Morality and Intelligence

[obi]

I was talking to my girlfriend about animal testing, and she caught me on the one thing I know I'm inconsistent about, and the thing that is the hardest moral issue for me. I therefore need to get educated about it for the next time I talk to her about it.

To most people, these are three separate issues: abortion, animal rights, and the rights of the mentally retarded. For me, however, they all stem from the same thing.

I believe humans ought to have more rights than snails or mice. I believe it's wrong to eat octopus, monkey, or dog, because those are all intelligent creatures. I also am OK with early-term abortions because the fetus has no comprehension of life -- it's the moral equivalent of killing a cockroach, or a fish, etc..

But at the same time, nothing in the world makes me angrier than hearing about people abusing the mentally retarded. I don't think any person should have more rights than another based on intelligence. I don't see how I can simultaneously hold all of these views.

Can anyone help me out of this moral dilemma? I can find no way to be consistent in my beliefs and not feel compelled to claim something I feel immoral ("mentally retarded people should be second-class citizens") or silly ("eating beef is the moral equivalent of conspiracy to commit murder").

 

[Force Majeure]

Eh, this is a good thread. I know the feeling of moral contradiction, but I really think that it's present in everyone. It would be impossible to create a moral code that has no apparent contradictions simply because all of our thoughts on morality are individual, as much as it may seem they are collective. I try not to think about apparent moral conflicts too much because I try to look at moral issues one at a time without thinking of the possible application towards other circumstances.

I don't know if I expressed myself very well, and I'm not sure that I can actually help you with this, but I gave it a shot! :)

 

[Illithian-Z]

Unfortunately, its impossible to create an argument that combines all three of your moral beliefs with your reasoning. Your animal rights reasoning stems from their level of intelligence. You want more rights for animals with more intelligence, with humans at the top; this makes sense. Unfortunately, the rights of the mentally retarded don't work with this, because they aren't nearly as intelligent as other humans, and thus with the above reasoning should have less rights then other humans.

This is a problem. The solution is at the base of it, with your original reasoning. You need to separate humans and animals into two different arguments. The other thing you need to argue is that the mentally retarded aren't less intelligent then other humans, its that they process information at a slower rate then other humans. In that sense, you can still fit it in, because the mentally retarded are indeed equal in intelligence, but not in processing power. Animals aren't able to process the same information as humans, so they are seperate from that argument.

A techy way to look at it would be a 10 year old computer can run the same new program as a brand new computer, it will simply run it slower. However, a completely different OS wouldn't be able to run that same program.

Thats a weird example, but it works. Someone else will get a better one.

 

[obi]

I know the feeling of moral contradiction, but I really think that it's present in everyone. It would be impossible to create a moral code that has no apparent contradictions simply because all of our thoughts on morality are individual, as much as it may seem they are collective.

My problem with that, Christanova, is that I'm using the same reasoning. I have no reason that my logic would apply in some circumstances but not others. Therefore, I have a contradiction. Wherever there is a contradiction, something must be wrong. I don't want to be wrong, especially on something so important.

A techy way to look at it would be a 10 year old computer can run the same new program as a brand new computer, it will simply run it slower. However, a completely different OS wouldn't be able to run that same program.

There are some programs that simply will not run on old computers. Either the architecture doesn't support certain operations, or the computer's drive is too small to store all the data, or the computer runs out of memory. It may seem like I'm reading too much into your analogy, but I think it's a valid extension. I believe that there are some things that some people likely can never learn. Some abstract concepts require high level reasoning to be able to understand that I don't think all people are capable of.

 

[billymills]

I believe humans ought to have more rights than snails or mice. I believe it's wrong to eat octopus, monkey, or dog, because those are all intelligent creatures. I also am OK with early-term abortions because the fetus has no comprehension of life -- it's the moral equivalent of killing a cockroach, or a fish, etc..

But at the same time, nothing in the world makes me angrier than hearing about people abusing the mentally retarded. I don't think any person should have more rights than another based on intelligence. I don't see how I can simultaneously hold all of these views.

Here you have rights stemming from two different qualities.
A: Any being that is an intelligent creature or can comprehend life (whatever that entails) has a right to life.
B: All animals within a certain species have the same rights.

