelevant comments. You might want to research those concepts and come back to this thread.

[GrayArea]

Good Grief!
That being the case then why are we even talking about this absurd wretched article?

Because I want to talk about it, and you're responding to me.

If, as you say, " neural activity is not something that can be measured and put on a hierarchy,", then the conversation os over.

As you can see from the fact that I've already pulled out several paragraphs regarding this topic prior to our current replies, it's not. Just because neural activities of different organisms cannot be measured "mechanically" doesn't mean that they are all the same. Just because we can't distinguish them 100%, doesn't mean we can't distinguish them at all. It's still possible to spot differences.

To add on, there should be a correlation between several neural factors and the *possibility* to come up with advanced morals. But that doesn't mean we can completely measure the correlation.

[Sculptor1]

Good Grief!
That being the case then why are we even talking about this absurd wretched article?

Because I want to talk about it, and you're responding to me.

If, as you say, " neural activity is not something that can be measured and put on a hierarchy,", then the conversation os over.

As you can see from the fact that I've already pulled out several paragraphs regarding this topic prior to our current replies, it's not. Just because neural activities of different organisms cannot be measured "mechanically" doesn't mean that they are all the same. Just because we can't distinguish them 100%, doesn't mean we can't distinguish them at all. It's still possible to spot differences.

You cannot determine the meaning of the Mona Lisa by quantifying the size of the canvas and the quantities of paint.
Actually neural activities can be measured, but that would not give any information about morality, which means the article is false.

[Sculptor1]

I suggest there is more morality in a bitch than a dictator, yet the dictator has more neural matter.

You're clearly unable to grasp the difference between moral standing and moral agency. Hence you continue to post irrelevant comments. You might want to research those concepts and come back to this thread.

THere is no standard definition of either standing or agency and you have not bothered to offer either. You might want to get off your objectivist high horse lest you fall off.

If you don't like my posts please do not respond to them, since I cannot see anything of worth you are giving back.

[Count Lucanor]

Plain nonsense. Animals have no morals.

And humans are animals.

Therefore...?

Worms are animals, too. Tell me about the morality of worms.

[Count Lucanor]

Plain nonsense. Animals have no morals.

They're generally considered not to be moral agents (creatures who can formulate and understand moral principles), but to have some moral standing. That means that while they can have no moral obligations, moral agents may have some obligations to them.

While they may be the subject of some people's obligations towards other people, based on those people's interests, the animals themselves know nothing of such moral obligations, nor they understand what that means, because they are not moral agents.

[CIN]

I suggest there is more morality in a bitch than a dictator, yet the dictator has more neural matter.

You're clearly unable to grasp the difference between moral standing and moral agency. Hence you continue to post irrelevant comments. You might want to research those concepts and come back to this thread.

THere is no standard definition of either standing or agency and you have not bothered to offer either.

"An individual has moral standing for us if we believe that it makes a difference, morally, how that individual is treated, apart from the effects it has on others." (https://www.scu.edu/mcae/publications/i ... n%20others.)

"Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral choices based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_agency)

[GrayArea]

Because I want to talk about it, and you're responding to me.

If, as you say, " neural activity is not something that can be measured and put on a hierarchy,", then the conversation os over.

As you can see from the fact that I've already pulled out several paragraphs regarding this topic prior to our current replies, it's not. Just because neural activities of different organisms cannot be measured "mechanically" doesn't mean that they are all the same. Just because we can't distinguish them 100%, doesn't mean we can't distinguish them at all. It's still possible to spot differences.

You cannot determine the meaning of the Mona Lisa by quantifying the size of the canvas and the quantities of paint.
Actually neural activities can be measured, but that would not give any information about morality, which means the article is false.

My bad. What I should have said was "what neural activity means to the group of neurons we call the brain" cannot be measured mechanically, just like the meaning behind the Mona Lisa. It better suits the context of my replies. The "meaning" can still spring from the quantities of the paint and the size of the canvas, because they are what allows the painting to exist exactly as it is.

[GE Morton]

While they may be the subject of some people's obligations towards other people, based on those people's interests, the animals themselves know nothing of such moral obligations, nor they understand what that means, because they are not moral agents.

Agreed. But whether they have moral standing doesn't depend upon their being moral agents.

[Sy Borg]

If the neuron count of intelligent mammals currently being factory farmed changes that situation, I'm all for it.

[Count Lucanor]

While they may be the subject of some people's obligations towards other people, based on those people's interests, the animals themselves know nothing of such moral obligations, nor they understand what that means, because they are not moral agents.

Agreed. But whether they have moral standing doesn't depend upon their being moral agents.

Yes, but the point is that it is not an objective attribute of the animals themselves that defines this standing. They are mere vehicles of people's interests. It is no different than giving "moral standing" to inanimate things like property or sacred objects. For good or for bad, animals are for humans only objects, not subjects.

[Sculptor1]

I suggest there is more morality in a bitch than a dictator, yet the dictator has more neural matter.

You're clearly unable to grasp the difference between moral standing and moral agency. Hence you continue to post irrelevant comments. You might want to research those concepts and come back to this thread.

THere is no standard definition of either standing or agency and you have not bothered to offer either.

"An individual has moral standing for us if we believe that it makes a difference, morally, how that individual is treated, apart from the effects it has on others." (https://www.scu.edu/mcae/publications/i ... n%20others.)

"Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral choices based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_agency)

1) my comment was not directed at you.
2) Any fool can Google.
3) Googling is not likely to completely dovetail with the views of the person I was interacting with.