It requires deep phenomonological understanding which humans are only in the infancy exploring, there are whole hosts of mental qualia which we have no name for and therefore are completely outside of our conceptual framework. Perhaps we'll be able to construct a more complete theory when and if we use biotechnology to improve our cognitive faculties far beyond their current state and are able to explore realms of consciousness currently unaccessible, but as of now our best, crude answer is a form of utilitarianism.



No, the basis for value at all is consciousness so of course conscious understanding is a requirement for a valid ethical system. Without consciousness, nothing matters.

I do not think science births morality, science merely informs morality.

Also requested a "baby" (or to be a mother) if I'm not mistaken. She was given a kitten to raise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)



http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/six-talking-apes-48085302/?no-ist

Just gonna leave these here.

Yes I thought as much:



Koko is really remarkable I must say.

I was primarily arguing against any such cognitive abilities in non-primates, though I think the any claimed syntactical understanding among non-human primates is still ridiculously primitive compared to humans, though yes not out of the question that there is a bit of it.

Am I actually reading someone trying to argue that without god morality can't exist?

Because that's what it looks like I'm reading...

You didn't answer either question. What experiment could we use to determine what is "good" or "bad"? You basically just said "Well, we don't have any info yet, but science totally agrees with me!"

Or tell me what current science implies a crude version of utilitarianism as the best morality?

You've evolved into a crude version of Tric at this point, and I'd rather not see you go down the drunken caps lock paragraphs at me when challenged road.



If the ape is able to abstract "bracelet" and "finger" to make a word for ring, that pretty much shatters your idea that they can't use symbolic language. Like I said, they may use it themselves, but it would be lost to us when communicating between other apes.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Sep 23 2014 10:02am

Since we found it in one species of animal, there's no reason to believe that it is not present in others. We've found lots of animals that communicate with each other, through various sounds and signals. There's no reason to believe that such communications could not be as complex as our own. Then again, there's no reason to believe that they are as complex as our own. The bottom line is that we have no idea how complex these animals thoughts could be.

Human is the animal who by far has achieve the higher potential of destruction, the fact that he cannot handle this power is enough to contradict any claim about being superior to other animals.

maybe some humans are just too sexy for you i.e. me

I guess you missed out on what i gathered from it or you didn't really watch it.