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

[Sculptor1]

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.

No to the last point, since you can get the same reaction with another image, say an electronic one or a photograph. I would be willing to bet that you have not actually gazed upon the real thing. I've been to the Louvre and not bothered to sift through the crowd myself.
I would add that you can take the same quantity of paint and size of canvas and create something with zero merit. I've painted many such examples myself!!

So I really do not see what value this idea has. and would suspect the writer's understanding of the most basic and simple facts concerning what morality is.

[Pattern-chaser]

Then it seems to talk about the total number of neurons per species, multiplying the neuron count by the count of individuals, and concludes that humans are, in some way, superior because of this.

Yes, it takes a utilitarian turn at that point ("greatest good for the greatest number"). But that argument is no more valid for animal welfare than it is for humans.

Yes, but it starts with the idea that neuron-count determines whether the animal deserves to be treated decently. Then, by adding the total (extant) population of that animal into the mix, it effectively says that the more numerous an animal species is, the more it deserves decent treatment. To me, that is surely nonsense?

[GrayArea]

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.

No to the last point, since you can get the same reaction with another image, say an electronic one or a photograph. I would be willing to bet that you have not actually gazed upon the real thing. I've been to the Louvre and not bothered to sift through the crowd myself.
I would add that you can take the same quantity of paint and size of canvas and create something with zero merit. I've painted many such examples myself!!

So I really do not see what value this idea has. and would suspect the writer's understanding of the most basic and simple facts concerning what morality is.

Well, the photograph of the Mona Lisa will indeed bring upon the same reaction strictly because of what created the original Mona Lisa, one of the factors for its creation being the quantity of the paint and the size of the canvas.

As I keep on saying, the "Quantity of the paint and the size of the canvas" are merely two of the several required factors to draw the Mona Lisa. But they are still required nonetheless.

Okay, so let's say we have the right amount of paint and the right amount of canvas size. Now we need to use them in a specific way to draw the Mona Lisa. If we don't use them in a specific way, it's gonna turn out to be nothing. So clearly there are other factors at play here. However, if we don't even have the specific quantity of paint, or the size of the canvas to begin with, the "specific way" in which we use them will also be affected. Those two factors are not identical. The latter would instead be a subset of the former.

I will go out on a limb and say this: I also believe that the size of the canvas "is" the canvas itself, which contains the painting. I believe this because I believe that the canvas's existence is as much determined by its size, as the size is determined by the canvas. That it goes both ways. Same may apply to the quantity of the paint and the paint itself.

[GE Morton]

2) Any fool can Google.

You apparently can't, or you'd have found that definition yourself. There are many other sources offering equivalent definitions as well.

3) Googling is not likely to completely dovetail with the views of the person I was interacting with.

It does in this case.

[GE Morton]

Yes, but it starts with the idea that neuron-count determines whether the animal deserves to be treated decently. Then, by adding the total (extant) population of that animal into the mix, it effectively says that the more numerous an animal species is, the more it deserves decent treatment. To me, that is surely nonsense?

I agree that such an inference would be invalid.

[GE Morton]

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.

For some people other humans are "only objects," "vehicles of other people's interests." Presumably you'd agree that all humans have moral standing, and that standing is established by objective qualities. Might some of those qualities not be possessed by some other animals?

BTW, I agree that what confers moral standing is a thorny problem, for both humans and other animals.

[CIN]

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.

Forums don't work like that. Anyone can reply to any post from anyone else. Haven't you grasped that simple fact yet?

2) Any fool can Google.

And I'm sure you often have. But being found via Google does not render material irrelevant.

3) Googling is not likely to completely dovetail with the views of the person I was interacting with.

That's for the person you were interacting with to decide, not you.

If you wish to persist in your failure to learn the very clear and obvious distinction between moral standing and moral agency, probably no-one can put you right. But your posts in this thread are of little value if you don't grasp it.

[Sculptor1]

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.

No to the last point, since you can get the same reaction with another image, say an electronic one or a photograph. I would be willing to bet that you have not actually gazed upon the real thing. I've been to the Louvre and not bothered to sift through the crowd myself.
I would add that you can take the same quantity of paint and size of canvas and create something with zero merit. I've painted many such examples myself!!

So I really do not see what value this idea has. and would suspect the writer's understanding of the most basic and simple facts concerning what morality is.

Well, the photograph of the Mona Lisa will indeed bring upon the same reaction strictly because of what created the original Mona Lisa, one of the factors for its creation being the quantity of the paint and the size of the canvas.

No it shows precisely the opposite.

As I keep on saying, the "Quantity of the paint and the size of the canvas" are merely two of the several required factors to draw the Mona Lisa. But they are still required nonetheless.

Okay, so let's say we have the right amount of paint and the right amount of canvas size. Now we need to use them in a specific way to draw the Mona Lisa. If we don't use them in a specific way, it's gonna turn out to be nothing. So clearly there are other factors at play here. However, if we don't even have the specific quantity of paint, or the size of the canvas to begin with, the "specific way" in which we use them will also be affected. Those two factors are not identical. The latter would instead be a subset of the former.

I will go out on a limb and say this: I also believe that the size of the canvas "is" the canvas itself, which contains the painting. I believe this because I believe that the canvas's existence is as much determined by its size, as the size is determined by the canvas. That it goes both ways. Same may apply to the quantity of the paint and the paint itself.

I've no idea why you are continuing to struggle with supporting this idea.

[Sculptor1]

2) Any fool can Google.

You apparently can't, or you'd have found that definition yourself. There are many other sources offering equivalent definitions as well.

