Animal Rights (Chile)

[Sy Borg]

The evidence of widespread casual animal cruelty in China and Japan is a more powerful argument than some citation.

Indeed. But I'm not sure it's a simple as it seems. We see the evidence, and we conclude that Oriental people are just cruel (a very negative judgement). But I wonder if this is more about culture, and that Oriental cultural perspectives show a really big difference from those typically practiced by Occidentals? I do not seek to excuse anything, only to wonder if we're seeing the whole picture when we leap so easily to a knee-jerk condemnatory position?

IT does not mean that oriental people are more cruel in a genetic sense. But it just happens to be true that they do not see animals in the same way, presumably this is wholly a cultural phenomenon. What we would call a poor attitude can also be found amongst the Greeks too, who are presumably more genetically similar to dog loving Brits than a Japanese where they kill 100s of dogs everyday.
This underlines the cultural determinism of moral rules and rights.

China has been crowded and had issues with starvation and malnutrition for a very long time. If their development had not stalled so badly 500 years ago after the Qing leadership destroyed China's then-peerless navy, there would have been more prosperity and less starvation, and that would have meant less ruthlessness treatment of other species. The starving would see wild animals with very different eyes to the well-fed. Many precedents and traditions from darker times no doubt influence today's attitudes towards animals, especially in older generations.

Young Chinese people, most of whom have only known China as it was rising, tend to have much more compassion for other species than their parents' and grandparents' generations. I've chatted with quite a few expat Chinese dog owners, and they love their furry friends as much as anyone else, sometimes more!

[Sculptor1]

The evidence of widespread casual animal cruelty in China and Japan is a more powerful argument than some citation.

Indeed. But I'm not sure it's a simple as it seems. We see the evidence, and we conclude that Oriental people are just cruel (a very negative judgement). But I wonder if this is more about culture, and that Oriental cultural perspectives show a really big difference from those typically practiced by Occidentals? I do not seek to excuse anything, only to wonder if we're seeing the whole picture when we leap so easily to a knee-jerk condemnatory position?

IT does not mean that oriental people are more cruel in a genetic sense. But it just happens to be true that they do not see animals in the same way, presumably this is wholly a cultural phenomenon. What we would call a poor attitude can also be found amongst the Greeks too, who are presumably more genetically similar to dog loving Brits than a Japanese where they kill 100s of dogs everyday.
This underlines the cultural determinism of moral rules and rights.

China has been crowded and had issues with starvation and malnutrition for a very long time. If their development had not stalled so badly 500 years ago after the Qing leadership destroyed China's then-peerless navy, there would have been more prosperity and less starvation, and that would have meant less ruthlessness treatment of other species. The starving would see wild animals with very different eyes to the well-fed. Many precedents and traditions from darker times no doubt influence today's attitudes towards animals, especially in older generations.

Young Chinese people, most of whom have only known China as it was rising, tend to have much more compassion for other species than their parents' and grandparents' generations. I've chatted with quite a few expat Chinese dog owners, and they love their furry friends as much as anyone else, sometimes more!

Deprivation is neither an excuse nor an explanation of attitude to animals.
The Hindi will starve rather than eat a sacred cow.
Despite being one of the most food rich countries in the ancient world, the Egyptians would ritually torture pigs. Smashing their legs, without killing them repeatedly.

[Sy Borg]

Indeed. But I'm not sure it's a simple as it seems. We see the evidence, and we conclude that Oriental people are just cruel (a very negative judgement). But I wonder if this is more about culture, and that Oriental cultural perspectives show a really big difference from those typically practiced by Occidentals? I do not seek to excuse anything, only to wonder if we're seeing the whole picture when we leap so easily to a knee-jerk condemnatory position?

IT does not mean that oriental people are more cruel in a genetic sense. But it just happens to be true that they do not see animals in the same way, presumably this is wholly a cultural phenomenon. What we would call a poor attitude can also be found amongst the Greeks too, who are presumably more genetically similar to dog loving Brits than a Japanese where they kill 100s of dogs everyday.
This underlines the cultural determinism of moral rules and rights.

