Moral question

Hi John, While your discussion of the morality of plants is unique, (I think,) I'd have to agree with Poetjude that [and I add] -* sentience is at least one prerequisite-, and furthermore consciousness might even be another, (depending on how that's defined.) Finding a foundation for morality, be it as Hume suggested, that ought derives not from is, (leading to later thinkers suggesting morality is about feeling,) or a dictum for defining moral behaviour, be it Kant's Categorical Imperative, or the Golden Rule is one philosophical task. Defining conciousness in philosophical terms is another entire philosophical discipline. I remember studying Churchland's works on conciousness, (among others,) many years ago. It might strongly be argued that consciousness (however that's defined,) is a prerequisite for morality, (suggesting as thinkers after Hume do, that morality is based on feeling,) But what none of that necessary and vital work does is explain whether the existence of morality is -caused- by the nature of human biology, or if the existence of morality is caused instead by the social requirement for people to live together in groups. Somebody might reasonably make an argument that sociable people must form rules in order to govern social behaviour. And that without such rules communities of humans can not interact sufficiently well enough to thrive. It would be a "morality is useful" argument. Kind regards, Pat My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

Hi Pat. Jude. "morality is useful" Would be my argument for the origin of morality in Higher Social groups. Sentience - Consciousness - morality - memory and empathy? You know when i look at and consider these words, I see 'terms' that we have selected to describe particular aspects of the Human condition. I 'feel' that these terms do describe 'real' Human phenomena. Yet I cannot shake off the idea that this is a limited perception. For me as a Physicists, I believe that all things are subject to simple yet eloquent Universal laws. When we talk about memory as a prerequisite to consciousness for example, I cant help but consider the idea that all things that may be observed within this Entropic Universe may be described as possessing memory? I have long felt that the building blocks of all things poses at some level the facility to communicate and to be 'self organizing'? I feel that sentient life, or even the sum total of all existence is in some way an intrinsic part of those precursors. 'Sentience' at some level, beyond the sub atomic? And that what we describe as the totality of all experiences, is as much a part and woven in to that sub level of sentient, as is our own experience of what it is to be Conscious of our own self awareness. (-: Regards.

John, If you believe that human experiences (& I add feelings), including morality, sentience, and so forth are no more than limited perceptions then you'd love David Hume (who agrees with you!) Particularly you'd love his Book I, Part 4, Section 6 of A Treatise of Human Nature, (Of Personal Identity) where he writes of mankind/humankind: that they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions... I suspect that you and David Hume would probably have had an interesting conversation! But in discussing perception, sentience and consciousness, we're moved quite a distance from the philosophical topic of morality. It's all fascinating, anyway! Kind regards, Pat (PS. Do look old Hume up if you get a chance. I believe he's the greatest philosopher who ever lived, myself.) My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

Thanks Patmac. I will make a note to look up Hume. Regards.