Is Atheism (et al) a Worldview?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yet, I would still say that this is subjective morality because well-being is undefined.

How is well-being undefined?
If you can distinguish "healthy" over "sick", then why couldn't you distinguish "well-being" over "suffering"?

Freedom, security, happiness, health, prosperity,...
All these are domains that make up for well-being.

I don't see it as particularly difficult or complicated tbh.

It is, because health vs sickness is not something we directly control. If we had the option to choose to be healthy over sick, the choice would be easy.
But morality we can in many cases influence. We can teach others our values, children etc. But again, these vary hugely from culture to culture. For instance, well being in some countries where atheism is seen as the devil's work, im not sure that they agree that suffering is all bad if it would get rid of atheists, homosexuals, or whatever they don't like.

And again I have to point you to the same thing: that of the argumentation that underpins that moral judgement.

When you go down that rabbit hole, you will find that sooner or later, these theists will bump into "because my god says so". ie, they will no longer be able to offer a reasonable argument and instead they will appeal to a perceived authority.

That auto-loses them the argument. They might still have the might to enforce their immoral ways and pretend them to be moral. But might does not make right.

There is no reasonable argument one can make to say that commiting a species of genocide against atheists and homosexuals, is a moral act.
They will inevitably end up with the answer of "because god said so" to the question "why is atheism / homosexuality immoral" or "why is it okay to kill them".

No reason, no argument, no evidence.
Instead, just a fallacious (psychopathic, even) appeal to perceived authority.
That's not morality or moral reasoning. That's simply obedience to perceived authority.


In my model, such would be a demonstrably wrong answer to a moral question.

Again, as a starting point.

Lets take abortions? At which point does the well-being of the child matter? What if the mother doesn't want a child but the father wants it? Whose well-being do we prioritize, there are lots of issues with "well-being" when it is as undefined as it is.

That is not a question of well-being being undefined. That's rather a question of conflicting stakes of well-being.
I'm not going to hold an abortion debate here. I will only say that it's a good example of a moral dilemma. I never said moral reasoning is always easy. Sometimes, there aren't going to be clearly correct or wrong answers. Sometimes, it's also a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. Sometimes it's also going to simply be 50/50 and the choice will be influenced by cultural background or mere arbitrary preference.

That's just a fact of life.

What about a child with a horrible disease? is condemning the child to a life of suffering in support of well-being, or would an abortion be best? what if the parents don't want an abortion because they hope that a cure might be found?

Who decides what well-being is here and whose well-being is taken into consideration?


In that case, what is the solution to the questions above? what is the moral thing to do?

Again, sometimes there are no clear-cut answers.
Let's say an embryo is known to have a serious deformity and the prognosis is that the child won't see his 3rd birthday and during the time it actually manages to survive it will know nothing but hospital beds and pure suffering.

You could measure that up against the selfishness of a mother, how tragic it however may be, of still desperately wanting to have a baby.

Such insanely traggic situations sometimes call for hard and difficult choices. What do you want me to say? Life isn't always all pleasantrees and utopian lala-land feelings. It sucks, yes, absolutely.

The question then becomes if the selfish baby-wish of a mother to be is worth the pure suffering that said baby is going to face as a certainty while having no prospect of any kind of future at all.

 

[Nimos]

Nobody spoke about poisoning. The scenario is just killing a waiter because he got an order wrong. He brought you a coffee instead of a soda.
Show me a valid moral argument that justifies killing him.

There is no justification for killing him. Again im in support of subjective morality, so there doesn't need to be a justification for someone doing it. The person killing the waiter might be sick in the head. As someone else mentioned, where someone shot someone else because they were snoring too loudly.

IOW: it seems you agree. There is no reasonable argument to be made that justifies killing a waiter for getting an order wrong. You could just say so instead of expanding on the scenario by adding things to it...

Yes, I agree. You are asking me to defend a position that I do not hold

To make it clear, the argument I was making about adding things, Is in regards to objective morality.

That if I/you kept adding things to the question it would become more and more absurd, to the point where one can manipulate the answer.

If speaking of subjective morality, you don't need justification for doing something, because it is highly individual what people think is morally right. So someone might kill the waiter, because they think it's morally right to do so, to make sure that other customers don't experience getting the wrong order.