China has been crowded and had issues with starvation and malnutrition for a very long time. If their development had not stalled so badly 500 years ago after the Qing leadership destroyed China's then-peerless navy, there would have been more prosperity and less starvation, and that would have meant less ruthlessness treatment of other species. The starving would see wild animals with very different eyes to the well-fed. Many precedents and traditions from darker times no doubt influence today's attitudes towards animals, especially in older generations.

Young Chinese people, most of whom have only known China as it was rising, tend to have much more compassion for other species than their parents' and grandparents' generations. I've chatted with quite a few expat Chinese dog owners, and they love their furry friends as much as anyone else, sometimes more!

Deprivation is neither an excuse nor an explanation of attitude to animals.
The Hindi will starve rather than eat a sacred cow.
Despite being one of the most food rich countries in the ancient world, the Egyptians would ritually torture pigs. Smashing their legs, without killing them repeatedly.

Hindus are a very unusual example. Most "civilisations" of antiquity were much more like the Egyptians, and they were far from the worst or most cruel civilisation.

Consider how - with the benefit of thousands of years - Christians in the middle ages treated animals: https://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.co ... s.htm#bear

The headings in the article say as much as we need to know about the bullying by medieval Christians of helpless animals:

Introduction
Bear Baiting
Bull Baiting
Badger Baiting
Rat Baiting
Dog Fighting
Cock Fighting
Cock Throwing
Fox, Cat, Dog .... Tossing
Goose Pulling
Cat Burning / Vox in Rama
Church supported and Church sponsored Cruelty
Animal Trials
Hunting
Animal Torture

[value]

My apologies for the late reply.

No, value is assigned meaning, the result of 'the act of valuing' or signification. A number in mathematics or physics is value, for example.

Well, you're using a term, "value," whose meaning you don't understand (or have re-defined) and then attempting to define it using another term, "meaning," whose meaning you also don't understand. Assigning a value to something has nothing to do with any "meanings." Meanings are the referents of words, signs, symbols, etc. The term is not applicable to value assignments.

It is interesting to notice that you hold such a restrictive perspective on the term 'meaning' as if it cannot be used otherwhise than as an empirical referent. I have wondered how that could be explained. I noticed Terrapin Station to respond similarly when the term meaning was used (he hasn't been active on the forum for a while, hopefully he is doing well).

Some suggestions of common sense use of the term 'meaning':

1. "meaning of life"
2. "meaningful story"
3. "everything has a meaning" (a common saying, although I understand that it can be considered superstitious, it is a sort of cultural wisdom with regard the term 'meaning' in a sense)

As I mentioned before, when I consider the term meaning as such (any 'meaning' in whatever context), it involves an underbelly feeling like love. That feeling originates from conscious experience that doesn't have a scientific explanation as of today (besides registration of the empirical effects of consciousness).

What is a sign or symbol other than what it is perceived to be by an experiencer? That would imply that the term 'meaning' is always bound by a value assignment. Referential meaning would merely attempt to communicate a specific type or range of value assignment while a perceiver will have to make a value assignment to make it a part of its own meaningful experience.

Experience is the ultimate ground for any 'meaning'. A referent is merely a method to attempt to communicate meaning from one experiencer to another.

That would imply that the ground for 'meaning' is to be sought in (the origin of) conscious experience.

Considering the fact that the origin of consciousness cannot be explained using empirical science, it is simply an option that the origin is a priori and when it is considered that one has found oneself required to seek the origin of meaning in conscious experience, that might mean that the origin of meaning (of any meaning in the cosmos) is a priori.

With this option available, one can use simple logic to prove that meaning must in fact be a priori applicable to anything in the cosmos and that would imply that all in the cosmos is bound by valuation and thus can be considered 'value'.

Value would be 'assigned meaning'. Anything empirical (retro-perspective) would be value (meaning-of-significance i.e. 'good' in perpetuation).

Value is term for quantifying the strength or priority order of someone's desire for something. It also has another meaning, where it denotes a numerical quantity or a substitution instance for some variable ("The value of pi is 3.1416 . . ."). You seem to be confounding those two meanings above.

