I was considering something very basic, like genetically part of the human species (ability to interbreed, etc.). You know: Physically human and genetically human. I'm not sure how "evolved anyone is" has anything to do with how they should be treated in terms of better inferior or superior to someone else.
I can accept that definition. Now why draw the line there? As I said in another one of my posts, what makes specisim the right line, but not religion? Culture? Race? What is it that makes that line unique to all the other lines that we draw?
So technically, if you have a choice of whether to save a human life versus a parrot's life (for example -- suppose a tenement is burning or something), there is really no distinction between either potential victim, nor difference in what is chosen (as long as, in fact, you do try to save something... although I guess even that is not a given either, is it?
No, I'm saying that the very attempt to define good and evil requires us to draw arbitrary lines. It is a requirement for any philosophy that follow this methodology to eventually invoke 'high order'. Christianity does it - clear line separating God's chosen... to separates us from animals. Contrast this with Sila from Buddhism for a practical example of the difference in viewpoints (from what authority does the sanctity of life come from?)
By far and large, the mindset that you talk about here is the "spherical" view of morality. It is dominant in western - namely monotheism - values. And it isn't just a philosophical question; there is a reason why monotheism is prone to drawing spheres around itself, against other religions, cultures and so forth. It's endemic to monotheism, despite any overlying beliefs in peace and love.
If you asking how I deal with it – I don’t. I subscribe to an absolute moral code that involves making the right decision at the moment it is presented to me. I do not believe in a universal standard, or the right moral choice (taken at the moment the choice is offered). I would save the person because the balance of life leans in his favor since I'm the actor and am human.
Except for the fact that the trait of empathizing and identifying with another is built into many human beings by nature, so in a sense it's like a productive beneficial biological imperative... so doesn't that make it "good"?
If you step back from the morality of empathizing, the statement that 'beneficial biological imperative' makes everything natural good. Bacteria is a requirement for human life. Disease can be viewed as a natural biosphere imperative. So is death. Ego. Ethno centric behavior. Lust. Violence (against nature, if not against man). Greed. All variations on humans, nature and environmental pressures. These things just are... Everything is systemic. Human perception of what they are is a moral judgment made to support other moral judgments - it ends up being circular reasoning, or something similar... ie: "It's good because it exists."; Mob "It's good because most of us think/act like it's good"; Authority "It's good because x says so".
It doesn't change that it requires us to draw a subjective line since the basis for preference of the line is subjective.
Perhaps "good" can be expanded to include one's identifiable, empathizable species? Or should it be broader than even that?
I empathize with my furry dog, since for some reason humans strongly prefer furry pets. A few thousand miles away, they kill the same animal and eat it. They have ‘suppressed’ empathy for animals because it isn't common in their culture. It's trained, just as empathy for subsets of man are trained... slavery? Nationalism? Happens all the time – and is happening all over the world. Empathy is a word that safe secure people use. Tribalism is what we call it when we are fractured. Empathy there is a survival instinct and limited to the clan.
Well, yes. But if there is no such thing as absolute good somewhere, then I suppose we'll just have to live (and die) with that, right? Or are you actually suggesting there IS some more universal standard of good that should operate in encouraging a stronger species to treat a weaker one with respect/benevolence?
There are three main ways to resolve this;
1) Treat others according to their own demonstrated moral code;
2) Redefine the concept of good and bad to define the gap between intentions and actions (utilitarian viewpoint assumed);
3) Define good in a non-spherical way (do not draw lines at all)
Each has a different set of issues, yes.
Although, getting back to REAL LIFE and not addressing universal aspects of good and evil, as far as my actual behavior goes in real life, are there things that we can agree are generally good (or motivations that are generally good) or not? Regardless of where a philosophical discussion might go, when the rubber meets the road, we all seem to agree on SOME rules of good and evil and see certain interactions with each other as positive-directed versus other interactions that are always destructive.
These are foundational issues, which I tried to highlight above. The very concept of drawing lines implies a vastly different approach to morality, with very different tangible issues. It is not the universal standard in the world.
Actually, I'm quite sure you relished every moment of it.
*shrug* I follow my nature, but it doesn't mean I don't have empathy for those that I may impose upon on my way through life!
I don't know what they are. I guess they are some kind of internal sense of what is right and wrong...
