What is morality?

The dictionary defines morality as:

–noun, plural -ties for 4–6.
1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4. a doctrine or system of morals.
5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.
6. morality play.

Most definitions are circular, only the first is useful.

What is right?

–adjective
1. in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.
(Other definitions omitted for brevity)

What is good?
–adjective
1. morally excellent; virtuous; righteous;

Again in circle, we go back to morality where we started.

What is Just?
1. guided  by  truth,  reason,  justice,  and  fairness

The dictionary will make us go in circles round and round. The truth is, that morality is not a factual concept. Its an "idea". And as rationalists we seek consistency in ideas and concepts.

We say Humans have "rights". But we base them on what grounds? Because humans can feel physical and emotional pain? But we fail to define any DNA boundary for Homo Sapiens as no two humans have identical DNA and also we fail to define any emotional or physical pain threshold cutoff - we don't even know how to measure them. For example, do rights end after emotional pain 5.96 and Physical pain 3.21?

What is a Human? Is human a sequence of DNA? It couldn't, because every human has a different DNA pattern. In fact, our DNA is not much different from our most close evolutionary cousins.

"...However, from a genetic perspective the gaps in genes between us and our closest animal relative is arbitrary. We just happen to be the lucky survivors in the evolutionary race. As a thought experiment, it's perfectly acceptable to imagine a world where all the genetic "gap species" were still alive. Thus, between us and the bonobo there would be a continuum of living beings, all almost identical to their genetic neighbor. In such a world, it would be impossible to draw a line between us and the bonobo ..." - Dr. Richard Dawkins

The point is, there is no set or exact sequence of DNA that we can say has “rights”. Something like a Kilogram in France. There is a platinum iridium cylinder called Kilogram in France. All other weights are measured from it. There is no sequence of DNA in any museum or lab called the "THE Human DNA Sequence".

Then what is a human? A collection of body parts? Eyes, legs, arms, teeth etc? What set of body parts can we take and say "(Humans) Rights apply to these body parts: "Eyes, legs, etc". "Those who don't have these parts, or loose them in an accident have no rights." There are no such parameters. Even if there were, how do we decide which body parts to include and which to exclude? Who should be a template and why?

Then what is a Human? A set of behavior or traits or abilities? Like writing, singing, inventing etc? Do we say, “Those Lifeforms that can produce a sound agreeable to certain other lifeforms, those lifeforms that can produce marks on a paper agreeable to some other lifeforms and those lifeforms capable of making a rocket have rights, and those who cannot don't.” Also how do we arrive upon these traits and what about the unique ones like the ability to “see” magnetism, or to "see" in the darkness, or to navigate with your head etc?

Again there are no such parameters. We give human rights to illiterates, tribals, non-singers, non-writes and non-inventors, non-ricket scientists, criminals, (but not to homosexuals), imbeciles, infants, human vegetables etc.

Then, are “Humans” a set of lifeforms capable of physical pain and suffering? Not all humans can. Humans sleeping, imbeciles, coma patients, infants, humans on anesthetic etc. No two people can feel the same emotional or physical pain - which we cannot even measure to begin with. After which emotional or physical threshold shall we say (human) rights end. An MMA fighter can have a higher physical pain threshold than others. We all react to emotional stimulus differently. Some go mad and commit suicide on the death of a loved one, some take it pretty well and still manage a functional life.

The truth is, there is no such thing called "Human". "Homo Sapiens" is a tag that has no logical footing. The is no iron clad set of genes or a set of body parts or a set of abilities or range of emotions that make a “Human”. Its a polite fiction, but a useful one nonetheless, like imaginary numbers.

According to Darwinian Evolution, all traits evolved slowly and successively over thousands of generations. In the words of Dr. Richard Dawkins, the "mount improbable" was not climbed in a single leap, but a gradual slope. The keyword is “slope”.

For example, there are many different kinds of eyes that evolved independently from one another using different evolutionary pathways. And an underdeveloped eye is still better than no eye. Just because an eye evolved independently from human eye does not mean its not an eye and cannot perceive light.

This is then only logical to conclude that the ability to feel physical and/or emotional pain also evolved in gradual steps over millions of generations and species by similar or independent mechanisms rather than in one giant and abrupt leap for mankind alone.

This shows that other animals, who are our evolutionary "cousins" and share the same one common ancestor with us have also evolved the capacity to feel emotional and/or physical pain either using similar or independent evolutionary mechanisms that served as building blocks of human pain and suffering. Similarly, underdeveloped ability of pain and suffering is “better” than no ability for pain and suffering and is of significance to those who possess it.

