Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Biology is a carbon-based biology, and life displays many forms, but its essence is one, and this is what we recognize if not through individual realization, then through the science of genetics that the essence of life is one, and an expanded concept of the self in all creatures is the reality again that we as life forms are in this together, if compassion does not tell you this, science does. So, the logical basis of a system of morality is our commonality, the commonality of our biology with all other life forms, but in particular our group, our society, our shelter from the storm of nature's harsh realities. Life forms are different life patterns, all related and in essence one. Compassion is our connection to life itself; it is the self in all forms, identifying with others and caring through our common joys and sufferings.

It's not so simple, as per my previous post. Why do we baulk more at destroying trees and pretty rocks than we do at killing living, sentient entities that are much more like us, such as cockroaches and flies?

Good point, Sy Borg.
It is more difficult to recognize a self within the inanimate than the animate. There is a philosophy trying to bridge that gap, called Panpsychism, and Whitehead's philosophy of organism or process thought. The more one is out of touch with the reality in which we all live, the less likely it is that one is to identify with one's fellows, let alone the rest of the world. Recently, the acknowledgement of the consciousness of the plant world has come to pass, but I don't think it has yet reached the common person on the street. Life and its consciousness have arisen from the inanimate world; this alone should give one pause for wonder. If we appreciate the inanimate and the animate, I believe it would foster a mythology/religion of a sacred world, a much healthier attitude than humanity at present has.

I'm only on board with panpsychism if brainless entities are taken to have proto-consciousness, but not actual consciousness/sentience. I collected and (badly) sculpted gemstones in my teens so I have always had a soft spot for rocks. I love geology and believe that there was originally not much difference between geology and biology - the first ever organisms would have not been much different from the non-living organic entities from which they evolved. It's a continuum.

Meanwhile, we value redwoods and Ayers Rock/Uluru far more than we value flies and roaches.

Here is an article about a couple off vandals damaging a natural rock formation: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180984180/

Yet there are no articles about the mass killing of thousands of cockroaches during fumigations.

It's interesting in context to consider people's reactions to it:

“These aren’t just rocks. They’re ancient resources,” says Neal Desai, a senior program director at the National Parks Conservation Association, to the Washington Post’s Andrea Sachs. “They were formed millions of years ago. That’s why we as a country have set them aside and have ensured that they will be equally owned by all of us forever.”

In the meantime, park rangers are investigating the incident. The suspects could face federal charges, and their punishment could “range from six months in jail and a $5,000 fine… all the way up to a felony offense,” as John Haynes, a spokesperson for the recreation area, tells KVVU’s Kim Passoth.

“This almost feels like a personal attack in a way,” he says, adding: “It’s pretty appalling. It is kind of disgusting.”

Two of the posts point to our innate connection with our lands, the bonding that happens with our patch of the world. The vandal could end up in prison. How many roaches would you need to kill to be sent to prison?

Ultimately, gratuitous damage to any ordered entity (unless as an agreed on project or joke) can generally be considered immoral. Order is relatively rare and special compared with chaos. As rare ordered beings, we appreciate and enjoy other ordered entities.

[Good_Egg]

How many roaches would you need to kill to be sent to prison?

...Ultimately, gratuitous damage to any ordered entity (unless as an agreed on project or joke) can generally be considered immoral. Order is relatively rare and special compared with chaos. As rare ordered beings, we appreciate and enjoy other ordered entities.

Thank you, Sy. I'd not seen it quite that way before.

If there were some rare species of cockroach, that existed only in some nature reserve somewhere, then killing them probably would be considered wrong.

Which supports your suggestion that morality is not about life as such, but relates to some notion of order. If there is a right place for cockroaches, then the difference between rightful and wrongful cockroach-killing is whether the act keeps them in that right place or disrupts their existence in that right place.

Killing in self-defence (which includes fumigating insects in your backyard) is considered moral because it preserves and maintains order. Whereas killing a creature that is in its own place, minding its own business (so to speak), is a violation of order.

Kant's Categotrical Imperative can be read as saying that actions are immoral if and only if they are incompatible with a desired universal order.

Maybe people disagree about morality only when they have competing visions of order ?

[Sy Borg]

How many roaches would you need to kill to be sent to prison?

...Ultimately, gratuitous damage to any ordered entity (unless as an agreed on project or joke) can generally be considered immoral. Order is relatively rare and special compared with chaos. As rare ordered beings, we appreciate and enjoy other ordered entities.

Thank you, Sy. I'd not seen it quite that way before.

If there were some rare species of cockroach, that existed only in some nature reserve somewhere, then killing them probably would be considered wrong.

Which supports your suggestion that morality is not about life as such, but relates to some notion of order. If there is a right place for cockroaches, then the difference between rightful and wrongful cockroach-killing is whether the act keeps them in that right place or disrupts their existence in that right place.

Killing in self-defence (which includes fumigating insects in your backyard) is considered moral because it preserves and maintains order. Whereas killing a creature that is in its own place, minding its own business (so to speak), is a violation of order.

Kant's Categotrical Imperative can be read as saying that actions are immoral if and only if they are incompatible with a desired universal order.

Maybe people disagree about morality only when they have competing visions of order ?

Good point about rare cockroaches. There are rare types of cockroaches on Lord Howe Island and the Seychelles that are protected. Again, we return to relative scarcity as a factor.

Generally, I'm agreeing. It's less a vision than an instinct. So much in morality comes down to gut feelings. To some extent, that which nauseates us is deemed immoral. In fact, "immoral" and "undesirable" are often blended in people's heads, ie. "I don't like it so therefore it is bad".

Moral instincts relate to the order v chaos question. Consider a common trope that photographers love, the first bloom after a forest fore. It's all chaos - charred things and ash - yet poking out of the ruins is a single flower. That flower is seen as special after the fire but, before the fire, a hiker might have stepped on it without thought.