This means that there is no such thing as moral truth, it simply doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean that we as humans as a species should simply allow anything because morality as a whole shouldn't be individually decided to apply to society.

It does not, since it illustrates the answer I already gave you several times: IT DEPENDS ON THE CONTEXT

Yes, because you are speaking about subjective morality, I agree with you, that context matters and that it can vary depending on the observer. If morality is objective, moral truth applies to humans just as they would aliens or AI or whatever.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That if I/you kept adding things to the question it would become more and more absurd, to the point where one can manipulate the answer.

That makes no sense to me.
Any given act is going to take place in a given scenario and the facts are the facts.
When making a moral judgement about an actual action that took place, there is no "adding" anything. There is just the circumstance and context of that act and that's it.

If speaking of subjective morality, you don't need justification for doing something, because it is highly individual what people think is morally right.

Right and that's exactly what I disagree with. It is not highly individual. There are right and wrong answers to moral questions, even if they aren't always clear or if they get complicated. It's not a matter of mere opinion.

So someone might kill the waiter, because they think it's morally right to do so, to make sure that other customers don't experience getting the wrong order.

This means that there is no such thing as moral truth, it simply doesn't exist.

Or, alternatively, it means that that person is a psychopath with no ability of proper moral reasoning and thus got the answer wrong....

Yes, because you are speaking about subjective morality,

I am arguing for the exact opposite.
I don't think morality is subjective at all.
I think there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, regardless of people's mere opinions and beliefs.

I agree with you, that context matters and that it can vary depending on the observer.

Not depending on the observer. Rather depending on the facts of the circumstances.

If morality is objective, moral truth applies to humans just as they would aliens or AI or whatever.

It applies to moral agents. And as it stands, it seems humans are the only moral agents we currently know about.

 

[Valjean]

Because we don't apply morality to animals in the same way. Probably because we in many cases view them as lesser/primitive beings. But this obviously becomes interesting, when we slowly go back in time and look at our ancestors, at which point does morality not apply to us either?

Moral agency, IMHO, is a product of alternative behavioral options, theory of mind, and consequentialist insight.

 

[Nimos]

How is well-being undefined?
If you can distinguish "healthy" over "sick", then why couldn't you distinguish "well-being" over "suffering"?

Yes, it works fine in clear-cut cases, as I said, it is fine as an overall guideline. These are not issues, it is merely to jump the fence where it is the lowest.

When you go down that rabbit hole, you will find that sooner or later, these theists will bump into "because my god says so". ie, they will no longer be able to offer a reasonable argument and instead they will appeal to a perceived authority.

But if their morality is based on being saved by God, because he is the creator and moral judge, they won't care what you think or what arguments you throw their way. If God commands that circumcision make sure that you get into heaven over hell or whatever, that is the moral thing to do and the absolute best when it comes to well-being. Who are you to question God?

If humans were driven 100% by rational thinking, I would agree that "well-being" would be an even better starting point.

Again, sometimes there are no clear-cut answers.

I agree with you, but based on what you said, this shouldn't be an issue.

You said:
Sure. But as I said, morality isn't a matter of mere opinion. If that were the case, then there indeed is no way to say one is superior then the other.

You see the issue I have with this "well-being", is that the first question raised about how to solve a moral issue is answered with "...really don't know what is right here...". If moral issues were as clear-cut as you wrote, there would be an obvious answer to the question. The problem is that what you wrote there is in support of objective morality, but everything else you seem to write is in support of subjective morality. Which kind of makes sense as I assume you got the idea of "well-being" from Sam Harris? which is in support of objective morality, and as far as I know, he also can't answer these types of questions.

 

[Bear Wild]

Im simply making an argument that subjective morality is the case and that objective morality doesn't exist. Whether that is correct or not, I don't know. But it seems to me that a lot of people answering me, get caught up in very specific examples, rather than the overall concepts of objective vs subjective morality.

Whether killing Hitler would have made things better or not, is irrelevant. Since we are talking about whether there is a moral justification for killing someone.

These are the differences between objective and subjective morality.

1. Basis of Morality:
- Objective morality holds that moral values and principles exist independently of human beliefs, opinions, or perceptions. These moral truths are considered to be universal and immutable.
- Subjective morality posits that moral values and principles are dependent on individual beliefs, opinions, cultural norms, and societal standards. Morality is seen as relative and variable across different perspectives.