No, the term 'value' is not restricted to those two meanings. Value is what is valued. It is as simple as that. Value implies a valuer which is an experiencer. The origin of (meaningful) experience hasn't been explained scientifically as of today, resulting in an aspect of value that is mysterious / unexplained.

Value in the cosmos is anything of empirical nature. Cosmic value involves perpetuation of meaning-of-significance ('good') in the face of an unknown future. Value of an experiencer involves the same but it in a different context because meaningful experience has as origin the 'good' that is sought.

The slightest departure from pure randomness implies value.

Value to whom? Which sense of "value" are you using there? Randomness has nothing to do with value, in either sense, and certainly doesn't imply it. That claim of yours is incoherent. Propositions asserting "value," BTW, in the strength-of-desire sense, requires that a valuer be specified in order to be meaningful. If they don't they will be non-cognitive (lacking any determinable truth value).

To a valuer. Value always requires a valuer or 'experiencer'.

Any pattern (i.e. 'meaning') would break the purity of 'true randomness'. True randomness therefore would equal meaninglessness.

A 'set of rules' is ethics (which belongs to politics) and not morality. Morality is found in the process of denoting good and bad (an eternal quest for 'good' with value as a result).

Ethics and morality are one and the same thing (in the history of philosophy). And, no, morality is not "the process of denoting good and bad." It is a set of principles and rules governing human behavior. "Good" and "bad" are terms for indicating our approval or disapproval of something, or denoting our belief that something is harmful or beneficial. We may deem a human behavior "bad" if we disapprove of it, or deem it to be harmful. And what is this "eternal quest for good"? Whose quest is that? And if that "quest" were successful, what would be found?

I disagree. If ethics and morality were to be synonyms it would imply that concepts such as 'morale' could be replaced with 'ethicale' while that concept does not exist.

Ethics is empirical. It consists of theory based rules. Morality is a concept that is addressed by humans with their empirical means, such as ethics, but which essence (its origin for significance and consideration-worthiness) is not empirical in nature.

The citation of Kant in my previous reply-post argued that nothing empirical can provide a basis for morality (not ethics). Do you disagree with that assertion?

That process of morality requires a potential . . .

Morality is not a "process" of any kind (see definition above), though the effort to develop a set of rules governing human behavior may be a process, of course. And (as I said before) the only way we have of knowing whether any X has a potential for producing Y is our past experience with X. Also, any claim that for an existing X "there was a potential for X" would be an truism, and thus uninformative.

Morality is a concept that indicates that humans consider something consider-worthy while the origin of that consideration-worthiness is as of today unexplainable, resulting in an endless debate about the nature of morality which is evident from the thousands of topics about it on this forum.

Morality is related to meaningful experience. In my opinion, the a priori meaning that lays at the root of the cosmos and consciousness, and which is necessarily a requirement for the potential for value in the form of 'good per se' (because valuing is not about making a choice but to value on behalf of 'good') is the origin of morality and in a sense, what humans recognize as factor for consideration-worthiness of the concept morality, lays at the root of the cosmos.

Simply said: (the consideration-worthiness factor of) morality would lay at the root of existence and the cosmos.

Rights for Nature would provide a basis for the potential for moral consideration on behalf of animals and eco-systems.

Those would be legal rights, which may or may not be morally defensible.

Yes, but when it comes down to making a case why Nature should be defended, it will logically open a door for moral philosophical exploration on behalf of Nature, which could involve interests that span thousands of years time.

It is possible of course that Nature is to stand on the losing side of the legal system, however, that does not seem to be the intention of the granting of legal rights to Nature. Therefore, it is to be expected that morality on behalf of Nature is to be developed in the many legal cases that are performed, which will result in cultural awareness with the general public of the importance of moral concerns with regard Nature which means that the 'moral consideration potential on behalf of Nature' is expected to be enhanced by Rights of Nature on the longer term.

Therefore, it seems to me that Rights of Nature could have a very good effect in practice on the development of morality for Nature.

What would you say that the difference is between morality and ethics?

