undefined

points

[-]

Ethics aren't created as a power play but are certainly manipulated as one. The origin of ethics is probably natural selection.

by yawpitch8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Ethics has nothing to do with how an action is perceived, rather its focus is on is the action moral.

One should never take any action without considering the ethical implications of that action. Being capable of that is, arguably, the sole thing that meaningfully separates us from the (real or simulated) fruitfly.

by vincnetas7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

"Ethics has nothing to do with how an action is perceived" "...considering the ethical implications of that action"

Are these two not contradictions?

And is it not the too big of a load on an actor to think about everything before acting? I would prefer to delegate this function to my empathy part of the brain...

At the end i think ethics is valid only for cases where empathy is functioning. You can not be ethical to a rock unless you feel empathy for it. Same probably would go for extra strange extraterrestrial life forms that you could not empathise with. Lets say hive of microbes that makes the hive sentient but no limbs, no shared communication signals, different size categories (planetary hive)

by fluoridation7 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I think the question is valid. Why should a human have a moral responsibility towards non-humans, while a cat doesn't have a moral responsibility towards non-cats, just because the human is capable of making moral judgements? Is there any analogous situation where capacity engenders responsibility? Are gorillas more responsible for how they use their strength, since they're stronger than humans?

>Being capable of that is, arguably, the sole thing that meaningfully separates us from the (real or simulated) fruitfly.

That's a bit of an extreme hyperbole, don't you think?

by darkwater7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> Why should a human have a moral responsibility towards non-humans, while a cat doesn't have a moral responsibility towards non-cats, just because the human is capable of making moral judgements?

Because as a human you recognize patterns in other animals that are similar to ours - the deepest pattern being alive - so you can project your feelings over them. This is also called empathy, and some in our kind lack it completely, but I would dare to say that is globally one of the defining traits of the human species.

by fluoridation6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

You're answering a different question, which is "why do humans empathize with non-humans?" Humans can empathize with inanimate objects and with fictional people. The question of the origin of empathy really has nothing to do with what I asked.

by darkwater6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I think I do answered your question but maybe it was too implicit, so let me be more explicit. A human should have moral responsibility towards non-humans because of empathy and recognizing the fact that other animals are alive as well.

by fluoridation5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Bacteria are alive too, and I'm going to guess you don't claim we have a moral responsibility to them. And as I said, humans can feel empathy for things that are not alive. The capacity to feel empathy rests entirely on the empathizer, and has nothing to do with any intrinsic properties of the empathizee. Is a psychopathic murderer morally in the right because he doesn't feel any empathy for his victims?

by dudefeliciano7 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

It would be a great starting point if human felt moral responsibility towards other humans, before we take on the matter of ethics towards non-humans, simulated fireflies or LLMs. Yet here we are.