2. Source of Morality:
- Objective morality typically derives moral values from sources such as religion, natural law, or rational philosophical principles. These sources are considered to provide a foundation for moral truths that apply universally.
- Subjective morality sources moral values from personal experiences, cultural upbringing, societal norms, and individual perspectives. Morality is viewed as constructed by human beings within specific contexts.

3. Nature of Moral Truths:
- Objective morality suggests that moral truths are discoverable through reason, revelation, or observation and are applicable to all individuals regardless of their beliefs or circumstances.
- Subjective morality views moral truths as contingent upon subjective experiences, cultural contexts, and individual interpretations. What is considered moral can vary from person to person and culture to culture.

4. Universality vs. Relativity:
- Objective morality implies that moral principles are universal and apply to all individuals in all situations. These principles are seen as immutable and not subject to change based on personal preferences or cultural differences.
- Subjective morality asserts that moral values are relative and can vary based on cultural norms, personal beliefs, and situational factors. What is considered moral or immoral may differ between individuals and societies.

5. Moral Guidance:
- Objective morality often provides clear moral guidelines and absolute standards for behavior, as derived from religious texts, philosophical doctrines, or natural law theories.
- Subjective morality tends to offer more flexibility in moral decision-making, recognizing the diversity of perspectives and the need for individuals to navigate moral dilemmas based on their own values and circumstances.

6. Evaluation of Actions:
- In objective morality, the morality of an action is judged based on its conformity to objective moral principles or standards, irrespective of individual beliefs or societal norms.
- In subjective morality, the morality of an action is assessed based on personal beliefs, intentions, consequences, and contextual factors, which can vary from person to person.

7. Critique and Challenges:
- Objective morality may face criticism regarding the identification of the source of moral truths and the possibility of conflicting moral claims from different religious or philosophical perspectives.
- Subjective morality may encounter challenges related to the absence of universal standards and the potential for moral relativism, where all perspectives are considered equally valid regardless of their ethical implications.

I agree with you and that is why understanding a persons "world view" is helpful in understanding their position. There is no real objective reality. Morality always comes from the subjective perspective. There are actions people do that most people will agree is not moral but that does not mean that all will have the same moral perspective. Your morals come from your relationship with the world and how you see yourself within the world. There are atheists who see the rest of the natural world as equally important and others that see the natural world as purely recourses for humans. Both atheist but both with very different moral views to the non human world. There are atheists who only value others that are like them and atheists who value all humans. There is no clear objective moral ground between them.

 

[Bear Wild]

Because we don't apply morality to animals in the same way. Probably because we in many cases view them as lesser/primitive beings. But this obviously becomes interesting, when we slowly go back in time and look at our ancestors, at which point does morality not apply to us either?

Morality that is truly "objective" should apply to animals as well as humans. Each animal has its own subjective morality that is functional for them.

 

[Nimos]

I agree with you and that is why understanding a persons "world view" is helpful in understanding their position. There is no real objective reality. Morality always comes from the subjective perspective. There are actions people do that most people will agree is not moral but that does not mean that all will have the same moral perspective. Your morals come from your relationship with the world and how you see yourself within the world. There are atheists who see the rest of the natural world as equally important and others that see the natural world as purely recourses for humans. Both atheist but both with very different moral views to the non human world. There are atheists who only value others that are like them and atheists who value all humans. There is no clear objective moral ground between them.

I agree, to me that seems to hold true.

Whenever you ask anyone in support of objective morality some "difficult" questions they seem to back out and not have an answer to them. If objective morality was true, the answer should be obvious. Even to the point where even having a moral discussion would make little sense, we would basically all agree on what is right and wrong, regardless of topic.

 

[Nimos]

Morality that is truly "objective" should apply to animals as well as humans. Each animal has its own subjective morality that is functional for them.

I don't think one would categorize it as morality, as much as instincts or a lower sense of compassion. Im not an expert in animal behavior by any means.

But for instance, when a sea lion rapes a penguin I don't think any of the other sea lions look at it as if it has done anything wrong. I honestly don't think they care at all or even give it a second thought.

 

[Bear Wild]

I don't think one would categorize it as morality, as much as instincts or a lower sense of compassion. Im not an expert in animal behavior by any means.