In the history of moral philosophy there is none; the terms are interchangeable. In common speech there is some difference, with "ethics" denoting various codified sets of rules governing a particular activity ("legal ethics," "medical ethics," etc.).

Do you believe that the term 'morality' in the citation of Kant in my previous post-reply can be replaced with 'ethics' without loss of the meaning that it intended to communicate? How can you explain it if it isn't possible to interchange the term morality and ethics in the citation of Kant?

As mentioned to @Pattern-chaser, morality would be a concept applicable to a human context while its fundamental nature (the act of valuing or signification) would correspond with what would lay at the root of the cosmos and thus conscious experience.

Well, there is that "word salad" again. The "fundamental nature" of morality is the "nature" I gave above. "Metaphysicians" constantly make claims about the "fundamental nature" of this or that, which claims are totally baseless and usually presume some sort of "transcendental reality" inaccessible to observation, thus rendering those claims unfalsifiable and unconfirmable --- i.e., vacuous. Likewise with any claims regarding what may lie at the "root of the cosmos." What lies at the "root" of conscious experience is a certain type of physical nervous system.

I do not agree with that. When you use the term 'observation' what is actually said is 'repeatability' (scientific evidence). How can it be possi

Philosophy can explore the fundamental nature of reality. Philosophy can explore meaning beyond the border or logical limit of logic (i.e. its own 'origin').

As mentioned, morality is a concept that indicates that humans consider something consider-worthy while the origin of that consideration-worthiness is as of today unexplainable, resulting in an endless debate about the nature of morality which is evident from the thousands of topics about it on this forum.

Some recent examples:

What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15726

Is Morality Subjective?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13400

Is morality based in meaning?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15640

The recognition of patterns necessarily involves the act of valuing. This would be evidence.

That is another misuse of terms. Pattern recognition has nothing whatever to do with values, or valuing.

I disagree. The a pattern involves meaning and thus the recognition of a pattern involves a valuation in order to signify the value that is to be perceived.

A pattern cannot be a given. If a pattern would be a given a posteriori, why would there be anything to 'experience'? Logically, a pattern involves a priori meaning which would explain that 'experience' is needed to recognize patterns.

[value]

The mentioned citation of 🕮 Immanuel Kant:

"We cannot too much or too often repeat our warning against this lax and even mean habit of thought which seeks for its principle amongst empirical motives and laws; for human reason in its weariness is glad to rest on this pillow, and in a dream of sweet illusions (in which, instead of Juno, it embraces a cloud) it substitutes for morality a bastard patched up from limbs of various derivation, which looks like anything one chooses to see in it, only not like virtue to one who has once beheld her in her true form."

What would you say that the difference is between morality and ethics?

In the history of moral philosophy there is none; the terms are interchangeable. In common speech there is some difference, with "ethics" denoting various codified sets of rules governing a particular activity ("legal ethics," "medical ethics," etc.).

Question: Do you believe that the term 'morality' in the citation of Kant can be replaced with 'ethics' without loss of the meaning that it intended to communicate? How can you explain it if it isn't possible to interchange the term morality and ethics?

[value]

As mentioned to Pattern-chaser, morality would be a concept applicable to a human context while its fundamental nature (the act of valuing or signification) would correspond with what would lay at the root of the cosmos and thus conscious experience.

Well, there is that "word salad" again. The "fundamental nature" of morality is the "nature" I gave above. "Metaphysicians" constantly make claims about the "fundamental nature" of this or that, which claims are totally baseless and usually presume some sort of "transcendental reality" inaccessible to observation, thus rendering those claims unfalsifiable and unconfirmable --- i.e., vacuous. Likewise with any claims regarding what may lie at the "root of the cosmos." What lies at the "root" of conscious experience is a certain type of physical nervous system.

I do not agree with that. When you use the term 'observation' what is actually said is 'repeatability' (scientific evidence). How can it be possi...

It should have read the following: What theory could possibly provide validity for the idea that only that what is repeatable is meaningfully relevant?

