PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Moral Status [HD]

Jeff Sebo (N.I.H.) discusses the nature of moral status. What does it take for someone to be a subject of moral concern? Do they have to be human? Rational? Sentient? Alive? And how does our answer to this question affect how we should act in everyday life?

Help us caption & translate this video!

[doughauck]

I got the impression that he considers moral status an all-or-nothing proposition.  That is, we may have different ideas of where to locate the cut-off point, but any member of the "moral status" group is morally equal to any other member.  I don't know if this is a common viewpoint among philosophers, who do often seem to search for absolutes, but to me it seems opposed to common sense. 
I would not say that a plant has moral status where a rock does not, or that a pig has moral status where a tree does not.  But I would say that a tree has a higher status than a rock, a pig has higher status than a plant, a chimp has higher status than a pig, etc.  And yes, my behavior towards them each depends on where I place them in that hierarchy.  I might smash a rock out of simple boredom, but not a plant.  Yet I would pluck (kill) a weed, simply for being in the wrong place, but not a pig.  Yet I would kill and eat the pig because I must eat to live (and pigs are freakin' delicious), but not a chimp. 
I freely admit that my rules for assigning moral status levels are subjective and probably even capricious.  Feel free to assign yours differently.  But the point is that there ARE levels, and I can assign some moral status to a pig, to differentiate it from a rock,  without foreswearing bacon.  I don't get the feeling Mr. Sebo agrees with that.

[GourmetBurrito]

Moral agents have to have the capacity to be morally blameworthy. We wouldn't tell a lion to stop hunting its prey because it isn't "moral" because they do not have the capacity to understand morality.

A child or a severely handicapped person may not have that ability, but there is a chance (given this is easier for the child) for them to learn. Thinking of the object's ability for moral reasoning should be done also on a continuum not on a discrete scale. This helps us understand why it's worse to kick a baby down a hill than it is to kick a mouse down a hill which is worse than kicking a rock down the hill.

[saeedbaig]

The sentience model of morality seems intuitive, but it also has conclusions difficult to swallow. First of, if you define sentience as "the capacity for conscious experiences like pleasure and pain", does that mean that all things that have sentience have equal moral status? If so, that would imply that a rat has as much moral status as a human, and that in the situation where (just as an example) you had a choice between saving 2 rats or 1 human, you should go for the rats since they have a collective moral status greater than that of the human's. Most people would probably disagree with that choice.

Alternatively, you could say that moral status is PROPORTIONAL to sentience. But even then, that would imply that some humans who can't feel pain (e.g. those with CIPA) would have less moral status than an animal.

[bigbossmatt]

This is a very interesting topic to me as an "ethical" vegan. I say "ethical" in quotation marks because I currently identify as a moral nihilist: I claim that there are no objective standards of right or wrong - and I acknowledge that my use of the word "ethical" is for personally identified/labeled values. Furthermore I do not believe that morals exist independently of the mind: I am not a moral realist. (This doesn't mean that I don't have morals, only that I must justify them for myself, without appeal to anything outside my existence.)

In a existential way, ala Camus, I want to live authentically according to my subjective (mind dependent) values. My values, as I have come to identify through self reflection, are those that logically lead me to live and identify as a vegan. Of course, I have other values, but that's not the topic at hand.

The reason I choose sentience as the defining criteria for moral status is because it supports veganism as a logical result. If this seems backwards, as if I am choosing the criteria for "moral status" after the fact of identifying which actions I want to justify, then I ask, what else does "moral status" do? What is "moral status" other than a criteria that is chosen to justify actions? Where does "moral status" exist if not in the mind of sentient beings? ... again, I am not a moral realist.

I am not sure if I have a question specifically, but I definitely am interested in hearing opinions about my comment. I am simply a self read person, with no training in philosophy (which is probably quite clear), so I welcome any comments that help me identify errors in my thoughts.

[mdlindsey]

Honest question(s) :

Does one organisms need to survive negate the immoral classification that an action would otherwise receive? For instance, if you're starving, is it immoral to eat the human/pig/etc that hasn't harmed you?

If so, is survival inherently immoral, or is it amoral since it's natural? (Then isn't that discrimination based on natural & unnatural?)

If not, at what point does it lose its status as immoral? Do you have to be dying? If so, how many hours from death? How would you know?

Hoping to hear some helpful insights. These questions arose after considering the "all life has moral status" stance and how it would imply that veganism is just as immoral as carnivorous diets? Or, would a utilitarian approach be adopted and say that we should always take the path of least despair?

