wuliheron wrote:
It reminds me of a popular theory in the 70s that equated all the problems people have to failures to communicate effectively. From this point of view, the reason people treat each other badly is not simply because they fail to recognize each other's humanity, but because they fail to communicate each other's humanity effectively. Hence, the supposid solution would be to constantly improve our communication skills.

unenlightened wrote:

One can do this to an extent even in reading a post such as this one; that is see 'behind' the words the mind that is at work; the same intelligence that is at work reading.

It is a very simple thing, and it may seem quite natural and inevitable, and yet sometimes it seems to fail to occur, and the consequence of that failure is that one treats a person as other, alien, incomprehensible, a thing. It is the source of 'us' and 'them'. It is the source of man's inhumanity to man.

Some awesome super-genius wrote:
I don't really think that we do have a moral obligation to anything that either isn't in a position to return the favour, is not carrying a sufficient amount of my genome, or isn't a possible applicant to my society, with whom I may need to contend with in the future. I don't think that it makes sense from an evolutionary point of view to suppose that the "floating rationale", as I've heard Daniel Dennett put it, for why morality evolved were so that we can spare, or fight for the lives of every sentient being, and definitely counter to what the science is saying.

Morality is an exclusive club, and is a social affair. Empathy is definitely one of the core principles, but there are many, and I don't think it can be really reduced to just a few kinds of value judgements. What we do naturally is to just look for things that are similar too ourselves. We are more reluctant to kill, harm, eat, or destroy things that have a resemblance to ourselves, or share qualities with us. We care about humans more than chimps, which are cared about more than monkeys, which are cared about more than pigs -- and how do we determine how we should allot them moral consideration? We ask questions about their faculties, and traits, and compare them to our own. We want them to be analogous to our own. Why? Because on a visceral level, we are programmed to do this, because we need the things that we are willing to expend energy and resources to protect, or willing to share, or limit our possible resources with, to carry a sufficient amount of our genome, or to be able to possibly reciprocate favours in the future.

I think this is how everyone works, but, everyone favours some types of moral evaluations over others, and some conclude different things from the same evaluated information.

While some people may have said that the slaves did not deserve autonomy, because the whites were on top, and ruled them, thus proving their superiority in this regard, and this is what they think matters. Success, and results of the specific groups themselves as a whole. While others will consider those things less relevant, and focus more on other traits.

There is of course a spectrum here, and a slippery slope, when do the differences become sufficient to cut off consideration entirely? And what level of consideration is appropriate to each particular group in relation to your own? These are personal evaluations, and are decided upon by everyone, after several different types of evaluations are done -- some pay attention to some thing's similarities more than others', have lower, or higher thresholds, and so forth. It is an interesting philosophical question, but from a naturalistic point of view, I think that the answer is obvious. We are "meant" to draw lines, and have consideration for others in degrees, until the group in question no longer carries a sufficient amount of your genome, or is incapable of reciprocating at any point in the future, and to any degree.

For this reason, from a naturalistic perspective, it could be said that caring about our furry cousins is probably a misfiring of one's moral faculties. You see a similarity with them, you see that they feel pain, and react to it in a way that is recognizable to you on an intuitive level, this makes your empathy software kick in, and you start feeling bad for the poor little bastards. Some can say, "that isn't enough similarities for me, I also need to know that they experience the sensation in an analogous way, or can intellectualize it in a sufficiently abstract sense, or can appreciate it emotionally." Some people want them to be able to talk, built rocket ships, and do complex math equations!

From a philosophical point of view, of course, the naturalistic point of view is just interesting, and by no means prescriptive toward how I should behave. In fact, even though nature couldn't take such a thing into consideration, and we have only had the capacity for such a short while, I would think that on a pragmatic, and intellectual level, we should all agree that sustaining our environment, and social ecology is also morally necessary.

Anyway, just thought that I would say that something having a recognizable aversion to physical, and emotional damage is enough for me to try to avoid damaging them unnecessarily, even if it results in some minor inconveniences for myself.

It may not be enough for everyone, but it's enough for me, it's enough for Singer, and it's enough for quite a few others.

And right there, in that little cliche, is the process at work. I like to think well of myself, and when I see someone, say, expressing racist views, I want to deny the recognition; that is not like me, but the opposite; that is other.