[Sculptor1]

IT does not mean that oriental people are more cruel in a genetic sense. But it just happens to be true that they do not see animals in the same way, presumably this is wholly a cultural phenomenon. What we would call a poor attitude can also be found amongst the Greeks too, who are presumably more genetically similar to dog loving Brits than a Japanese where they kill 100s of dogs everyday.
This underlines the cultural determinism of moral rules and rights.

China has been crowded and had issues with starvation and malnutrition for a very long time. If their development had not stalled so badly 500 years ago after the Qing leadership destroyed China's then-peerless navy, there would have been more prosperity and less starvation, and that would have meant less ruthlessness treatment of other species. The starving would see wild animals with very different eyes to the well-fed. Many precedents and traditions from darker times no doubt influence today's attitudes towards animals, especially in older generations.

Young Chinese people, most of whom have only known China as it was rising, tend to have much more compassion for other species than their parents' and grandparents' generations. I've chatted with quite a few expat Chinese dog owners, and they love their furry friends as much as anyone else, sometimes more!

Deprivation is neither an excuse nor an explanation of attitude to animals.
The Hindi will starve rather than eat a sacred cow.
Despite being one of the most food rich countries in the ancient world, the Egyptians would ritually torture pigs. Smashing their legs, without killing them repeatedly.

Hindus are a very unusual example. Most "civilisations" of antiquity were much more like the Egyptians, and they were far from the worst or most cruel civilisation.

Consider how - with the benefit of thousands of years - Christians in the middle ages treated animals: https://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.co ... s.htm#bear

The headings in the article say as much as we need to know about the bullying by medieval Christians of helpless animals:

Introduction
Bear Baiting
Bull Baiting
Badger Baiting
Rat Baiting
Dog Fighting
Cock Fighting
Cock Throwing
Fox, Cat, Dog .... Tossing
Goose Pulling
Cat Burning / Vox in Rama
Church supported and Church sponsored Cruelty
Animal Trials
Hunting
Animal Torture

Welcome to capitalism.

And yet, humans of the most early kind domesticated dogs as early as 25kbp. And many so-called "primitive" societies held all animal life in high regard adopting totem animals.

[Sy Borg]

And yet, humans of the most early kind domesticated dogs as early as 25kbp. And many so-called "primitive" societies held all animal life in high regard adopting totem animals.

It seems to me that progress always involves losses. When more technologically advanced Europeans invaded the lands of indigenous societies, a great deal of knowledge about the land and grounded attitudes towards the land and other animals were lost. Some of that lost knowledge and attitudes have been found again by biological science, but some is lost irretrievably. Today, the results of "civilisations" (perhaps an ironic misnomer) failing to properly value nature is there for all to see.

[GE Morton]

It is interesting to notice that you hold such a restrictive perspective on the term 'meaning' as if it cannot be used otherwhise than as an empirical referent. I have wondered how that could be explained. I noticed @Terrapin Station to respond similarly when the term meaning was used (he hasn't been active on the forum for a while, hopefully he is doing well).

Some suggestions of common sense use of the term 'meaning':

1. "meaning of life"
2. "meaningful story"
3. "everything has a meaning" (a common saying, although I understand that it can be considered superstitious, it is a sort of cultural wisdom with regard the term 'meaning' in a sense)

Yes, the word "meaning" has a few other meanings, the chief one, after being the referent of a word or symbol, is intent or purpose: "What is the meaning of this?!"

"Meaning (noun):

"1.a. The denotation, referent, or idea associated with a word or phrase: How many meanings does the word "dog" have?
b. Something that is conveyed or intended, especially by language; sense or significance: The writer's meaning was obscured by convoluted prose.
"2. An interpreted goal, intent, or end: "The central meaning of his pontificate is to restore papal authority" (Conor Cruise O'Brien).
"3. A sense of importance or purpose: When he became a teacher, he felt that his life had meaning."

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=meaning

As I mentioned before, when I consider the term meaning as such (any 'meaning' in whatever context), it involves an underbelly feeling like love. That feeling originates from conscious experience that doesn't have a scientific explanation as of today (besides registration of the empirical effects of consciousness).

