What would be the harm?

[bennyboy]

I don't think so, no.  We don't generally consider them capable of rational failure.  They are not like us in that relevant way.  If they had a mind capable of apprehending moral value...and that mind was capable of a moral assessment in light of that moral information...then we might hold them morally accountable.  Since they don't, they can't..and we wont.  I'm super friendly to the notion of sliding the bar closer to us than others may think..and it;s noted that many animals express a sort of proto moral impulse often described as a sense of empathy.  This is generally thought to be the precursor of our own much more elaborate rational systems of morality - and it still informs us, deeply, with regards to it..though not always accurately.

By what criteria do you establish capability? Is a rapist capable of not raping? What if he was abused as a child? What if he's just exceptionally sexually motivated? What if he's struggled for years against a deep-seated hatred of women?

Is rape still "objectively wrong" if not raping is just too darned hard for someone? How about murder, or genocide?

I think you and I probably have similar moral standards. However, in my opinion you cannot see the difference between cultural normalization of ideas predicated on feeling, and actual objective mores (which don't really exist except in the sense that they depend on a feeling mechanism which predates each of us individuals). Because certain mores are common enough, and you can see that they are common in your interaction with people in general, you believe that they are more than the linguistic expression of feeling.

Let me ask you this-- suppose we translated someone from a neolithic society or maybe from the bronze age, and we attempted to reconcile their views with ours. Would you be so confident saying that some things are intrinsically wrong?