Morality: Where do you get yours?

[liam]

I would only agree with number two, however, my definition of complexity would be a very abstract one and I'll try define it a little more clearly. I do believe there to be a level of biological development that is prerequisite for the acceptance of something as living, for example, an amoeba or a bacteria does not possess the biological prerequisite that would suggest to me that it requires consideration as it is so incredibly simple that we cannot assume it possesses a sense of rationale or other self-consciousness, it is a purely survivalist entity. However, I base this upon the rationalising ability of the entity as well as it's biological development so I will explore that a bit more as otherwise I may risk being unclear. The intellectual or rational side of an animal shows great importance in determining this as well, if an animal displays intelligence we must not eat it, not to say that if it doesn't we must. Furthermore, I would say that anything endangered, yet again, must not be eaten as this is another perversion of reasonable conservation. Another thing that I think we should take into account is the ability of an animal to act contrary to it's own survival for some reason would be off limits. With this said, I would conclude that my overall view is that if it is smart enough to act morally or within a more collective manner it should definitely not be eaten, moreso if it is endangered.

Your alien question is interesting and I'd just like to delineate to it for a moment, I would argue that the value we place on life IS relative, as we can only really value things by our own value, that we say that a cow is valueless in terms of morality we would say this because the cow is considerably less valuable than a human, not because there is anything intrinsically wrong with a cow. It pertains to a lower biological and intellectual state than we knowers and thus we may consider it to be less morally valuable than us, while not being valueless. So no, I would not consider these aliens better unless they showed a superior code of morality and a communal conscientiousness

I do view morality as a very objective existence, I think to say that it is subjective could be seen as nothing more than an attempt to justify certain self-serving behaviours and these are generally detrimental to everyone. Morality exists as a human construct but it exists objectively, regardless of whether people choose to align themselves with it. For example, to travel back in time and kill hitler, most would say, would be a good thing, because it prevents horrific consequences. However, I regard this as missing the point, the act of killing him would still be bad but you would be subverting your morality, not completely denying that murder is wrong.