Gertie wrote: ↑
November 19th, 2020, 5:17 pm
I disagree with your assertion that non-conscious living organisms have no interest or stake or are impacted in any way by outcomes.I disagree with your assertion that non-conscious living organisms have no interest or stake or are impacted in any way by outcomes. The carrot, and every other living organism, is positively affected by events that enhance its ability to survive, thrive, and reproduce, and is negatively affected by events that impair its ability to survive, thrive, and reproduce. To me this seems a rather obvious fact of nature.
Fact - everything requires particular conditions to be met in order to Function in particular ways. Crystals, toasters, carrots, humans, etc.
Make your argument for why this has Moral implications for carrots surviving, thriving and reproducing. How Oughts are derived, and who or what these Oughts apply to.
I'm happy to make the argument again, but please don't complain that I am merely repeating myself when satisfying your request.
Morality is species specific. What we "ought to do" and "ought not do" to other members of our species is originally derived from our real needs. For the sake of argument, I assume Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a sufficient working analysis of the real needs of human beings. Our needs motivate us to satisfy them, and our needs at lower levels of the pyramid must be sufficiently satisfied before we attempt to satisfy needs at the next higher level.
In addition to the real needs of individual persons (covered by Maslow), there are real needs of societies (e.g., rules for cooperation), and real needs of species (e.g., less global warming).
We call something "good" if it satisfies a real need we have as an individual, as a society, or as a species. We call something "bad" if it unnecessarily harms the individual, the society, or the species.
Morality seeks the best good and least harm for everyone (of our species). A "moral person" shares that goal, and derives what they ought to do and ought not do according to rules and courses of action consistent with that goal.
To the degree that benefits (good's) and harms (bad's) can be objectively measured (and accurately predicted), our moral judgements can also be considered objective, because the object of our quest (best good and least harm for everyone) can be objectively calculated.
Because morality is species specific, the value of other species is a matter of their value to us, that is, how they help or hurt our ability to satisfy our own needs as individuals, as a society, or as a species.
If the species has value to us, as do carrots and cats, we tend to preserve that value by caring for that specie's real needs. And their real needs inform us as to what is objectively good or bad for them. The value we assign to the carrot is temporary. We care for the carrots only until they have grown large enough to eat. We care for the cats usually until they die.
If the species is considered harmful to us, like viruses, bacteria, mosquitoes, etc., then we attempt to prevent that harm, either locally (the mosquito) or universally (like the polio, measles, and covid-19 viruses).
The individuals of every species share a common biological goal: to survive, thrive, and reproduce. We observe behaviors in every species that can be explained by this model. And it is also found at the lower level of Maslow's Hierarchy regarding human motivation. The higher levels of Maslow's Hierarchy sit upon this foundational level.