Ah. You seem to be using it to mean, "Arouses some emotional response." But no, emotional responses don't "originate from" conscious experience; they are types of conscious experience. Conscious experience is not something different from them which precedes them. And, yes, certain emotional responses to things, such as liking or not liking them, can induce the subject to assign values to them, positive or negative. But emotional responses have nothing to do with randomness, or with rational morality.

Experience is the ultimate ground for any 'meaning'. A referent is merely a method to attempt to communicate meaning from one experiencer to another.

That would imply that the ground for 'meaning' is to be sought in (the origin of) conscious experience.

"Meaning" (in that "emotional response" sense in which you're using it) has no "ground" and doesn't need one --- except in the sense that emotional responses are phenomenal manifestations of neural processes.

Considering the fact that the origin of consciousness cannot be explained using empirical science, it is simply an option that the origin is a priori and when it is considered that one has found oneself required to seek the origin of meaning in conscious experience, that might mean that the origin of meaning (of any meaning in the cosmos) is a priori.

Well, that is simply false. The "origin of consciousness" is neural processes. The origin of emotional responses (your "meaning") is neural processes. No consciousness or emotional responses exist except as products of neural processes. While it is true that consciousness precedes theory (only conscious creatures can concoct theories), that is trivial; theoretically, neural processes precede consciousness. And explaining consciousness requires a theory of consciousness.

It's also misleading to claim that "the origin of consciousness cannot be explained using empirical science." While we can't explain just how neural processes generate consciousness (and will never be able to do so), that certain neural structures and processes DO generate consciousness is beyond question.

With this option available, one can use simple logic to prove that meaning must in fact be a priori applicable to anything in the cosmos and that would imply that all in the cosmos is bound by valuation and thus can be considered 'value'.

That is gibberish. I assume that by "meaning must in fact be a priori applicable to anything in the cosmos" you mean that anything in the cosmos could potentially evoke some emotional response from a conscious creature (your definition of "meaning" being emotional responses). I suppose that is true, but what, and whose, emotional responses do you have in mind? You realize that those are idiosyncratic, varying from thing to thing and from individual to individual, don't you? There is no "meaning" applicable to everything in the cosmos, only subjective meanings (plural), as many as there are conscious creatures to behold and respond to the various things in the cosmos. Any values assigned those things will also be plural and idiosyncratic. And, of course, nothing in the cosmos is "bound" by any of those responses or valuations. There is neither any "logic" involved nor anything a priori about emotional responses or value assignments.

No, the term 'value' is not restricted to those two meanings. Value is what is valued. It is as simple as that. Value implies a valuer which is an experiencer. The origin of (meaningful) experience hasn't been explained scientifically as of today, resulting in an aspect of value that is mysterious / unexplained.

No, value is not "what is valued." You persist in misunderstanding the concept of value. "The value of this Picasso painting is over $1 million": The Picasso is not a value; it is a painting. It's value is not even a property of the painting; it is a pseudo-property of it (an external fact about it expressed as a property). It's value is the price someone has paid for it, or is expected to pay for it. The painting will have as many values as there are persons to assign one to it. You're right that values are mysterious --- we can't explain exactly why Alfie prefers chocolate ice cream while Bruno prefers Rocky Road --- but there is nothing mystical about that. We can pretty sure that difference results from somewhat different wiring or programming in their brains, or perhaps somewhat different body chemistries.

In short, value is not some "a priori" feature or component of the universe. It is not even a property of anything. It is just a measure of the relative strength of someone's desire for some thing, and will vary from valuer to valuer, for any given thing.

Value in the cosmos is anything of empirical nature.

Sorry, but that is an ad hoc, spurious definition of "value" yielding a meaningless claim.

Cosmic value involves perpetuation of meaning-of-significance ('good') in the face of an unknown future.

"Cosmic value" is a nonsensical expression, and whatever is "meaning-of-significance ('good')" is only meaningful and "good" with respect to a person, and varies from person to person.

Any pattern (i.e. 'meaning') would break the purity of 'true randomness'.

Huh? "Meaning" is now a pattern? I though it was an emotional response. You need to make yourself clear on the meaning of this "meaning" upon which you so heavily rely.