But for instance, when a sea lion rapes a penguin I don't think any of the other sea lions look at it as if it has done anything wrong. I honestly don't think they care at all or even give it a second thought.

But we don't know and that is the problems. Strange example but we would have to understand sea lion behavior from their perspective. Is the sea lion who does something considered wrong, as you propose in your example, then socially excluded in some way because of its actions.

 

[osgart]

I think you misunderstand what Im saying, I don't disagree with you. But then again I am in support of subjective morality. My argument is against objective morality.

You justify killing Hitler etc. because you have reached the conclusion that what he was doing is morally wrong, I don't disagree with you. But a lot of people at the time would have. If everyone agreed that what Hitler did was wrong then he couldn't have done it.

The question is not about Hitler, but rather, how do you reach the conclusion that our morality is better than theirs if we are talking about objective morality?


Again, if these people that had killed Hitler had escaped to the Allies they probably would have gotten a medal, however, if they had been caught by the nazis they would have been executed.

In fact, we know that a lot of those who tried to kill him were executed.

So again, Im not asking about whether killing Hitler would have been a good or bad thing. But about the moral justification we think it would have been fine, while others wouldn't, if we are talking about objective morality.


The same applies here as above.

You have two groups of people:

1. Some that support Hitler
2. Some that don't support him

Each group believes they are morally justified. Group 1, would probably say that it is highly immoral to kill Hitler, because what he is doing it right and good. The other disagrees and thinks he is a monster that needs to die.

Both of us are in group 2, but how is group 1 able to justify their moral standpoint if we are talking about objective morality?

We have to talk about morality, Hitler is merely the example used for it because it shows a very clear line between two groups with completely opposite views of what is morally right.

Kindness vs. cruelty
Love vs. hatred
Honesty vs. Lies
Charity vs. genocide
Humility vs. Arrogance
Dignity vs. abasement
Destruction vs. civilization
Honor vs. shame

Treating others as well as you desire to be treated. Vs. treating others worse than you desire for yourself.

Trustworthy vs. suspicious
Freedom vs. oppression.
Harm vs. help
Abusive damage vs. well being
Malevolence vs. benevolence
Maliciousness vs. generosity

For yourself which is better in this list?
For others which is better in this list?

If it's good for yourself, and others then we have moral facts.

Moral facts build a quality of life. Moral falsehoods build chaos, and violence, and tortured victims and casualties.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But if their morality is based on being saved by God, because he is the creator and moral judge, they won't care what you think or what arguments you throw their way.

I would argue that that is not a moral compass.
That is in fact the morality of psychopaths, who rely on authorities to tell them what is right or wrong, instead of their own reasoning.

A moral agent is someone who is capable of determining right or wrong through reasoning.
Someone who relies on authorities to tell them what is right or wrong, are not acting like a moral agent is supposed to act.
That is just mere obedience to perceived authority, not more or less.

This is how you get otherwise decent people to engage in monstrocities while them thinking they are doing good.
This is how you breed suicide bombers.

If God commands that circumcision make sure that you get into heaven over hell or whatever, that is the moral thing to do and the absolute best when it comes to well-being. Who are you to question God?

Again, this is not moral reasoning. This is just blind obedience to authority.
I would ask them to demonstrate to me that is best for well-being.
And their "justification" will amount to nothing more or less then "the perceived authority said so".

This is the equivalent of nazi soldiers who say "befehl ist befehl".

I would go a step further and argue that blind obedience to perceived authority is in fact immoral all by itself.

You said:
Sure. But as I said, morality isn't a matter of mere opinion. If that were the case, then there indeed is no way to say one is superior then the other.

You see the issue I have with this "well-being", is that the first question raised about how to solve a moral issue is answered with "...really don't know what is right here...". If moral issues were as clear-cut as you wrote, there would be an obvious answer to the question.

I never said it is always clear-cut. In fact, I explicitely noted that there are such things as moral dilemma's where it can, and will, get complicated and hard to work out.
That's just life. To then simply go with "ow, god says X, so therefor X" is just an intellectually lazy approach and not something that should be held up as somehow being a virtue or something.

Being intellectually lazy in that way is, I would argue, again: immoral.

Blind obedience to perceived authority is not a moral thing to do. It's how you end up with otherwise decent people engaging in monstrocities while believing they are actually doing good.

The problem is that what you wrote there is in support of objective morality, but everything else you seem to write is in support of subjective morality.

