Don't you think that the fact that our species possesses a higher level of consciousness than (most) other species gives us some moral authority.
you'll need to elucidate that idea before I can say 'no' knowing enough what I'm saying 'no' to, to explain why (all I can say right now is that I'm pretty sure that's what the short answer will be).
You made the reference to a strain of influenza; but diseases have no ability to sense moral responsibility.
or, indeed, ability to act on such a sense even if they had it. This is something the vegans like to talk about a lot - sure, sharks kill men, men kills sharks, but men shouldn't kill sharks, because we can eat carrots; we have a choice, so, according to them, we should choose not to do what we want where the shark or rabbit or sheep would, if it was human, ask us to refrain. To me theirs is an argument that doesn't even need to be had yet, for first we have to have someone show that we have a duty to not be inhumane to humans before we even worry about treating as human things that aren't.
what is important though is to be a little more objective than our cultural upbringing, and ask whether or not that which we 'sense' is actually 'moral responsibility'. After all, I feel sad and I predict a sense of guilt and shame when I think about strangling a cat, even my own cat, even because it is dying slowwwly from an infection from another cat's bite...but is this emotional reaction the identification of a moral reality, or is it just emotion? I very much side with Hobbes on such matters (and, in that respect, Hume). It's not clear that something I feel bad about doing - sneaking out late to get drunk, having an extra cookie, raping a sleeping drunk girl, actually are insights into "responsibilities' I have. I'm inclined to agree that I don't have a "responsibility" to run from the lion, what I have is an evolutionarily advantageous survival mechanism, which opposing is statistically more likely to be to my disadvantage than my advantage, especially given the lack of necessity involved---I can survive without killing the lion today, without eating one more cookie, without busting a nut right now. In this line of thought it's helpful to consider oneself in dire conditions, or to have known criminals/addicts, so as to ask whether this "responsibility" shows up where one's feeling is that there is dire need to do something "immoral", or whether indeed we have a survival instinct here in favor of the immoral act, outweighing the 'avoid conduct likely to inspire violence response' instinct, such that the feeling of "moral responsibility" is to do the immoral thing, as if we have a "moral duty" to survive even at the expense of others (consider the mother ripping off the baker, stealing bread for her child)...i.e., such that we realize the term is a misleading one, as it does not apply to what we were using it for.
Do you think that the fact that human beings have the undeniable capability to question moral responsibilities means that they possess them?
definitely not.
Those who do, I'd be extremely intrigued to hear why they do think this wouldn't be a non sequitor, and what their reasoning is.
It seems to me that you encourage a more animalistic and instinctual method of living.
though I use such words above, that is a slight mischaracterization. The word 'instinct' itself is not necessarily a helpful one, as when we talk about the 'fight or flight instinct'---are we to 'obey our instinct and do two opposing actions'?, such a term is as if to say 'all things are instinct, and we can but pick between them, using reason and emotion. What I encourage is simply more of the former than the latter---making decisions in life based on emotion just isn't that satisfying, most people come to think. Emotion, though, is useful, but ultimately I think should be but the horse to which reason holds the reigns. Darwin hypothesized the evolutionary reason for emotion was to get us quickly into action...once in action we need to not remain a dumb bomb, but become a missile guided with reason. It's not that we're to rely on 'whatever we feel at first we should do, we should do', just that we should question all things, not just cultural restraints, but indeed emotional impulses, and moderate our action by our conclusions of their validity and worth. All that is a rather useless answer, perhaps it says more to note that the point isn't to be more "animal", but merely less deluded, which is to say that I don't take delusion (like morality) to be fundamental to what it is to be human, and thus to be without such things as morality is not to be less than human.
Can you explain how you believe you can compare diseases to human beings?
where I did so it was only in a limited context. we are both natural, we both cause damage to other organisms (indeed, all heterotrophs do, and if you want to talk about aerobic vs. anaerobic lifeforms on the early earth you could even talk about autotrophs polluting and ruining things for other lifeforms). I compare them merely to ask for a distinction to be made.
It would seem to me that our capability to assess moral judgment sets us apart.
as does our opposable thumb. the question though is 'how is one of our differences relevant to how our behavior should differ?' I'm not convinced that our intellectual faculty burdens us with shackles other lifeforms are free from. Again to the vegan ideas, I always like to ask them 'you say because I have a moral sense I should refrain from eating the fish, but suppose I do, and a bear further down the river eats the fish, what difference does this make to the fish? if none, then surely it is not for the fish's sake that I forgo a meal.' My question is this: if a bear is not concerned at the morality of mauling me, for what reason should I think my ability to question the morality of me shooting him (for whatever reason, out of whatever need or lack their of) is of concern to the bear, who himself does not expect me to conform to a particular standard of just war and legislation of self-defense?---if the animal I kill doesn't object to the morality of my killing him as I attack, why'm I to think morality should get in my way?
If humans have the ability to question such things, why shouldn't they act on them?
here I create no absolute. I can question all sorts of things, but I do not say 'you should never do x'. If you question x and want to act on x, and perhaps x is 'abstain from killing fish', then go for it... even if there isn't a carrot in sight, and we stipulate if you don't eat the fish you'll die, do it if that's what you want, you have no duty to abide by any of your instincts or feelings over any other of them.
Are we being tested (I don't think you believe this, since it would imply some kind of higher power)?
yea, I take that to be a sort of arrogance, the anthropocentric, 'us, of all things in nature, uniquely important and with a purpose to figure out and meet' fantasy.
Should we strive to actually take a step back in our philosophies and questions of morality for a simpler form of logic? Or do you believe that questioning emotions and morality is in itself a step backward?
we should always be willing to examine all things. We cannot say 'it would be a step back to examine God's existence, God exists, now let's get back to figuring out this 'trinity' thing'. We cannot take the foundations of our view for granted. But it isn't that I think we should just dismiss morality and go for something simpler...if morality is valid then there it is, and if it's complex, then so be it, all I think is that morality isn't valid, and that there are definitely more productive means of analysis and decision-making, which is merely fortunate, not a motive on which we, out of some agenda, reject moral points-of-view.
Shit, I'd love it if there were 72 virgins waiting for anyone who killed himself murdering a few people, how much easier that is than working 9-5, and how much more sex it reaps... but I merely reject it because there's nothing to show it is valid. Morality is in the same boat.