"True randomness" is usually taken to mean, "uncaused," and something that is uncaused is unpredictable. The concept has nothing to do with "meaning," per any of the definitions you waver among.

I disagree. If ethics and morality were to be synonyms it would imply that concepts such as 'morale' could be replaced with 'ethicale' while that concept does not exist.

It implies no such thing. "Moral" and "morale" have the same Latin root, but denote entirely different things.

Ethics is empirical. It consists of theory based rules. Morality is a concept that is addressed by humans with their empirical means, such as ethics, but which essence (its origin for significance and consideration-worthiness) is not empirical in nature.

Sorry, but I'm always amused by these claims about the "essences" of things, and the Platonic mysticism they usually entail. There is a useful meaning of "essence" i.e., a defining or most characteristic property of something --- but "significance and consideration-worthiness" are not defining or most characteristic properties of "morality." They're not even relevant to the concept.

Morality is a concept that indicates that humans consider something consider-worthy while the origin of that consideration-worthiness is as of today unexplainable, resulting in an endless debate about the nature of morality which is evident from the thousands of topics about it on this forum.

Moralities are rules of conduct. Some private moralities (which are subjective and idiosyncratic) can indeed rest on non-rational beliefs and personal values. Those are of no interest to philosophers (because they are not rationally defensible).

In my opinion, the a priori meaning that lays at the root of the cosmos and consciousness, and which is necessarily a requirement for the potential for value in the form of 'good per se' (because valuing is not about making a choice but to value on behalf of 'good') is the origin of morality and in a sense, what humans recognize as factor for consideration-worthiness of the concept morality, lays at the root of the cosmos.

Yikes, another word salad. You now seem to be attaching yet another meaning to "meaning." please DEFINE this meaning as you're using it above. Please also explain how you know it "lies at the root of the cosmos," and what "lying at the root of the cosmos" means (I've never heard any cosmologist refer to a "root" of the cosmos). And, of course, there is no "good per se." That is another nonsensical, undefined Platonic expression that ignores the common definitions and uses of the terms "good" and "bad" and is used instead to construct vacuous, non-cognitive propositions.

In the history of moral philosophy there is none; the terms are interchangeable. In common speech there is some difference, with "ethics" denoting various codified sets of rules governing a particular activity ("legal ethics," "medical ethics," etc.).

Do you believe that the term 'morality' in the citation of Kant in my previous post-reply can be replaced with 'ethics' without loss of the meaning that it intended to communicate?

Yes.

Philosophy can explore the fundamental nature of reality. Philosophy can explore meaning beyond the border or logical limit of logic (i.e. its own 'origin').

No, it can't. Science does that. No amount of introspection or speculation or imagination or cogitation or even logic can reveal the slightest thing about "reality." Only observation can reveal anything about "reality," though imagination and cogitation can suggest observations. The most that philosophy can do is inform science with respect to methodology, and try to assure that what scientists and we SAY about reality is coherent and consistent.

[Sculptor1]

And yet, humans of the most early kind domesticated dogs as early as 25kbp. And many so-called "primitive" societies held all animal life in high regard adopting totem animals.

It seems to me that progress always involves losses. When more technologically advanced Europeans invaded the lands of indigenous societies, a great deal of knowledge about the land and grounded attitudes towards the land and other animals were lost. Some of that lost knowledge and attitudes have been found again by biological science, but some is lost irretrievably. Today, the results of "civilisations" (perhaps an ironic misnomer) failing to properly value nature is there for all to see.

True enough.
But even people who think they are trying to redress the problem tend to set themselves against nature. Veganism is one such faith, which promotes and unnatural diet, relying heavily of cultivars that are unrecognisable from their originals plants, and depend on invasive and damaging agricultural processes.

[GE Morton]

Today, the results of "civilisations" (perhaps an ironic misnomer) failing to properly value nature is there for all to see.