I disagree. At no point am I advocating that any moral judgement is a mere matter of opinion.

Which kind of makes sense as I assume you got the idea of "well-being" from Sam Harris?

I had this idea long before I even heard of him. I do know of his stance and I read his book. And yes, I pretty much agree with it. And being the intellectual that he is, he is better at articulating it all then I ever could, sure.
But I didn't get this from him. I got this from mere common sense.

Because indeed, if morality doesn't pertain to well-being, then what is it about, really?

which is in support of objective morality, and as far as I know, he also can't answer these types of questions.

I disagree. In fact, he goes out of his way to explain what well-being is about. And when I read those explanations, I very much had a feeling of it being simply stating the obvious.

This doesn't mean that it is always clear-cut. I never said that and I never will. Yes, there is a lot of grey there. This in fact is exactly why it needs to be discussed and reasoned carefully, using facts and intellectual honesty, instead of the intellectually lazy approach of "god says X so let's just go with that since then we don't need to think about it"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Morality that is truly "objective" should apply to animals as well as humans.

No. It applies to moral agents. And not even all humans qualify as that.
There are circumstances where people aren't fully being held accountable for their actions for example because of psychiatric situations etc.

Each animal has its own subjective morality that is functional for them.

This is true, in the sense that all social animals have general "rules of conduct" that the members of the group will enforce one way or the other.
Human society however is far more complex and advanced in that respect that we can't really compare them in that sense.
In general, humans are moral agents and it is perfectly fine to expect of moral agents to be able to determine right from wrong through rational moral reasoning.

And precisely that is the reason why we hold people accountable for their actions.

If you are in court for murder, then the defense of "god told me to do it" is not going to fly for that reason.

 

[Nimos]

Kindness vs. cruelty
Love vs. hatred
Honesty vs. Lies
Charity vs. genocide
Humility vs. Arrogance
Dignity vs. abasement
Destruction vs. civilization
Honor vs. shame

Treating others as well as you desire to be treated. Vs. treating others worse than you desire for yourself.

Trustworthy vs. suspicious
Freedom vs. oppression.
Harm vs. help
Abusive damage vs. well being
Malevolence vs. benevolence
Maliciousness vs. generosity

For yourself which is better in this list?
For others which is better in this list?

If it's good for yourself, and others then we have moral facts.

Moral facts build a quality of life. Moral falsehoods build chaos, and violence, and tortured victims and casualties.

I agree with everything you said here.

That isn't the issue.

Is honesty always better than lying?

Lying to children can in certain cases be beneficial. Santa? it's a none harmful lie, but for a lot of children, this brings joy. Lying might help protect them.

So then we have to specify what we mean by "bad" lies, that should be fairly easy.

My idea of freedom might be completely different than yours, should we have so much freedom that we don't need any government? Anarchists would think this is perfect, others would disagree. Are parents free to raise their children as they please with whatever value system they think is best?

The point is that people simply don't agree on these things.

I think you could probably best compare to that of God, "all" believers think God exists, and they all agree. The moment you start probing them about what exactly this God is, they have vastly different views and opinions about which rules apply, what God wants and don't want etc.

And that is what I mean by jumping over where the fence is lowest. Because one stops at the question "Do we agree that God is real?" and the answer by believers is "Yes" and then we move on, assuming that everyone agrees about the nature of God.

If I asked you to specify what you mean by "honor", how do you define it then I want you to go into detail about why this is morally good and exactly what it includes. I guess that, if we threw this out to 1000 people you would get vastly different opinions about what honor is, some would agree others would probably disagree with you. (Don't answer this, I don't expect you to do this, it is simply an example )

So reaching a moral foundation I think is extremely difficult, the next issue is whether this would even make any difference.

I think we can agree that in general the majority of people are raised with the moral code, that "murdering is wrong", yet despite this, it happens all the time. So even when we largely agree on something, it doesn't seem to have the desired effect.

 

[osgart]

The defense of murdering Hitler is consequentialist speculation; that more harm would eventually result from letting him live than from killing him before he became socially consequential.

This remains speculation, though. The morality of the actual act of killing a then innocent and unthreatening individual remains an issue. The extermination, by the Nazis, of physically or, what they judged, socially defective individuals, was also done for the good of society and future generations.