While these two are contradictory, it's probably possible to have a roundabout solution. If you give animals universal rights (Possibly a slippery slope, but let's consider it), such as the right to food, and the right to reproduction. B is then unnecessary, and there is no contradiction.

Can anyone help me out of this moral dilemma? I can find no way to be consistent in my beliefs and not feel compelled to claim something I feel immoral ("mentally retarded people should be second-class citizens") or silly ("eating beef is the moral equivalent of conspiracy to commit murder").

I think the main problem here is the connotation of 'second-class citizens'. It is clear that the same rights don't apply in the same way (there is a requirement for special treatment, most notably in the education system), but does this preferential treatment mean that they are no longer citizens?

As far as I can recall, being an American citizen gives rights to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. I do not see how this dilemma infringes on any of those rights.

 

[Hipmonlee]

If something makes you angry, does it have to be a moral question? I get angry when I lose pokemon battles, but that isnt because my opponent has behaved unethically..

But really I think your issue is from the nature of a deontological ethic. The concept of rights really are there to simplify ethical decisions so that they can be applied practically. For instance if I couldnt die, I wouldnt care about having the right to life, the right to life is not inherently necessary.

The point here is to identify what rights are necessary. Babies have the right to life because mothers will be very upset if you kill their kids, and society needs babies, and I like babies (for short periods of time).

Vegetarians on the other hand wont be nearly as upset if you kill and eat a cow as mothers will be if you kill and eat their baby.

Likewise they wont be nearly as upset as a mother would be if you ate their retarded adult son.

Also if you do kill a retarded adult, then as a non retarded adult, I have to consider that if I was to receive severe head trauma and become retarded, then my life would be in danger. So killing retarded adults is a (very) indirect threat to my life.

This does pose the issue of is it ok to kill retarded children that have never been loved by anyone (just to clarify, we are talking about people retarded enough to not be able to realise that the killing of another similarly retarded person is a threat to their own life). Unless there is some other reason this persons life is more valuable than an animals (and if their death was as valuable as the death of a cow or whatever) then it would be very hard to argue it wasnt. But on the other hand, this sort of thing does happen when a person is on life support (ie when there is a reason their death is valuable) and isnt considered immoral by me at least.

I'm trying to imagine an actual circumstance here, but it is very difficult. I guess if you have an extremely retarded human who is presumably in some care facility, that nobody at that facility has any emotional attachment to and they want to put that person down to save money. I guess, the risk is its very hard to know when a person has never been loved by anyone. It would essentially be impossible to verify, so you need to draw an arbitrary cut off point and human/non-human is a very good one.

Yeah, I kinda through-composed this reply but I think I am kinda happy with where I ended up..

Have a nice day.

 

[Twin_Scimitar]

I think you have to modify the way you look at intelligence.

I feel that there exist vastly different levels of intelligence for organisms on earth. I think that once you reach the plateau of "self-awareness", you are on a different scale than say a mouse. Each person can use "self-awareness" to mean different things, however if you take it to mean something similar to "I think therefore I am", than you can completely eliminate the linear fashioned logical arrangement you currently seem to be applying for laboratory rats up through humans.

If you say that all creatures with "self-awareness" i.e. Humans (and other animals as you deem fit), deserve the same rights and that any intelligence past this point is irrelevant because the being is self-aware, you can treat the mentally handicapped in the same way you treat other humans, since they too have emotions and feel bad about themselves if they are being put down. Once you are within this certain level of intelligence you are able to feel things as emotions, so any further increase in intelligence is nothing more than an attribute of sorts. The main point is that you would be measuring all intelligence only as it applies within certain categories of awareness. Drawing lines for these categories is where I feel the argument is most fragile. When a dog eats from the trash and you yell at it, does it sulk because it is "less happy" or because it is avoiding confrontation and the possibility of pain or other punishment? It is certainly a bit messier to deal with and defend than a linear system of intelligence where everything is treated on the same playing field, but it feels more right.

You could apply this same argument to an unborn fetus. The fetus has not yet become "self-aware" as proven by its lack of a brain advanced enough to achieve this.

I'm afraid that I might not have solved your problem, since I am unsure of this line of logic as I am relating it. I do firmly believe that there are different levels of thinking that separate bacteria, ants, mice, and humans (just as examples). The actual drawing of lines that separate the different levels of awareness and applying them in order to create a moral foundation (the important part) I am still weak on. Hope this helps...

