Madrugada
Since: Jan, 2001
#2: Sep 22nd 2014 at 5:31:32 PM
Some of the human examples fit Values Dissonance. They should be moved there. Some fit other tropes. They should be moved there. These are basic wiki-maintenance tasks and do not require discussion.
Animals do not have a system of morality as such, and therefore are not subject to being "moral" or "immoral".
This was discussed in the RealLife Cleanup thread
.
Declining to open.
Total posts: 2

This morning, I went to go read the Blue and Orange Morality, and I noticed it was stripped down heavily, the edit reason by the mod removing it was:
"None of these are "a moral framework that is so utterly alien and foreign to human experience that we can't peg them as good or evil.""
Upon reviewing them, there is a point there; as the real life examples could be understood if you understood the morality (which since it was a human morality, wouldn't be that hard.)
The problem is, as you can see in the pastebin I made for it
, it seems like a crying shame to let these get lost to the ether. ALOT of interesting info here, and I know an ethics and philosophy professor that used them to show how people rationalize beliefs that are alien to us. Would these be better off in the Values Dissonance page?
Also, segregated from the rest of the section, I saved the animal section that was cut. (Reason being from the editor: "...if you can apply a concept like Morality to them in the first place" No. Animals do not have morality. Also, natural selection is about pragmatism, not morality.) I'd say it belongs, but what does everyone else think?