The ability to experience uncomfortable sensations can lead to the difference between survival or extinction since only by avoiding acute uncomfortable sensations can an animal succeed in her ability to transfer her DNA and become an ancestor herself. To this extent, All lifeforms, including plants are sentient.

If humans can have their own version of rights, it's only logical and scientific to conclude that the ability to feel pain and suffering is not an exclusive domain of humans alone and that other lifeforms may have them in equal, underdeveloped or overdeveloped form and that non-human animals have rights too.

There is a difference between: "All Life will Extinct" and "My life will extinct".

Although we say humans are no different, life has no purpose, everything is meaningless etc., the truth is that when we get wronged, we seek justice. We don't sit at home and ponder the meaning of life.

Since human rights and equality are based on emotional and not scientific, logical and factual parameters, its emotional to assume that other animals have rights too.

If we ask people if all humans are equal they'll say yes, but if we then ask them why the answers are incoherent. I think that's because people often look for some sort of factual equality. In fact we're not the same. We do differ yet we say we're equal. I think what that shows is that the principal of equality is not a principle of factual equality but a moral principal that is essentially saying all humans have interests and its irrelevant to how we should consider those interest whether that humans are male of female, black or white, Christian or Muslim or any other differences that you might have. If thats the principle that lies behind a very important idea that all humans are equal then we have to say well non-human animals have interest too and those interests should also be equally considered. That means not necessarily that animals ought to be treated equally with humans because their interest will differ. - Peter Singer

Either we should have anarchy and not have the concept of rights and justice or if we choose to have them, then what criteria can be used to cherry pick? What constitute rights and who shall have them?

If we choose to be logical and consistent, then this is one of the best things we can do: If you have power, take it. All is within bounds if you can do it. No rights, no morality. No meat is out of bounds. Survival of the fittest. Might is right.

If we choose not to have the above, then the question arises :

What is morality? What is a Human? What is Right? What is wrong? Who should have them? Who should not have them?

To this extent we strive for logical consistency as much as possible. Why do we say that a “human vegetable” has human rights? Why do we say infants have full human rights and killing a 6 month old baby, much less sentient than a hen is a punishable crime - even if we kill an abandoned poor orphan on a street out of pity? Why do we say imbeciles have rights? Why do stop people from killing themselves even if they want to die and not test on them but kill an adult chimpanzee and test on them even if they don't want to die?

Surely, "Human Rights" is a farce. Its based on non-sense, illogical and non-scientific parameters.

The only logical alternative is to have universal rights encompassing all lifeforms - bacterias, plants and animals etc.

This may sound illogical and nonsense. Why? Because it is. But this is our predicament of existence. The concept of rights will never be logical and scientific. The concept of rights should never be logical and scientific.

Then how will we live morally? Well, the other side of the "human rights coin" is as illogical and nonsense: give something call "(human) rights" to something absolutely non-existent. (Clarification: This is not to say they WE don't exist or that the label “Human” or “Homo Sapiens” do not exist. It means the association of the label “Human” with a lifeform is not based on any logical, rational or scientific parameter. Also, the reverence or divinity of this label is also questionable and can be described to be dogmatic as best.)

The feeling that members of one's own species deserve special moral consideration as compared with members of other species is old and deep. Killing people outside war is the most seriously-regarded crime ordinarily committed. The only thing more strongly forbidden by our culture is eating people (even if they are already dead). We enjoy eating members of other species, however. Many of us shrink from judicial execution of even the most horrible human criminals, while we cheerfully countenance the shooting without trial of fairly mild animal pests. Indeed we kill members of other harmless species as a means of recreation and amusement. A human foetus, with no more human feeling than an amoeba, enjoys a reverence and legal protection far in excess of those granted to an adult chimpanzee. Yet the chimp feels and thinks and, according to recent experimental evidence, may even be capable of learning a form of human language. The foetus belongs to our own species, and is instantly accorded special privileges and rights because of it. Whether the ethic of 'speciesism', can be put on a logical footing any more sound than that of 'racism', I do not know. What I do know is that it has no proper basis in evolutionary biology. - Dr. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

This is how we proceed if we choose to proceed logically and wish to have morality. We divide existence into need and want. If needed, we're allowed to take. Not otherwise. Not for wants. And we must innovate before we can take. Taking should be the last resort. Mosquito or a so called "Human" threatening you? We take care of it.

A word of caution: I am not proposing “Utilitarianism” here.  Utilitarianism is a euphemism for immorality. It says, if you want it, take it. What I propose here is what we all do anyways, and that is, if you need it take it. They are two different ideas that are poles apart. I do not believe in utilitarianism and neither do I profess it. This is a very subtle difference to understand. I am not condoning theft either.