 

[Onii]

I believe humans ought to have more rights than snails or mice. I believe it's wrong to eat octopus, monkey, or dog, because those are all intelligent creatures. I also am OK with early-term abortions because the fetus has no comprehension of life -- it's the moral equivalent of killing a cockroach, or a fish, etc..

But at the same time, nothing in the world makes me angrier than hearing about people abusing the mentally retarded. I don't think any person should have more rights than another based on intelligence. I don't see how I can simultaneously hold all of these views.

The thing is, can "comprehension of life" really be used as a measure of intelligence? It sounds more like an attempt to evaluate the impact of an action, which sits uneasily with your "intelligence" argument.

Also, before determining which animals should be assigned rights, why should they have rights in the first place? In other words, why should humans be bound by a duty to act in a particular way towards other species? I think this needs to be addressed before the "intelligence" metric can be refined.

 

[billymills]

The thing is, can "comprehension of life" really be used as a measure of intelligence? It sounds more like an attempt to evaluate the impact of an action, which sits uneasily with your "intelligence" argument.

Also, before determining which animals should be assigned rights, why should they have rights in the first place? In other words, why should humans be bound by a duty to act in a particular way towards other species? I think this needs to be addressed before the "intelligence" metric can be refined.

Why should humans have rights?

EDIT: Inserted quote

 

[The Plant]

Why should humans have rights?

Because I want them and will give them to everybody else if it means I get them.

To the Op:

I think any obviously self-aware being should have a right to life. Though it is of course hard to tell what constitutes self aware.

 

[Onii]

Why should humans have rights?

To have some semblance of civilised society. Without the rights to life and bodily integrity, the physically strong would destroy the physically weak; without property rights, trade and commerce would be impossible, etc etc.

This can't be really extended towards animals though, because animals do not take part in society unless domesticated. Besides, this produces a different measure of morality to "intelligence", so it doesn't really solve obi's problem.

EDIT: I agree with The Plant's argument re human rights.

 

[Brain]

The rights a dominant species gives to other species are proportional to the level of empathy or emotional attachment they feel towards them. That measurement can vary a lot through time and culture. There is no reason to suppose that there exists some objective measurement that we could use to determine this. Nobody has an innate right to life, it's all implicit contracts with other living things, with apex predators getting the choice picks. If humans, as Earth's apex predators, decide to protect the lives of all living things, it is their prerogative. If they want to destroy them all, it is also their prerogative. I mean, who would stop them?

Let's put it that way: I can readily see that you are trying to find a coherent way to link together several core beliefs you hold about rights, instead of trying to work out what should have what rights from core principles. Considering that the core beliefs humans hold are not biologically required to be consistent and that you're having a lot of trouble rationalizing yours, that should give you a hint that it might actually be impossible to rationalize them and that there is no non-arbitrary way to resolve the issue. Basically, a fully "loglcal" policy would probably not feel right according to your pre-programmed personal morality. And for the most part, there is no reason to assume that it would work "better".

In fact, it is rational for the most capable to enslave the less capable, if the risks of conflict are negligible. The main reasons we are not doing this are that the risks are not negligible, that it is difficult to evaluate who is more capable (not to mention that capability is widely and unevenly spread amongst constituents) and that our natural feelings of empathy get in the way. I certainly wouldn't want it to happen, and neither would you, but it is nonetheless rational. If you wanted to derive morality from purely rational grounds (though I'm not sure what these would be), you would probably end up with either a crapshoot where everything has all rights or a model where slavery is moral under certain conditions.

The other thing you need to argue is that the mentally retarded aren't less intelligent then other humans, its that they process information at a slower rate then other humans. In that sense, you can still fit it in, because the mentally retarded are indeed equal in intelligence, but not in processing power. Animals aren't able to process the same information as humans, so they are seperate from that argument.

That is not only unsubstantiated (mentally retarded people may very well not be able to process what a normal person could, even when given more time), it also ignores the fact that intelligence, while not related to processing power per se, is related to how fast one processes information. A man who reasons something through in a second is more intelligent than one who reasons the same thing in ten seconds. It is trivial to make a machine that can answer any inquiry when given enough time and memory (a brute force search of the solution space will do). Intelligence is the ability to do this efficiently.

