Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Derid

Negative on that, its capacity for - not demonstration of.


Some adult primates show more capacity for morality than children below age of 3. Are they more human?

I don't think you fully conceptualized what morality is and why we have it. Morality is a social organism evolutionary trait that enables and promotes cooperation within species. It is generally is not applied outside of the species, unless in some cases of anthropomorphism seen in primates and humans.

All social animals have some capacity for morality, that includes bees, ants, all primates, rats. Are they partially human?

If anything, your view of morality and humanity supports Mithus' position, because if it is capacity for morality that makes us human, as oppose to abstract thinking, self-awareness of varying degrees or something entirely different, then certain animals are at least somewhat human.


No, you are mistaking a reaction that could fit with a moral course, with the ability to CONCEPTUALIZE morality.

Which, incidentally falls in line with what you are saying in regards to abstract thinking & etc.

(You and Mithus both in this case are mistaking an stated ability to conceptualize something with an apparent ability to perform an action which could be subjectively construed as fitting a particular and discrete moral pattern. )


You and I are actually taking a similar approach, but simply focusing on different aspects of the same principle. (conceptualizing morality is dependent on abstract reasoning, yet the ability to conceptualize it is not the equivalent of performing moral behaviour) I focused in on the particular aspect of conceptualizing morality, because it infers additional arguments. Both the tack I have taken, and the one you are appearing to take revolve around cogito ergo sum at their core.

Last edited by Derid; 03/23/12 11:46 AM.
For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)