3) Googling is not likely to completely dovetail with the views of the person I was interacting with.

It does in this case.

Yes and it still makes you look absurd.

[Sculptor1]

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.

Forums don't work like that. Anyone can reply to any post from anyone else. Haven't you grasped that simple fact yet?

2) Any fool can Google.

And I'm sure you often have. But being found via Google does not render material irrelevant.

3) Googling is not likely to completely dovetail with the views of the person I was interacting with.

That's for the person you were interacting with to decide, not you.

If you wish to persist in your failure to learn the very clear and obvious distinction between moral standing and moral agency, probably no-one can put you right. But your posts in this thread are of little value if you don't grasp it.

Is being a sock puppet against the rules of the FOrum?

[GrayArea]

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.

No to the last point, since you can get the same reaction with another image, say an electronic one or a photograph. I would be willing to bet that you have not actually gazed upon the real thing. I've been to the Louvre and not bothered to sift through the crowd myself.
I would add that you can take the same quantity of paint and size of canvas and create something with zero merit. I've painted many such examples myself!!

So I really do not see what value this idea has. and would suspect the writer's understanding of the most basic and simple facts concerning what morality is.

Well, the photograph of the Mona Lisa will indeed bring upon the same reaction strictly because of what created the original Mona Lisa, one of the factors for its creation being the quantity of the paint and the size of the canvas.

No it shows precisely the opposite.

As I keep on saying, the "Quantity of the paint and the size of the canvas" are merely two of the several required factors to draw the Mona Lisa. But they are still required nonetheless.

Okay, so let's say we have the right amount of paint and the right amount of canvas size. Now we need to use them in a specific way to draw the Mona Lisa. If we don't use them in a specific way, it's gonna turn out to be nothing. So clearly there are other factors at play here. However, if we don't even have the specific quantity of paint, or the size of the canvas to begin with, the "specific way" in which we use them will also be affected. Those two factors are not identical. The latter would instead be a subset of the former.

I will go out on a limb and say this: I also believe that the size of the canvas "is" the canvas itself, which contains the painting. I believe this because I believe that the canvas's existence is as much determined by its size, as the size is determined by the canvas. That it goes both ways. Same may apply to the quantity of the paint and the paint itself.

I've no idea why you are continuing to struggle with supporting this idea.

Seems like at this certain point I'm the only one who keeps trying to provide reasonings behind my argument, so I do not see any productive value in replying to you anymore. Sorry!

[Count Lucanor]

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.

For some people other humans are "only objects," "vehicles of other people's interests."

Sure, I agree. Note what I said in another thread about objectification: "[...]in the sense that another person is mainly seen as instrumental in satisfying one's own needs, paying less attention to their intrinsic value as a person. This is actually normal and necessary for every day life..."

Presumably you'd agree that all humans have moral standing, and that standing is established by objective qualities. Might some of those qualities not be possessed by some other animals?

Humans naturally make projections of their own human qualities on animals, even though they turn out to be inaccurate. Such projections are evidently more likely to happen with domesticated animals because of their familiarity. It is because we treat them as if they were human subjects or valuable to other human subjects that we give them moral standing, but they obviously cannot be human subjects themselves. And a specific quality of human subjects is that they are moral agents that can make assessments of the mutual moral standing among peers in relation to each other's actions. That is not possible with animals, which as amoral agents cannot make any moral assessment.

BTW, I agree that what confers moral standing is a thorny problem, for both humans and other animals.

As I said, it seems as if even inanimate things that carry symbolic meaning are conferred moral standing, such as statues and relics.

[Mounce574]

Animals do not have morals. Does a lion think about whether it should not kill the gazelle because it may have a family? No. The lion kills the gazelle to survive. It also doesn't debate on saving some for later. To take it a step further, whenever a male lion takes over a pride, he kills all of the young. That is the way life is, he doesn't pause to think of how an innocent cub is not at fault for anything.

[Sy Borg]

Animals do not have morals. Does a lion think about whether it should not kill the gazelle because it may have a family? No. The lion kills the gazelle to survive. It also doesn't debate on saving some for later. To take it a step further, whenever a male lion takes over a pride, he kills all of the young. That is the way life is, he doesn't pause to think of how an innocent cub is not at fault for anything.

Many people in wartime operate similarly. Amazing how quickly the thin veneer of human "superiority" is stripped away once we are reduced to the same life-or-death existence as other species.

[Pattern-chaser]

Animals do not have morals. Does a lion think about whether it should not kill the gazelle because it may have a family? No. The lion kills the gazelle to survive. It also doesn't debate on saving some for later. To take it a step further, whenever a male lion takes over a pride, he kills all of the young. That is the way life is, he doesn't pause to think of how an innocent cub is not at fault for anything.

I have to be careful here, as 'having morals' could mean a number of things. If we agree that having morals might describe a simple recognition of 'right' and 'wrong', in some sense, then I would assert that some animals do have some sense of morality. After all, even if animals do have moral sensibilities, we do not know what they are, or might be; we are animals, but not animals like them; we are human, they are not. So there will surely be significant differences between us, and the ways we look at life.

If I use my dogs as examples, they do have something that I might recognise as a 'sense' of morals and morality. They understand justice and fairness, so they know that if a pack-mate got a biscuit, they should get one too — that would be fair treatment. This is, in its simplest form, a sort of morality, yes?

But perhaps we should note that the topic asks us to consider our moral attitudes toward animals, and not whether non-human animals have morals or morality themselves...