 

[Altmer]

No moral system based on anything is inherently consistent - morality ought not to be a fixed, but a pragmatical thing.

 

[Janenmori]

The fact that the human organism holds so much intelligence at his disposal is the reason that we are allowed such a complex morality. We can rationalize and decide for ourselves, but we are influenced by emotion and others' opinions of our descions and morality. There is rarely any consistency within the human psyche and the consistency that actually is present must have individual circumstances weighed into account. We must take into account when weighing moral decisions both in a situational sense and statistical sense while not favoring either too heavily or otherwise we lose sight of the achieving the goal itself and rather find ourselves lost in a game of cat in mouse while searching for what more to trust: the masses or the individual.

Following Obi's example of the mentally disabled, it is reasonable not to defend a lower life form like a snail or rat simply because of the abundance of said organisms and the rate at which they multiply, as well as the fact that they are both a form of pestilence in themselves. But a mentally disabled human, first and foremost, is still much more intelligent that any lower life forms. We cannot be biased negatively simply because any particular disabled person is not up to par with the average person in intelligence or development. These people are in most cases harmless and helpless, and without the care of other people capable of caring for them, they would surely starve to death or meet some other such ill fate. Those mentally disabled who are not safe to themselves and others are placed in institutions where they can be cared for properly, at least speaking in an optimistic view.

Another reason it is morally right to care for the mentally disabled is simply because we can. No other species can care for and recognize in such a way that we can, the mental disabilities or malformities of another human being. Just for the fact that we can care for and recognize the necessity of care is enough to justify the caring for of any such person.

I kind of went on a tangent there but, that subject does not really get enough attention as it is.

Contradiction is not relevant when weighing so many different issues. You are comparing the intelligence of animals, undeveloped/partially developed humans, and underdeveloped, etc. humans. These issues can all be said to have similarities, but as mentioned above, individuality weighs very heavily in each category. You cannot create a lumped morality based on similarities, but rather use your INTELLIGENCE to create a morality for a general situation while refining it relative to situations. An absolute morality is bound to fail when presented with new evidence and subjected to reason. In the times of the Old Testament it was good morality to stone adulterous women to death. Today it is just seen as assault, attempted murder, and just being a dick.

 

[Stagnant]

While I don;t think this adds to anything that has been said... as I view it...

Everything is entitled to live... and everything is entitled to die.

Nothing in between.

I say that any and every form of life is equivalent to that of a human.

It doesn't matter if it is a fungus,insect, bird, or what have you.

Intelligence is not a factor in this because you are comparing Life=Life as Death=Death.

I can say that it is immoral to kill ANYTHING. Because everything is a 1for1. Your life is of no greater value than what you kill.

Intelligence and morality don't work with each other...

 

[animenagai]

Just eat dogs and monkeys :D.

May I ask why it is so important to you to judge what is deemed food and what is not based on the intelligence of its species? Is this your reasoning for not eating human beings? Do you feel like you're insulting intelligence by killing an intelligent creature? Why do you believe that humans have more rights in the first place?

I don't understand why it's so important for you to keep the original position to be honest. Intuitions are often wrong, it is why we have logic so we can work things out.

 

[ivar]

You don't have a dilemma. Make clear the distinction between intelligent life and intelligence and attribute a particular definition to a particular claim if and only if appropriate. The problem I see (and hence the apparent dilemma) is that you use two different (albeit similar) definitions of intelligence. One definition of intelligence is being self-aware (that which fetuses, fish, and cockroaches are not) while the other definition of intelligence that you use is in the sense that most are familiar with--whether or not one is smart. The problem lies in how you use these two distinct definitions interchangeably.

For example, the mentally disabled aren't intelligent, but are intelligent life because they are self-aware, yet a fetus is neither intelligent nor an intelligent life form.

So you can be down with early term abortions, but still oppose those who treat the mentally disabled (or relatively stupid persons) as subhuman by restating your beliefs so that intelligent life has dominion exclusively over non-intelligent life (e.g. fish, cockroaches, fetuses), but must respect the less intelligent that are self-aware (e.g. the mentally disabled, people from New Jersey).

Unless there is something I've looked over, I think this issue is solved.

