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

[psyreporter]

Do you believe that the Solar system should be allocated moral status? If so, what would be the ground for that?

Yes, but mostly as an attitude of respect towards it. The Solar System and the Galaxy are become more important now that man has left a lot of his rubbish beyond the stratosphere.

And what would be the basis to consider applicability of 'respect'?

The consideration that the Solar system and the Galaxy of which it is a part is a meaningless process, may be invalid. When it would serve a purpose, then humans may have a vital role in it and it would be of utmost importance to achieve alignment of human evolution with the 'greater purpose', not just to secure long lasting survival for the human specie but potentially for much more than that.

[Belindi]

Do you believe that the Solar system should be allocated moral status? If so, what would be the ground for that?

Yes, but mostly as an attitude of respect towards it. The Solar System and the Galaxy are become more important now that man has left a lot of his rubbish beyond the stratosphere.

And what would be the basis to consider applicability of 'respect'?

The consideration that the Solar system and the Galaxy of which it is a part is a meaningless process, may be invalid. When it would serve a purpose, then humans may have a vital role in it and it would be of utmost importance to achieve alignment of human evolution with the 'greater purpose', not just to secure long lasting survival for the human specie but potentially for much more than that.

Individuals owe it to ourselves to respect what we deem worthy of respect. True, the Solar system itself does not care but individuals can care about its truth and beauty (and even its goodness if one is that way inclined).

[Pattern-chaser]

Do you believe that the Solar system should be allocated moral status? If so, what would be the ground for that?

No.
There is no grounds for that.

I think there may be grounds for that: mutual dependence and mutual connection.

No I think not. The solar system cannot depend on humans; the only unambiguous moral agent known in the universe.

Sorry, on reflection I see that I used "dependence" in a programming sense - not very clear. I should've said this:

I think there may be grounds for that: mutual connection.

Everything is connected; the universe is undifferentiated.

[Sculptor1]

No.
There is no grounds for that.

I think there may be grounds for that: mutual dependence and mutual connection.

No I think not. The solar system cannot depend on humans; the only unambiguous moral agent known in the universe.

Sorry, on reflection I see that I used "dependence" in a programming sense - not very clear. I should've said this:

I think there may be grounds for that: mutual connection.

Everything is connected; the universe is undifferentiated.

But it is not connected in mysterious ways.
Supposedly my pet frog is connected to M31 Andromeda Galaxy, but would not give cause to posit any moral connection on either part.
And although I might have moral feelings about the frog, I doubt they are reciprocated.

[psyreporter]

Individuals owe it to ourselves to respect what we deem worthy of respect. True, the Solar system itself does not care but individuals can care about its truth and beauty (and even its goodness if one is that way inclined).

There are some indications that Earth life could be bound to a region around the Sun and that the Sun is an 'actual' origin of life.

For example, in the Neutrino-biological cell theory of life, life would arise out of interaction between Neutrino's and matter. Life would not originate directly from the Neutrino. Essentially, the 'essence of value' (that what precedes value and thus can be considered 'the observer per se') is transferred onto the level of an individual at the moment of interaction (the origin would lay between the Neutrino and matter).

Would it change anything with regard how people view (the meaning of) the Solar system when the Sun is an 'actual' origin of life?

[Belindi]

The Sun may be the origin of life but origins are not the whole of causes. Living forms are not the whole of existence. All that exists necessarily exists and is interdependent. That is not sufficient reason to allow say, the smallpox virus, to exist but humans have the power to select what is allowed to exist. We must choose very wisely and respectfully when we destroy or kill.

For instance it is now known that the soil is a living system and that some methods of cultivation that lack respect for the soil have made it unfertile.

[Pattern-chaser]

Do you believe that the Solar system should be allocated moral status? If so, what would be the ground for that?

There is no grounds for that.

I think there may be grounds for that: mutual connection.

Everything is connected; the universe is undifferentiated.

But it is not connected in mysterious ways.
Supposedly my pet frog is connected to M31 Andromeda Galaxy, but would not give cause to posit any moral connection on either part.
And although I might have moral feelings about the frog, I doubt they are reciprocated.

Not "in mysterious ways", no. I did not mean there is a connection that is moral. I suggested that, because everything is connected, that very connection might offer some support for allocating moral status to (say) the solar system. Perhaps only because it is an indivisible part of something (the universe) that does have moral status. The universe, containing all things of moral status and not, surely has moral status overall?

Not a rigid, logical and scientific theory, for sure, but not entirely hippy stuff either.

