binntho, I have written some explanations and eloborations as a reaction to your post. What do you think of those? Do you understand what I mean? Do you have a response to it?
Otherwise I don't see us/this dicussion converging to an understanding of my morality theory.
You may be quite right, I do no respond to much of what you have written but try to focus on the underlying assumptions which I think have to be sorted out first.
Some thoughts:
"we have vastly expanded our "optimal zone".
I think you don't understand what I mean by 'optimal human organisation' if that's what you are referring to with "optimal zone".
Perhaps you mean something else. Can you explain what you mean by "optimal zone"?
I took it from your post here:
Other species either live in the optimal zone or they perish. That is called natural selection and it means all life stays in optimal zones of behaviour.
The second is the faculty by which we can make value claims but they are only for our own sake. So if we as a species were to decide to live "in harmony with nature" or whatever else you might call it, nobody other than our selves would be aware of this or would be able to judge it good or bad.
I don't understand what you mean by "value claims".
A value claim is essentially the same as a value statement. Value is a construct, so all statements (or claims) that imply value (i.e. judging based some percieved quality) are constructs.
My morality theory is not for e.g. birds to understand, but only for humans to understand. To understand what we as humans have done in our short existence as a species. To look at it from the alien perspective, as Chomski calls it. What technology means, and how our (civilisation) behaviour is very bad. Why we (civilisation) are so utterly violent and destructive. How we have come to this apocalyptic AGW mass extinction situation. What it means.
Ok, we can agree here. My point is that we never made a choice as to how we got here, therefore there can be no value judgment of the path we took here. But we as humans can make individual choices (and try to get others to agree) as to where we individually want to go from here, and these choices are subject to value claims ("good" or "bad" etc.)
My morality theory together with the breaking down of the abritrary pillars of civilisation culture into specific decisions made long ago. It is consistent and explains the whole thing.
Result: from the human perspective, we made a wrong turn by forcefully breaking the constraints of living nature.
From the living nature 'perspective', humans went wrong when they got the ability to create fire.
No, we didn't make any wrong turns. We took the only path available to us, there was never any choice, and as apologists everywhere always say: If we hadn't taken that path, some other species would have done sooner or later.
We as a species evolve with techology. This is a natural consequence of the forces of evolution, which always moves towards higher energy consumption whenever possible. If our evolution was wrong, then the evolution of all life was wrong.
Living nature obviously hasn't got a perspective.
Therefore, your utopian goal of mankind living in harmony with other species is only and purely to the benefit of us humans. Not to the benefit of other species
The plants benefit from the animals and the fungi etc. The animals benefit from the plants and fungi etc. The fungi benefit from the plants and the animals etc.
This is what living nature is. Ecosystems and extremely complex interdependancy which means all of living nature benefits from all of living nature.
Perhaps a better word than could have been used. If we decide to protect a species, that species benefits from our protection. But neither the individuals nor the species as a whole is able to appreciate this, so on a more abstract level, we protect species to the benefit of ourselves.
Nature only has worth in our eyes.
Yes, because the concept of 'worth' does not exist in living nature.
We agree here.
I think humans are not the only animals with abstract tought. And the complexity of our brain superior? I observe how parrots get high intelligence and creativity from that little bitty brainsize. Now, which one's more complex and efficient? I'd say the parrots. They have had many more millions of years of evolution in this.
Our brains are vastly superior to any animal brains when it comes to complexity, and no other species is capable of abstract thought. Some primates in captivity have come tantalizingly close, e.g. seeming to be able to make false statements and to joke. This is however disputed and may just be overreacting humans reading too much into animal behaviour. Not the first time that happens.
Finding actual numbers is a bit difficult, but something called the Encephalization Quotitient which is based on species specific brain size vs. body size calculations puts us at 7.8 and our nearest relative on 2.5 (chimpanzee).
Our prefrontal cortex is vastly bigger than in all other animals, and we are the only animal that exhibits the extensive folding that is so emblemic of our brains. This folding has the purpose of allowing us to have a lot more neurons and neural connections, again indicating that our brain is significantly more complex than other animals.
Other animals, including some bird species, have been shown to posess the concept of agency, e.g. when crows take care that other crows are not looking when they hide food. This does not require abstract thought.
Efficiency is a totally different kettle of fish. As the "survival of the fittest" implies, all animals presumably have the brain that is most efficient for their needs.