This can be understood as another example:

Taking some honey from bees is a most benign practice. Far less violent then ploughing a field and planting grain and legumes.

Ploughing a field and planting grain and legumes is a necessity of human survival, not a want. Everyone who wishes to live a relatively healthy and long life has to eat fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds and grains irrespective of their additional food choices. Every breath we take kills. Only the dead are free from “sin”.

Honey is not an essential nutrient and can be easily substituted by Agave, Rooh Afza, etc.

To commit one unnecessary crime only to justify it with a necessary one is to be misguided by some idea of a misplaced sense of morality. We cannot use a necessary evil to justify an unnecessary one.

Its like saying, "It's all right to commit a little fraud to make our ends meet, because we sponsor our governments to shoot humans anyways. Far more moral than murdering a human".

Our governments are suppose to shoot humans to protect the interests of the society at large. Even in a society where "human" rights are acknowledged, killing humans is a "necessity". This cannot be used as an excuse to commit any other benign act of immorality or violate someone's right unnecessarily.

In jurisprudence, its called the "principal of least harm".

In other words, "Lets be little or completely imperfect just because we cannot be completely perfect" is a sophistic argument. Like they say, “It's better to do inconsistently good than consistently bad”.

This is where we draw the line: "Principle of least harm". No doubt as long as any lifeforms exist on earth, rights will be violated. So either we should have no concept of rights, or a universal one. This is the only logical alternative for a rational mind. Anything in between will be based on an inconsistent, illogical, non-scientific and biased variables.

Studies show us that meat eating hurts the non-humans. This is science. If science is not accepted, then we should also eat fetuses and other humans (infants) who cannot defend themselves or are powerless to do so like other non-humans. We should not worry about wiping the human race since there is no universal morality. (Like we care anyways?)

If we wish not to do so then the only logical and scientific alternative we have is to say "we have rights and that these rights are based on emotions and not science and since its based on emotions other lifeforms (like insects and plants) have rights too and if needed, we take it with least harm to the best of our scientific knowledge and ability". Again, this should not be confused by utilitarianism. We know enough today to produce cruelty-free food, clothings, entertainment and medicines for all intent and purposes. Only under rare circumstances, like in self-defense, do we need to oppress. Not because we want to, because we have to.

Science show us we can do pretty well on a vegan diet and mock meat irrespective of whether we are herbivores or omnivores. This coupled with the fact that meat eating violates human rights since it deprives millions of clean water, land and food because of the massive energy loss in meat production. It also damages the environment and the rainforests. Therefore we say meat eating is "immoral" and cruel; if we believe there is something called "morality". This is again backed by science.

If we do not accept that there is something called “morality”, then the only logical, scientific and rational alternative is a free-for-all anarchy. There are two words in the dictionary: moral and immoral. There is no word called "partlymoral" or "semimoral". No one is one hundred percent immoral. Partial morality is defined as immorality. Either you are moral or immoral. The world is in shades of gray for those who are morally color blind.

The word "rights" is powerful enough to stand on its own feet. It is not a slave of prefixes. There is nothing called "human" rights or "animal" rights. Either there are rights or there are wrongs.

How do we punish non-human oppressors?

Well, if a child commits a murder, and if the child is below 18, an entire different set of laws apply to them. We don't hang criminals below 18. We rehabilitate them and they have special juvenile correctional facilities.

Non-humans are like children. I hate to compare them, as no non-human has to live up to the expectations of humanity, but just for the sake or argument I'll do it anyways.

Hens have an IQ of 1 year old humans, Pigs 3, some fish 5 and so on. Apart from this, they have many senses that humans don't, like "seeing" magnetic north, super-smell, night visions etc. But most importantly, they have all been shown scientifically to feel at least physical pain through mechanisms similar or different from humans.

Because they are like human children, the subset of human rights that apply to children should also apply to them.

Just like we don't let our children vote, we need not extend this to non-humans. Just like if a 6 year old shoots a classmate we don't hang him, we treat the non-humans the same way.

Further Reading:
I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body. Then I realized who was telling me this. - Emo Phillips

The Case for Animal Rights
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Animal-Rights-Tom-Regan/dp/0520243862/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280219049&sr=8-1

Growing Up in the Universe
http://www.kranti.org/knowledge-base/media/lectures-and-presentations/item/302-growing-up-in-the-universe.html

Time Out Magzine Interview
http://www.kranti.org/connect/blog/manuj-chandra/item/310-time-out-magzine-interview.html

Click "Read More" to watch remaining four parts