If the prosecutor asked for a relatively light sentence compared to other prosecutors and the judge imposed a sentence that's even lower, its entirely consistent to ask the judge to reconsider.

They do, but it's a tough sell on appeal.

Technically, a conviction requires being found guilty and being sentenced even though colloquially convicted often refers to only the verdict.

Maybe that's what the author intended to convey, but their phrasing is quite possibly the worst possible option they could have picked.

Shhhhhhh

Tommy Tuberville.

The analogy strikes at the core of the debate: whether morality is objective (like gravity) or subjective (like art).

Morality is a process now? How does that track with the gravity analogy?

I never said morality was quantitative, but you compared it to a phenomenon that could be.

"Recognizing" morality suggests that, like physics, it exists independent from "moral agents."

If we agree that the existence of moral agents is a necessary precondition of the existence of morality, are you saying that there is some universal standard of morality that applied at the dawn of man, remains the same today, but that did not exist until human evolution passed the "moral agent" threshold?

Stop staw-manning, you can't characterize someone else's position with so much rhetorical flourish so early in your response.

Dirty pool.

You've misunderstood my argument and made multiple logical fallacies.

Morality cannot be compared to gravity. Gravity can be measured. It can predict outcomes. It exists regardless of humanity. You've simply presumed the concept of morality (which apparently only humanity can recognize?) can exist independently of the only species which qualifies as a "moral agent." Your argument begs the question in that it presumes that which it seeks to prove.

Do dogs have moral intuitions? I'd say yes based on how they respond to failing to reward tricks, giving more treats to dog2, dogs' capacity for self sacrifice, etc.

Do chimps/bonobos have moral intuitions? In addition to the example provided in the podcast, the two primates have very different strategies for conflict resolution despite their genetic proximity, and I have a hard time identifying the point in human evolution that triggered some sort of deontological obligation.

Should we punish lions for eating cubs sired by other lions? Although they are warm-blooded like us, this is normal behavior for the lion. We might say lions don't have the capacity for morality, but that requires distinguishing them from primates, whales, dolphins, rats, etc.

But lets put aside the premise that humans are categorically distinct as moral angents. If we discovered an alien species (perhaps descended from ravens or parrots rather than chimps), could we reasonably judge them by our own standards? What if the conditions were so much harsher than earth that morally appalling behavior was necessarily required for that species to survive? (Relatedly, do we judge other humans who bend/break moral norms in the name of survival, as many survivors of genocide or war have done?).

IMO, moral codes are path dependent, adaptive, and emergent. We see this biologically with the examples provided in the podcast, but also in human history and political philosophy.

We can even take this principle one further into the realm of political philosophy. Suppose a sovereign has a (deontologicsl) moral code that prohibits taking violent action against a rebellious faction that is ready and willing to commit violence. Should the sovereign adhere to their code even where the rebels will impose a moral order that would be horrifying to the sovereign? I don't find this example much different than an animal with poor self-preservation instincts, but some of my comments below go into more details about my premises and corrolary arguments etc.

A few thoughts and clarifications

I do not believe that morality exists independent of sentient existence, or what might be called consciousness. For example, I do not think anything of moral significance occurs on Mars or Pluto or the Sun. If the world were to be obliterated in a nuclear holocaust, there would be nothing left to assess the morality of that action, nor any future actions. Without God, or some other type of observer, the universe is indifferent as to our existence, and the notion of morality would retrospectively focus on a tiny sliver of time that wouldn't be relevant for the remainder of existence.

But sticking with the nuclear example, suppose someone took control over the nuclear arsenal of the United States and threatened to launch the missiles unless you tortured them (think of Joker trying to get Batman to break his rules). One might say torture is inherently wrong, but here it would be necessary to maintain a world of any moral significance. To choose not to torture would be the height of hubris to me because it puts maintaining an individual moral code on a pedestal at the expense of countless others, most of which will have different values but none of which will exist if the deontologist maintains their chastity. I choose this example because I think that stakes change when we're talking about the continued existence of life itself, which I view as one of the foundations of morality at its most basic level.

I do not think humans are the only animals capable of moral reasoning. Rats save rats they know, but not strangers. Dogs react if you give one more treats than the other. Primates adopt orphans that were sired by others, etc. The podcast lists some of these examples, but there are many more (e.g., dolphins protecting humans).

Perhaps you distinguish those examples from morality and view them as instinct, but don't humans have instincts as well? We see it all the time, sometimes in things as simple as reflexively turning our head when we see an attractive prospective mate, or in body language. I think philosophy has a huge blind spot about putting humans on pedestals compared to other life forms.

You might also distinguish modern humans from our ancestors, but do you believe that early humans were not conscious? Is there a discrete moment in time where human evolution progressed sufficiently to trigger moral duties that did not exist moments before? Would that moral code apply to sentient aliens who evolved from different species in radically different biomes? Putting these notions together, morality is path dependent based on adaptive behaviors/intuitions that are species-specific. Although a chimp or gorilla is capable of communicating with humans and otherwise emulating some human behaviors, it would be a mistake to hold them to the same standard as a human who is capable of those same functions simply because chimps are wired differently.

I resolve these issues by placing perpetuating the species as the prime directive of morality, and taking humans off of a pedestal. Humans have a care-intensive, cooperative survival strategy because that's what we're wired for, and as we got more sophisticated we attempted to refine those intuitions into religious/cultural/philosophical beliefs about morality. We see this with practices like cannabilism and polygamy, as well as science-fiction shows (e.g., Star Trek with Klingons, Vulcan, Ferengi, etc., all sentient but each having vastly different moral sensibilities).

Some of those beliefs were not adaptive, such as Christian sects that thought reproduction was a sin. Some of these moral codes work better than others, but if they're not responsive to the circumstances that surround them, it doesn't really matter if they were "correct" from a deontological standpoint, at least in my opinion.

Thanks for your time as well.

I would agree, the way we evolved necessitated a different set of moral rules (usually adapted to local conditions). This is why I think morality is adaptive and emergent.

If morality didn't evolve, but humans did, how did the two become disentangled?

Would you hold a chimpanzee to the same moral standard as an adult human? Chimpanzee vs. homo erectus? Bonobo vs. Chimpanzee? Bonobo vs. Neanderthal?

We're apes in suits, man. Deal with it.

You wouldn't punish a shark or a lion for eating their young, but you barbecue just one toddler...