But if morality doesn't exist, why should we care? Saying we have a duty to care is implying the existence of objective morality. Immanuel Kant's deontology is based on duty, so how is this different?
We don't have a duty; we have the natural order. There's no objective reason that life is an objective goal, simply that we find it enjoyable for the most part. Oh and for some reason, our instincts tell us that life is better than death. It's not an objective good, but the people who don't subjectively see it as a good have the option of giving it up (suicide).
So now you're admitting that there is an objective moral good? You're giving mixed messages.
Nope. What I'm saying is that the good of morals, the reason we have them in themselves, is that they are positive for the survival of a species, and the survival of the species is an objective good in the same manner that things like "the world not plunging into the sun/flying past pluto" or "cthulu not awakening and killing all of us" or "GWB is not getting a third term"–they aren't objectively good, but they might as well be, seeing as those that don't see them as such are usually clinically insane or insanely stupid.
Especially on that last one.
Inclination toward artistic expression is an example. Art does not contribute to human preservation. In purely evolutionary terms, art is merely a medium through which time and resources are exhausted in varying quantities.
The chicks dig it?
Art doesn't contribute to human preservation, it contributes to human flourishing. In fact, human preservation is a prerequisite to art, and flourishing in general.
Point taken. However, I'm fairly certain that there must have been some evolutionary background for artists (you know how crazy chicks go for some "artists" nowadays/back when art was good too, don't you?).
You're assuming an animal must be of our intelligence to contribute towards an alternate end, which is bogus because domesticated animals disprove that.
Domesticated aren't of our intelligence... Or do you mean they lead to an alternate end?
The fact that humans have successfully domesticated certain animals proves they have the mental capacity to contribute to alternate ends.
Oh,
this is what you mean. Yeah, no. Allow me to explain it to you this way.
Say you have a gene, or a group of genes, that, when active, tend to lead to rather angry sheep. Most behavior is genetically based, no? So what happens when the sheep that have this gene are systematically killed off? The sheep with the genes we want (mild, friendly, passive, dumb) have better chances of survival because their natural condition has changed from "we need to protect our meaty bodies from predators" to "we need to please our masters in the best way possible".
Now seeing as they have always had the capcity to do this, why haven't they ever done it on their own accord? Because they weren't structured to do so.
See above. They
never had the capacity to do that. Their environment changed, they adapted to it.
It's evident humans are different because had animals been the same as us, they would have always been altering what they contribute to, because they've always ahd the mental capacity to do so. A wilderbeast doesn't need the intellect of Einstein to refuse to participate in the annual migration across the Serenghetti, yet it never refuses to because it is not part of the essence of animals to be able to alter what they contribute to on their own accord.
Would it be positive for the animal? They have not gotten past the "instinct" phase (in fact, we haven't fully either), where they do what their instincts tell them is right. And why do they have this coded into their brain? Well, the wildebeasts that stayed back ended up
dying. They didn't reproduce, they didn't succeed in the herd.
You saying something is 'scientifically proven' no longer means anything to me anymore, considering that the domestication of animals 'scientifically' disproves 1.
No, no it doesn't. Check your facts. If something being widely scientifically proven doesn't mean anything to you, I have this great concept for you, it's called "Young Earth Creationism".
It is scientific fact that animals have the capacity to contribute to alternate ends. It is also scientific fact that they cannot do so without external interference.
Wrong and wrong. Cite your facts. I'm currently looking for good, peer-based literature pointing to us being animals, but google is being a ****.
So the idea that humans are no different, and were just the first to evolove such a self-aware faculty is bogus, because such a faculty would have been present in nearly every animal before humans, because the potential to evolve such a capacity had been there for millions of years.
Humans are no different. Certain species of gorillas have been shown to be self-aware. They are getting to the point where we were hundreds of thousands of years ago-just barely self-aware, getting around to the whole "evolving into the dominant species on the planet" part.
If anything, the evolution of the self-awareness faculty (the ability to alter what you contribute to on your own accord) makes no evolutionary sense. It makes no sense why it would become necessary millions of years after successfull evolution without it. Not so coincidentally, humans, the one creature on Earth with this self-aware faculty, is the one creature who fits in no ecosystem. Not only is humanity the only species to not be governed by any ecosystem, it cannot interfere in any ecosystem without imbalancing it.
The humans who were smarter were better equipped to deal with ****. That simple, really. And they got more tail.
So what are you suggesting, that the human is just the first of many species with the self-awareness faculty that will be governed by no ecossytem, and in fact ruin every ecosystem it interferes in? What evolutionary benefit would it be to start developing creatures that will cause such disharmony?
None, except for us. Think about it, when we "harm each other ecosystem we participate in", who are we harming it for? The other animals, sure. But for ourselves? We bulldoze that **** and build houses for us to live in, grow plants for us to eat. I
am suggesting that the human is the very first species to develop these thoughts, and that there may be others on the way (presumably primates).
Actually, the 'main base it goes off' is actually scientific. The conclusions are based on what has been observed in nature, which are factual observations. The conclusion that humans are in fact different just logically follows what the observation of nature tells us.
Really? I'm sorry, I'm not buying it.