It is foolish, because that is exactly what the racist is also doing, creating the other as the opposite and other to himself.

Yet somehow one does not see this, and in failing to see, or refusing to see, one loses one's actual self to an ideal and enters into an internal conflict. This conflict isplayed out between the ideal that one has of oneself, and the denied fragment, which one projects onto the other. He, the racist is making a division, while I am not, and he must be 'dealt with' and not 'recognised.

And once one does not recognise oneself in another, one can deal with them inhumanely; and when this division between them and us becomes solidified and agreed upon, we can go to war.

So when you read in the paper of the latest 'monster', doing unspeakable things, perhaps you can remember the baby that was, the intelligence that did not receive any recognition, and so cannot see that what is monsterous is the lost fragment of humanity turning upon itself in its blindness. It is you and me, failing again to see our humanity.

unenlightened wrote:

Can I say right out loud that I do not believe that evolution has a point of view? A mouse has a point of view, a super-genius has a point of view, but a genome has none. Nothing makes sense from an evolutionary point of view because the watchmaker is blind.

This is the simple distinction that the OP is concerned with, and that the genius, along with one or two others, seems to have missed; some things in the world have a point of view, and others do not.

I don't want to argue the exact boundary here, perhaps it is blurred, but the difference between a long complex molecule of DNA and a mouse should be clear enough. A mouse can be curious, frightened, surprised, contented, etc, whereas a molecule cannot. So unlike the genius, my identification is with living things, rather than abstract ideas or physical objects.

Incidentally, since we share 50% of our genes with bananas, we 'should' (from an evolutionary point of view) really regard them as our siblings.

Of course not, and I would exclude children and mice from positions of guardianship too. Nothing I have said implies otherwise.

So you are saying that anyone who has not had a modern, western, multicultural education is a stupid asshole? Only a stupid asshole could be so narrow-minded and bigoted.

Forgive me, but you are missing my point entirely here.

I am not defending racism and pedophilia, nor am I saying that we are all racists or pedophiles. When one encounters a polar bear, it is useful to understand that the polar bear has a point of view, and that from his point of view, humans are edible. You don't have to agree with him, but if you think he is a stupid asshole, you will misunderestimate him.

And here are your 'sound reasons'?

You are programmed, and they are programmed - what's the difference?

I think if you look around you, you will see that it is a very few, quite short steps.

I'm not asking you to blame or not blame, but to understand; and I'm saying that to understand another is to understand oneself.

unenlightened wrote:
Hmm. You brought in biology and morality, and I tried to follow you, but it seems to be leading to confusion.

Let me go back to the OP, and ask you to think psychologically.

Now, you have this idea of yourself that you are intelligent; where does that idea come from?

What I am saying is that it has come from your relationship to the world, and specifically from your relationship to other beings.

If your relationships were confined to rocks and trees, say, I do not think you could have formed the idea of intelligence.

What I think has to happen is that you see intelligence in the world, and recognise yourself 'out there'. The conception of 'myself' is built from elements of the world, rather than by introspection alone. There is nothing there to introspect until it has been 'brought in' through experience.

This is the reason I am fussing about 'a point of view'. The point of view is constructed after the event of there being some eyes, from the elements of the view. Which is to say that one does not construct a human body and then switch it on, and there is a personality and an intelligence. Psychologically, one grows gradually from a somewhat vacant but open eye, according to experience.

This process is called education, and it works like this: the intelligent agent is invoked in the infant by treating him 'as if' he were an intelligent agent. One talks to the baby as though he could understand, and responds to him as though he was trying to make himself understood. Without this kind of relationship, children do not develop. (I have to restrain here a long tirade against current school policy.)

The world tells you what you are, and you have to believe it.

If you are brought up rather mechanically, you will become rather mechanical, and if you are brought up abusively, you will become abusive. I am simplifying and generalising, as these things are never absolute and universal, but rather there are these elements in anyone's life, some more and some less, and a small recognition can sometimes have a large effect.

So what is a pedophile, but someone whose humanity has not been invoked, and who therefore cannot relate humanely to others?

And one who cannot relate humanely to a pedophile, which does not mean tolerating their behaviour, has the same lack of development, albeit to a lesser degree.