Originally Posted By: sinij
Derid, I find your position of human exceptionism based on possession of morality to be deeply flawed. I have no choice but to 'pluck a chicken' and point out that this line of thinking would also suggest that amoral acts would undermine one's humanity.


Negative on that, its capacity for - not demonstration of. As a rule, humans are able to comprehend morality. Whether humans all agree on morality, or whether humans choose to follow what they believe to be moral is immaterial.

The point, is that humans can conceive of the concept. Animals on the other hand, are not known or even suspected of doing so.

So, your assessment of what I wrote was incorrect. Because an immoral person is not actually considered non-human. As a matter of fact, its the very ability to conceive of morality and make a choice that proves humanity.

I wont dispute your assertion that a philosophy that said humans forfeited their humanity by being immoral would be flawed. I would actually agree with you on that, provided we are using the term "humanity" in the context and I think we are. However, you did misinterpret the position put forth.

---

To elaborate a little, the concept was put forth as something of an alternate Turing test. However the difference between this metric and Turing's was intentional - because it also calls into the question the aspect of applicability and value of morality re: in terms of dealing with external actors that inherently have no morality or concept thereof in absolute terms.

A person we consider immoral, still conceptualizes morality. In some cases they choose to arguably disregard it, in some cases their interpretation of morality may be so different that we find them to be immoral. However, being or acting immoral is a different proposition in absolute terms than an absolute lack of the very concept or capacity for morality.

For an example

1) Joseph Stalin

2) A Goldman Sachs exec

3) A stone

4) A Cow

With these four examples, I would argue that one of them had a twisted personal understanding of morality, one of them likely has an understanding of morality similar to our own shared mores but likely chooses not to follow it... and the other two examples have neither the ability to conceptualize or follow morality.

However the first two examples are still every bit as human as anyone else ever was or will be.


Hopefully this makes it clearer.

Last edited by Derid; 03/23/12 02:55 AM.
For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)