 

[animenagai]

Stuff

That only works if you have defined 'intelligence' in 'intelligent animals' as 'being self aware'. The problem with this is that I don't think obi has made such a claim at all. I'm sure there are plenty of self aware animals that obi may eat, like cows and sheep.

I also want to point out the dangerous slippery slope you're on obi. How intelligent is intelligent enough? Even if you can find some way to justify inconsistency, you'll still be faced with a challenge.

 

[Aeolus]

I also am OK with early-term abortions because the fetus has no comprehension of life -- it's the moral equivalent of killing a cockroach, or a fish, etc..

I find it disturbing that nobody has taken issue with the fact that the OP presupposes the above quote as axiomatic.... especially when it is said in the same breath that criticizes people who eat octopus. The internet never ceases to amaze.

 

[obi]

I am willing to change my views on abortion if someone can provide a reasoned argument about it. However, very early on in a pregnancy, a fetus is definitely less intelligent than any adult mammal, octopus, etc., so if I accept my current views on intelligence and morality, I don't see how I can justify killing a fish but not aborting a fetus.

 

[Aeolus]

I think you'd be better off if you abandoned your current views on intelligence and morality.

Let's not pretend there are not arguments out there against abortion. Everyone has read them and nobody benefits from a lecture from me. Very simply, everyone has to make a choice. Either you think it ok to kill a fetus or you don't.

My personal approach to the issue is that I don't know where to draw the line. Obviously, almost all reasonable people agree that abortion is unethical as the fetus makes its way through the birth canal. What about 10 minutes before that? Still unethical? 20 minutes before? Yeah, still pretty clearly unethical. Keep pushing it back... increment by increment. I don't know what threshold I could cross where I'd say "ok, now's it's alright to kill it!" The only safe bet, assuming you are interested in ethical behavior, is not to kill it. Admittedly, a baby is inconvenient many times, but I don't know any other way I can be consistent in my beliefs.

The other thing is that I don't know what defines "human" other than the basic biological fact of being genetically human. Certainly it isn't intelligence, we've already gone over the mentally retarded example. Self-awareness? Obviously not... there are plenty of humans with impairments that destroy that capacity. A conscience? Fuck, that's why we're having this discussion... but I dunno if that's a safe bet either when we have plenty of sociopaths out there. How about a soul? I don't think we want to take this discussion there because nobody can have much to say about that without leaning on some doctrine. The point is that when you try to measure "human-ness" (and therefore the right to live) by factors other than being genetically human, you find yourself in perilously deep waters very quickly that are filled with intellectual contradictions.

To illustrate, I do not feel a visceral revulsion to the morning after pill in the same way that late-term abortion makes me nauseous. But my conscience and intellect force me to consider them morally equivalent even though I don't emotionally empathize with a the cluster of cells that comprise the embryo. It is genetically human, and therefore meets the criteria and (in my belief system) inherently holds the right to life.

 

[Tangerine]

I am willing to change my views on abortion if someone can provide a reasoned argument about it. However, very early on in a pregnancy, a fetus is definitely less intelligent than any adult mammal, octopus, etc., so if I accept my current views on intelligence and morality, I don't see how I can justify killing a fish but not aborting a fetus.

A human fetus eventually grows into something more intelligent than an adult mammal or octopus. Compared with an adult octopus/mammal, which technically does not get more "intelligent", but only slowly deteriorate.

A human fetus, without an abortion, has a significant chance of surpassing the level of intelligence you defined as your cutoff.

 

[ivar]

That only works if you have defined 'intelligence' in 'intelligent animals' as 'being self aware'. The problem with this is that I don't think obi has made such a claim at all. I'm sure there are plenty of self aware animals that obi may eat, like cows and sheep.

I also want to point out the dangerous slippery slope you're on obi. How intelligent is intelligent enough? Even if you can find some way to justify inconsistency, you'll still be faced with a challenge.

Well, he did mention intelligent life as in being self-aware, as he specifically said:

I also am OK with early-term abortions because the fetus has no comprehension of life -- it's the moral equivalent of killing a cockroach, or a fish, etc..

... implicitly suggesting that he's cool with doing away with that which is not self-aware (not saying that he likes it though, just saying that he is OK with the prospect).