Your feelings for your frog are your own affair.

[Sculptor1]

Do you believe that the Solar system should be allocated moral status? If so, what would be the ground for that?

There is no grounds for that.

I think there may be grounds for that: mutual connection.

Everything is connected; the universe is undifferentiated.

But it is not connected in mysterious ways.
Supposedly my pet frog is connected to M31 Andromeda Galaxy, but would not give cause to posit any moral connection on either part.
And although I might have moral feelings about the frog, I doubt they are reciprocated.

Not "in mysterious ways", no. I did not mean there is a connection that is moral.

I was trying to stay on thread, and so assumed that you were making a comment that was on topic.

I suggested that, because everything is connected, that very connection might offer some support for allocating moral status to (say) the solar system.

And my comment exactly and directly refuses that position.

Perhaps only because it is an indivisible part of something (the universe) that does have moral status. The universe, containing all things of moral status and not, surely has moral status overall?

No. Just because some things are green does not make the whole universe green.

Not a rigid, logical and scientific theory, for sure, but not entirely hippy stuff either.

What is left? Nothing much.

Your feelings for your frog are your own affair.

Indeed. My frog is entirely virtual so my feelings, being wholly virtual are also subject to whatever point I would wish to make.
However, were my frog a real life frog, I am sure that morality would not be an issue for it.

[Sy Borg]

There is nothing to be gained for plants by treating them like animals.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/202 ... /100292422

Here we can see the absurdity of scientists debating whether fish, cephalopods and crustaceans are conscious and can feel pain, when it is incredibly obvious that they do. Even before these animals were known to have nonireceptors, it was incredibly obvious. Experiments displaying reflex responses even after a fish has parts of its brain removed are hopelessly naive. The entire point of reflexes is to bypass the brain so, yes, the fish will still twitch, even after brain mutilation.

I despair for the immediate future - it seems impossible for logic to cut through in any given field. Vested interests always defeat logic and ethics in today's public sphere.

[Belindi]

There is nothing to be gained for plants by treating them like animals.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/202 ... /100292422

Here we can see the absurdity of scientists debating whether fish, cephalopods and crustaceans are conscious and can feel pain, when it is incredibly obvious that they do. Even before these animals were known to have nonireceptors, it was incredibly obvious. Experiments displaying reflex responses even after a fish has parts of its brain removed are hopelessly naive. The entire point of reflexes is to bypass the brain so, yes, the fish will still twitch, even after brain mutilation.

I despair for the immediate future - it seems impossible for logic to cut through in any given field. Vested interests always defeat logic and ethics in today's public sphere.

Few people have the moral strength or self control to be vegan. The best way forward is to encourage people to eat less flesh perhaps limiting the eating of muscle tissue and offal to once a week.E.g. healthier, and saves money.

The runaway success of oat drink to replace milk is encouraging.

[Sy Borg]

There is nothing to be gained for plants by treating them like animals.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/202 ... /100292422

Here we can see the absurdity of scientists debating whether fish, cephalopods and crustaceans are conscious and can feel pain, when it is incredibly obvious that they do. Even before these animals were known to have nonireceptors, it was incredibly obvious. Experiments displaying reflex responses even after a fish has parts of its brain removed are hopelessly naive. The entire point of reflexes is to bypass the brain so, yes, the fish will still twitch, even after brain mutilation.

I despair for the immediate future - it seems impossible for logic to cut through in any given field. Vested interests always defeat logic and ethics in today's public sphere.

Few people have the moral strength or self control to be vegan. The best way forward is to encourage people to eat less flesh perhaps limiting the eating of muscle tissue and offal to once a week.E.g. healthier, and saves money.

The runaway success of oat drink to replace milk is encouraging.

If people are being told by "experts" that other intelligent animals can't feel pain, that will not help. Since we are brainy creatures, our societies seem to have fallen in love with neurology. Most researchers appear to see neurons as the sole creators of experience, with the rest of the body being treated as a low-level support team.

Neurons as the sole creators of experience is like humans as the sole creators of a city - never mind the trees and shrubs, fungi, herbs and food plants, dogs and cats, horses, birds and insects. You need humans to create a (human) city, but it's not enough. Neuron number and type provide rough indications as to potential sentience, but responsiveness would ideally be taken more seriously than it is.

At this stage, response to stimuli is largely ignored when determining sentience, with all responses of life without brains dismissed as "reflex actions". Who is to say that reflex actions feel like nothing at all, especially when it's all you have? The sensations of our "automatic" actions are swamped by intense mental activity, so people tend to assume that reflex actions feel like nothing for every organism.