When he had that type of innocence and was unthreatening it would be morally wrong to end his life. It's when they have the means to gain power and full commitment to exterminate that the action of killing becomes necessary and right to do. It has to be evident. Prevention first until it becomes necessary to kill.

 

[Bear Wild]

No. It applies to moral agents. And not even all humans qualify as that.
There are circumstances where people aren't fully being held accountable for their actions for example because of psychiatric situations etc.




This is true, in the sense that all social animals have general "rules of conduct" that the members of the group will enforce one way or the other.
Human society however is far more complex and advanced in that respect that we can't really compare them in that sense.
In general, humans are moral agents and it is perfectly fine to expect of moral agents to be able to determine right from wrong through rational moral reasoning.

And precisely that is the reason why we hold people accountable for their actions.

If you are in court for murder, then the defense of "god told me to do it" is not going to fly for that reason.

Moral of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior -

How do you know animals cannot be moral agents. Complexity of society does not exclude something being a moral agent for that society. Just because they are not human is not adequate either. How are you certain that animals are excluded.

 

[Bear Wild]

If it's good for yourself, and others then we have moral facts.

Moral facts build a quality of life. Moral falsehoods build chaos, and violence, and tortured victims and casualties.

This is subjective morality. It is based on your world view or your religion. When you say good for you and good for others, exactly what others are you referring to?

 

[Nimos]

I would argue that that is not a moral compass.
That is in fact the morality of psychopaths, who rely on authorities to tell them what is right or wrong, instead of their own reasoning.

I think believers spend a lot of time trying to justify morality than an atheist does. I like you would simply use reason to figure out right from wrong, and in case I was mistaken I would change my beliefs.

Whereas believers have to somehow navigate a lot of moral nonsense from scriptures trying to justify why it isn't as bad or that it doesn't mean what it says.

Being intellectually lazy in that way is, I would argue, again: immoral.

I don't think it is fair to call it lazy, it is simply that people don't agree. Again, abortion and keeping it very simple. Some see it as killing, whereas others don't or at least value the health (well-being) of the mother more. I don't think you can find a correct moral answer to this. It simply doesn't exist, it completely depends on the individual.

I also think it would be extremely difficult to convince someone who sees it as murder or vice versa that it is not the case. None of these people are lazy, they simply look at and value it differently.

I disagree. At no point am I advocating that any moral judgement is a mere matter of opinion.

Moral judgment is not required for objective morality. It merely requires that something is inherently true, regardless of our opinion about it. Whether this moral code is hardwired into our DNA or God did it, doesn't really matter. Simply that it is objectively true.

Because indeed, if morality doesn't pertain to well-being, then what is it about, really?

Again I agree overall, but are we talking about the individual or as a species? As individuals, your idea of well-being most likely doesn't work for me. If we are looking at it as a species, we could probably agree on what would be best for all of humanity. But I think morality has to function on both levels. If morality is only seen on the species level (loosely defined well-being), we are more ants than humans. If it is only on an individual level, it would be the wild west and chaos.

And I think it is already a mixture of the two due to how nature has evolved it. Morality doesn't seem to function effectively in isolation.

I disagree. In fact, he goes out of his way to explain what well-being is about.

Maybe he has, I have yet to see him do this. Again, him answering the questions about abortion and why one option is better than another would be a very good start, because it is an obvious moral dilemma.

Don't get me wrong, I know there are grey areas. But at some point, laws about abortions have to be made and justified. And if he claims that "well-being" as a measuring "value" is good, then he also has to demonstrate how it can solve a very common issue that would make people come together, because as it is now, they don't. Some people have to give as the rules are now.

 

[Bear Wild]

If you are in court for murder, then the defense of "god told me to do it" is not going to fly for that reason.

I do not understand this argument. Society creates laws to maintain social harmony which are not necessary objective. Within each society there are variations of moral positions which may or may not be in accordance with the law.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Moral of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior -

How do you know animals cannot be moral agents. Complexity of society does not exclude something being a moral agent for that society. Just because they are not human is not adequate either. How are you certain that animals are excluded.

Moral Agent - Ethics Unwrapped

A Moral Agent is a person who can be held accountable for his or her actions because he or she has the ability to tell right from wrong.

ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu

At this point, I see no reason to consider non-human animals to be moral agents and hold them accountable to the same extent as humans.