A strange claim, given that the very idea of "valuing nature" is a product of civilization, as are all the sciences and legal constraints devised for studying and protecting it. Pre-civilized peoples did not "value nature;" they trampled it to whatever extent their numbers and technology allowed. When they'd exhausted the game and edible plants in one valley, they moved on to another. Within a thousand years of the arrival of humans in the Americas all the native megafauna had become extinct. Native Americans drove bison herds off cliffs to their deaths, in order to recover meat and hides from the carcasses.

You're indulging in the romantic "noble savage" myth.

[Sy Borg]

Today, the results of "civilisations" (perhaps an ironic misnomer) failing to properly value nature is there for all to see.

A strange claim, given that the very idea of "valuing nature" is a product of civilization, as are all the sciences and legal constraints devised for studying and protecting it. Pre-civilized peoples did not "value nature;" they trampled it to whatever extent their numbers and technology allowed. When they'd exhausted the game and edible plants in one valley, they moved on to another. Within a thousand years of the arrival of humans in the Americas all the native megafauna had become extinct. Native Americans drove bison herds off cliffs to their deaths, in order to recover meat and hides from the carcasses.

You're indulging in the romantic "noble savage" myth.

I can see why you'd think that, but it's not the case.

Indigenous people developed copious bodies of knowledge handed down over many generations about their lands and its flora and fauna. Often the knowledge was dismissed by European invaders, dismissing them as animalistic savages.

The results of that loss of knowledge and respect for nature have been apparent since, with numerous "own goals" being perpetrated by the urban societies built on the bones of indigenous ones - salination, desertification, extinctions of keystone species, the breaking up of valuable waterways and so on.

Of course, it's all spilt milk now.

[GE Morton]

Indigenous people developed copious bodies of knowledge handed down over many generations about their lands and its flora and fauna. Often the knowledge was dismissed by European invaders, dismissing them as animalistic savages. The results of that loss of knowledge and respect for nature have been apparent since, with numerous "own goals" being perpetrated by the urban societies built on the bones of indigenous ones - salination, desertification, extinctions of keystone species, the breaking up of valuable waterways and so on.

I'm certainly not claiming that civilizations has always paid heed to the natural environment; it inherited its rapacity from its pre-civilized forebears, who paid no heed either (nor do any other animals). Those concerns are pretty new-fangled, and only arose because of the increase in knowledge about natural processes and interdependencies made possible by civilization.

And whatever knowledge pre-civilized peoples possessed about nature has been far exceeded by that delivered by modern science.

[Sy Borg]

Indigenous people developed copious bodies of knowledge handed down over many generations about their lands and its flora and fauna. Often the knowledge was dismissed by European invaders, dismissing them as animalistic savages. The results of that loss of knowledge and respect for nature have been apparent since, with numerous "own goals" being perpetrated by the urban societies built on the bones of indigenous ones - salination, desertification, extinctions of keystone species, the breaking up of valuable waterways and so on.

I'm certainly not claiming that civilizations has always paid heed to the natural environment; it inherited its rapacity from its pre-civilized forebears, who paid no heed either (nor do any other animals). Those concerns are pretty new-fangled, and only arose because of the increase in knowledge about natural processes and interdependencies made possible by civilization.

And whatever knowledge pre-civilized peoples possessed about nature has been far exceeded by that delivered by modern science.

It's too late. Modern science has come a long way, but modern societies remain far behind indigenous ones in terms of land management, made evident by the permanent ruin of many valuable ecosystems, an extinction event, climate change and so on (the list is very long). No matter what the theory might say, the evidence of our environmental incompetence and lack of understanding is irrefutably right before us. The tiny number of biologists who have developed great natural knowledge are, of course, routinely ignored by those making decisions.

The issues are far from new. Civilisations have fallen due to land mismanagement. Environmental issues naturally came from the agricultural revolution, which altered natural ecosystems. From there, numerous mistakes have been made due to lack of local knowledge that have decimated ecosystems.

[GE Morton]

The issues are far from new. Civilisations have fallen due to land mismanagement. Environmental issues naturally came from the agricultural revolution, which altered natural ecosystems. From there, numerous mistakes have been made due to lack of local knowledge that have decimated ecosystems.

Jared Diamond called the advent of agriculture "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race."

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet ... human-race