[Consul]

There is nothing to be gained for plants by treating them like animals.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/202 ... /100292422

Here we can see the absurdity of scientists debating whether fish, cephalopods and crustaceans are conscious and can feel pain, when it is incredibly obvious that they do. Even before these animals were known to have nonireceptors, it was incredibly obvious. Experiments displaying reflex responses even after a fish has parts of its brain removed are hopelessly naive. The entire point of reflexes is to bypass the brain so, yes, the fish will still twitch, even after brain mutilation.

I despair for the immediate future - it seems impossible for logic to cut through in any given field. Vested interests always defeat logic and ethics in today's public sphere.

The term "nociception" refers to the neural processes of encoding and processing noxious stimuli, and the question is whether pain perception and pain behavior necessarily include subjective feelings of pain. Noxious stimuli are harmful to an organism, but isn't it possible for an organism to perceive and react to what is harmful to it without feeling any pain? When an animal is exposed to a noxious stimulus and displays avoidance behavior, is this behavior impossible without a subjective pain experience? Is it impossible for there to be AI zombie agents which can evaluate stimuli in terms of "bad for me" and react accordingly so as to avoid getting harmed or destroyed?

[Sy Borg]

There is nothing to be gained for plants by treating them like animals.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/202 ... /100292422

Here we can see the absurdity of scientists debating whether fish, cephalopods and crustaceans are conscious and can feel pain, when it is incredibly obvious that they do. Even before these animals were known to have nonireceptors, it was incredibly obvious. Experiments displaying reflex responses even after a fish has parts of its brain removed are hopelessly naive. The entire point of reflexes is to bypass the brain so, yes, the fish will still twitch, even after brain mutilation.

I despair for the immediate future - it seems impossible for logic to cut through in any given field. Vested interests always defeat logic and ethics in today's public sphere.

The term "nociception" refers to the neural processes of encoding and processing noxious stimuli, and the question is whether pain perception and pain behavior necessarily include subjective feelings of pain. Noxious stimuli are harmful to an organism, but isn't it possible for an organism to perceive and react to what is harmful to it without feeling any pain? When an animal is exposed to a noxious stimulus and displays avoidance behavior, is this behavior impossible without a subjective pain experience?

I am not sure that it's possible for stimuli to induce a strong response without an accompanying experience, though not necessarily pain. Probably not pain as we know it. But there may well be some subjective experience happening.

Is it impossible for there to be AI zombie agents which can evaluate stimuli in terms of "bad for me" and react accordingly so as to avoid getting harmed or destroyed?

AI can replicate numerous features of life, including passing as human on the phone.

At this stage, though, AI - even with its terabytes of computational power - is vastly simpler than life. Even a bacterial colony would be orders of magnitude more complex and efficiently integrated than any AI, the legacy of billions of years of evolution.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... omplexity/

The old cliché still rings true - the more you know, the more you don't know. If I was to characterise humanity's explorations of nature in two words it would be, "unexpected complexity". We keep thinking we have phenomena nailed down, and then we find out there was more to know. The more we find out about anything in nature, the more we open up new avenues of learning about it.

So bacterial behaviours can be copied visually, based on our simplified notion of what bacteria do, just as human behaviour can be copied aurally. Neither case comes close to capturing the subjective depth of the real thing.

For now :)

[Belindi]

Do we accord high moral status to another being solely because physiologically it is like one's self?

Many people have spent their lives protecting inanimate objects, or ideologies.

There are two reasons for according something high moral status. One reason is we feel human sympathy for it; the other is that it is expedient to give it high moral status.

For instances of expediency, when rare breeds or species are deliberately conserved, these may be valuable for feeding people in the future, so we accord them the status of e.g. seed banks, laboratory storage, zoos, or wildlife parks. Or as in the case of giant pandas they are national symbols.Other national symbols are inanimate, and it is against some laws and related personal sentiments to defile them.

There is a hellish photo of a malnourished adult lion in a cage, who is someone's possession, a pet or status symbol for someone. That somebody would do this to a lion is doubly disgusting for defiling an animal symbolically admired for its courage and also for insulting people's normal feelings of sympathy for any suffering sentient creature. It is wrong to ignore people's feelings of disgust, or to brutalise people so their birthright of disgust is traumatised. What we do to the least creature (including grasses or works of art) we do to ourselves.

[popeye1945]

Do plants deserve a moral status as animal? No, they deserve the status of life form capable of suffering and our respect.