As you all know I really like deconstructing so called human morality.
It’s what I do as a hobby of mine.
I’m not interested in debating morality in this thread.
No, I am actually looking for a moralist in this thread to point me in some scholarly direction instead.
I want to know what philosophical authors in history that have illustrated why human beings are unique to other animals in terms of morality in what is described as special consciousness of free will to follow and obey it.
To give you an example of what I am saying it is said that animals by comparison cannot be held accountable for their actions or behaviors because they lack human consciousness.
Because they lack free will by comparison.
I want to be pointed in some scholarly direction so that I may study this.
I of course intend on debunking and deconstructing this.
You will find Kant a good place to start if you haven’t already read him. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. I don’t know if his is the best case for that particular kind of morality but it’s probably the most influential and Kant wasn’t a thinker anyone should dismiss offhand without carefully reading at least part of his Critique of Pure Reason (but that’s something else altogether).
Animals are often put into the category of moral patients, whereas human beings of course are designated as moral agents. Not sure if Kant specifically used that terminology but there are other thinkers who have. I don’t subscribe to the kind of morality you’re interested in – I’m still developing my understanding of what morality is and should be – I deal with a lot of gray area and uncertainty when I think about what’s “right” or “wrong” / “good” or “bad.” At the end of the day, one has to have standards.
I could easily be classified as a moral nihilist as well - I don’t believe that situations or behaviors are intrinsically good and bad. But what I do believe is still tentative on the whole as working philosophy.
I’m probably not the best person to expand on moral agency/non-agency and such since I don’t really feel very strongly about that distinction. I have no passion to explain it. It’s easy to find stuff, though, by searching it.
I mentioned the one book of Kant’s that covers his moral philosophy (Groundwork…). I don’t believe it’s super long, but Kant can be obtuse in his writing.
I appreciate you pointing me in the direction of bread crumbs that will help me solve this great historical and existential riddle as I like to describe it as.
Yes, his writings are very obtuse and from what I can remember off hand his writings also makes up for some serious dry reading for sure.
I look at everything revolving around chaos and causality myself.
Human conflict in terms of competition for resources and survival is very chaotic.
Humans have no “free” will but at least a “relatively free” will, and that is the main part of the moral problem. If humans had no will, there would be no moral problem, but humans have a “relatively free” will, and that is the main part of the moral problem. If humans had a free will, there would also be no moral problem, but humans have a “relatively free” will, and that is the main part of the morall problem.
You know, that whole free-will argument has been misleading to me. One would think that if a person has free will they can freely will whatever it is that they want.
Then this whole morality bit comes into play with free will saying what you can and can’t do.
Doesn’t sound free, does it? They should rename free will into restricted will.
What I mean with “relatively free will” is a kind of “restricted will” because a will as such can only be a free will and is not observable, not cognoscible , thus not provable or disprovable, so we can agree with Schopenhauer and say that the will is Kant’s “thing as such”.
Morality and control begin in the home and family. If you had a child, then how would you raise him or her? You would control your own child as you see fit, as most parents do. Morality begins here, by adults controlling children. Taken to a larger level, politicians and social leaders, like priests, seek to assert control over the rest of humanity under the guise of parental authority. It’s the same force.
That said, to abolish morality (control of humanity) completely would also lead to the complete neglect of children.
It’s a very simple argument and one you admitted to already.
Morality is control. And parents control their children. Therefore the way in which animals rear their young, immediately reflects their morality.
To abandon your young, to another parent, reflects your own moral position, or lack of one thereof. An anarchistic nihilist, by definition, abandons his or her own offspring, relying on other surrogate parents (with their own morals) to rear them in their stead. An anarchist nihilist passes his or her morality (control) to another person. So ultimately morality cannot be avoided, unless all children are abandoned, in which case a specie would cease to exist.
The means of reproducing and surviving, necessitate morality. Because morality is control, as you yourself admitted to.