Cool video!

[thumbsupinsanity]

rene de carte 1:04
peter singer 1:28
richard ryder 2:00
tom regan 2:00
Dale Jimmison 2:18
peter singerson 4:00

[AntiCitizenX]

The problem with moral status is that there is no such objective thing.  The cutoff is entirely arbitrary. 

[Shadowjak]

I'm quite comfortable with the idea that I don't make morally consistent choices on a daily basis, even though I do believe I subscribe to the idea that all sentient life deserves to be the subject of my moral concern. Being a perfectly moral person, even with strict rules about who deserves to be treated in a moral manner, is incredibly difficult - don't you think?

[RobleViejo]

Empathy. This can survive the death of what we care about. Prolonging our suffering, or how I want and need to see it: Makes us realize the importance of that life.

I grown up in the countryside, I've killed with my own hands to eat. I'm forever thankful to that life for giving me energy to keep up living. Wherever I see this as wrong or right is irrelevant.

[naeemsheira]

Based on my personal philosophy of morality i would say that our moral status includes everything ever since we were born, but it's all substantial to our life needs meaning that morality is a luxury not fundamental to our survival . If you think that eating a steak is ok because that's what there is to eat it means that if you're more hungry and there was a baby you can break your moral status and eat the baby because you can't afford luxuries when your survival is in jeopardy. If our moral status includes animals and trees we would die so we overlook the moral status violations we commit to simply survive . That's my take on the matter i could be right or wrong .

[appliedvirtue]

The idea that it is wrong to be a speciest is ludicrous. Humans are superior because we have souls and animals don't. Simple as that. We should be kind stewards of our fellow animals because we do have moral duties, but they are NOT equal to us.

[ianhruday]

Some people in the comment section seem to think that we must be committed to an objective/mind independent moral world, in order for this question to make sense. They are mistaken. We need not take a metaethical stance at all for these questions to come up. The question of moral status does not depend on accepting or rejecting any form of moral realism. Realists and antirealists alike must still face the question of what we owe one another, and to whom.

[Jeddas]

Great video. It might benefit from the addition of a few comments on the kinds of moral obligations we have as a consequence of a creature obtaining moral status. 
 ex: A dog might obtain moral status, but we could still have very limited moral obligations to it for any number of reasons, like the dogs inability to participate in the moral sphere.

[nicknolder]

Sentience, I can give reasons for why we should only care about sentience but no one can give a good argument for why we should only care about humans or go the other extreme and care about all living organisms, including those that are not sentient. Why the fuck does it matter if you kick a plant? If it’s not sentient, it’s not anyone, and if it’s not anyone, then you can’t violate its rights because only those who are sentient in the first place care about rights.

[kmdash]

It seems like there are at least 4 divisions: existent beings (all things in the universe), living beings (plants, animals, etc.) sentient beings (some animals, including humans), and sapient beings (some animals, including humans). Each of which have different moral statuses. We're OK with keeping a plant in a room with sunlight and water, but that would be cruel and unusual for social animals who need other social animals. We just seem to have different moral responsibilities to beings with different moral statuses.

[Overonator]

I say all life that has the capacity for suffering has a moral status.  Bacteria, viruses, and the like are very unlikely to have a capacity for suffering based on what we know so far so they no moral status.  Also currently this is unavoidable:  animals have to kill something in order to survive, other animals and/or plants.

[jogo]

You should put the names of the mentioned philosophers and publications in the description of the video.

[alldreamofcali]

What exists in the physical world is what is. Morality is your own perception of what you deem are morally right or wrong choices. Is it moral for a lion to kill? Certainly not moral for the species of gazelles, but lions kill anyway because of it's physical needs and abilities; So, does that make its actions right? To the gazelle it eats it is not right, but to the lion it is INSTINCT; a subconscious natural force that drives animals to survive, there is only one choice for him.

[lovetownsend]

 Moral statues when explained in the first 3 mins of this video is the same problem beating around the bush using logical terms argument, when the fact is, it comes down to the feeling of comfort in similarity vs discomfort in difference.   

[sillejuulkjaerbo]

Those who can experience pain, suffering, fear, pleasure etc. have moral status and those who are not sentient and hence can not experience the world and emotions etc. do not. The reason for this distinction is that if an entity is not sentient, the entity doesn't have preferences and cannot be harmed og benfited by someones action, and cannot care about what happens to them. Animal Ethics have various arguments for why sentience is what matters, and why ecosystems and plants should not be considered in terms of moral relevance.