And whether or not obi eats self-aware animals himself is irrelevant; all that is relevant is that he thinks it is wrong to eat self-aware animals. Remember, obi might be a little devil in disguise. But maybe I'm just nitpicking.

And plus, no where in his post did he claim that he abuses self-aware animals, so you're not entitled to that assumption. True, he did imply that he believes that there is nothing morally wrong with eating beef, but cows are arguably not self-aware. Take, for example, the mirror test of self-awareness: if you look at a mirror and do not recognize yourself, you are not self-aware. Cows have not passed this test. There are criticisms with this test, but the claim that cows are not self-aware is nevertheless legitimate, which would mean that they are not intelligent life and okay to have dominion over (further meaning it's okay to eat beef). So my original suggestion to obi's little issue isn't ruled out but is contingent on whether or not certain animals are self-aware or not.

And further contingent on how strongly he believes that it is okay to have dominion over that which is not self-aware.

Edit: I also think it's important to add that 18 month old humans fail the mirror test, meaning that, if we stay consistent with the rest of the principles I've mentioned, it's okay to murder babies! Yikes! We can, however, get out of this little predicament by arguing that animals that have the capacity to be self-aware are intelligent life so even though a mirror test failing baby is not self-aware at that particular instance, it can later and thus is intelligent life (unlike a cow, which might never be self-aware).

However, obi would then have to rescind his pro-life beliefs, as a fetus has the capacity to become self-aware!

 

[billymills]

My personal approach to the issue is that I don't know where to draw the line. Obviously, almost all reasonable people agree that abortion is unethical as the fetus makes its way through the birth canal. What about 10 minutes before that? Still unethical? 20 minutes before? Yeah, still pretty clearly unethical. Keep pushing it back... increment by increment. I don't know what threshold I could cross where I'd say "ok, now's it's alright to kill it!" The only safe bet, assuming you are interested in ethical behavior, is not to kill it. Admittedly, a baby is inconvenient many times, but I don't know any other way I can be consistent in my beliefs.

To illustrate, I do not feel a visceral revulsion to the morning after pill in the same way that late-term abortion makes me nauseous. But my conscience and intellect force me to consider them morally equivalent even though I don't emotionally empathize with a the cluster of cells that comprise the embryo. It is genetically human, and therefore meets the criteria and (in my belief system) inherently holds the right to life.

Then it follows that abortion prior to conception (i.e.: not consumating) is also unethical. A sperm and egg have the potential to become human, just as much as a fetus does. I presume you draw the line around here, whereas people more accepting of abortion draw the line somewhere later.

Personally, I draw the line at the point slightly before it is likely the fetus will survive (50% is not a good number, think at least 20%). Prior to that, the only differentiation between gametes and fetuses is the varying degrees of likelihood they could exist without the parent.

A human fetus eventually grows into something more intelligent than an adult mammal or octopus. Compared with an adult octopus/mammal, which technically does not get more "intelligent", but only slowly deteriorate.

A human fetus, without an abortion, has a significant chance of surpassing the level of intelligence you defined as your cutoff.

My first point follows from the above argument, human gametes have the potential to be more intelligent than the cutoff. I make no difference between the processes of fertilization and a process without an abortion. Is it therefore immoral to prevent fertilization?

The second point relates to the initial purpose of the thread. If it is NOT likely that the fetus will be smarter than the cutoff, is it then ethical to abort it? (Assuming genetic disorder that can be proven relatively early. e.g.: Downs' syndrome.)

BTW: I'm not trying to troll. OK?

 

[Tangerine]

My first point follows from the above argument, human gametes have the potential to be more intelligent than the cutoff. I make no difference between the processes of fertilization and a process without an abortion. Is it therefore immoral to prevent fertilization?

Except gametes by themselves do nothing and they need to be fertilized before they start leeching nutrients and growing. I think the key word here is fertilized - that's where life begins :P

The second point relates to the initial purpose of the thread. If it is NOT likely that the fetus will be smarter than the cutoff, is it then ethical to abort it? (Assuming genetic disorder that can be proven relatively early. e.g.: Downs' syndrome.)

That's probably a better question - I would probably argue yes, according to the statements given by obi. (I would personally be for this too - then again I softreset for IVs all the time) please dont shoot me