plaetton:

What exactly remains your point.

That human morality does not derive from evolution, animal instinct or survival, because all of these are completely amoral, ruthless and practical. It derives from the recognition of the spirit.

Deep Sight:

That human morality does not derive from evolution, animal instinct or survival, because all of these are completely amoral, ruthless and practical. It derives from the recognition of the spirit.

Ghen ghen... Part two!
Wetin be spirit?
Who recognises the so-called spirit?
How is morality borne out of this recognition?
Your second name should be Jay Jay Okocha!

kwangi: Ghen ghen... Part two!
Wetin be spirit?
Who recognises the so-called spirit?

It is what you are. Mindless matter cannot form the living breathing thinking and feeling being that you are.

Your second name should be Jay Jay Okocha!

If you could not see me coming all the way from my opening post, the your second name should be Goal Keeper Agboni-basket.

Deep Sight:

It is what you are. Mindless matter cannot form the living breathing thinking and feeling being that you are.



If you could not see me coming all the way from my opening post, the your second name should be Goal Keeper Agboni-basket.

You can't come and yap about your delusions on such a straightforward topic.
A spirit is what deepsight is.
Human morality is derived from the recognition of deepsight! So true.
So what have you been saying since your opening post again?
BTW, I'm not your goal keeper, wake up! I'm your coach.
Alex Ferguson #datkindthing

Deep Sight:

It is what you are. Mindless matter cannot form the living breathing thinking and feeling being that you are.



If you could not see me coming all the way from my opening post, the your second name should be [[size=15pt]Goal Keeper Agboni-basket.[/size]

wiegraf:

So, as it's 'logical' to be a cannibal, why don't you try eating someone so we can see the results? We can then determine if society would deem the act moral as it's logical.

I didn't say its logical to be a cannibal. I clearly meant that actions are moral because theybare deemed logical.

Dude, where you at?
How can you try to "complexise" something so straightforward?
And you eventually ended up where you've been running from for the past four pages.

Uyi Iredia:

I didn't say its logical to be a cannibal. I clearly meant that actions are moral because theybare deemed logical.

Actions are deemed moral when they satisfy a value system. Value systems need not be logical or objective, at all. For instance, if you subscribe to a religious moral code, that would entail basing your actions around faith based system, not logic. Logic is viewed as just a tool, a tool to satisfy goals which are based on values.

Again, go look up the thread were your brethren admit they do not use their brains when religion is involved. Their moral codes are built around religion, yes? That isn't exactly basing your actions around logic, yes? Or do you think killing apostates or persecuting homosexuals is logical? Yet these actions are deemed moral in certain societies, yes?

Or even the op, provide the answer (I hope) most people on the globe would give to it.

Supposing you could get away with cannibalism, in fact, it would be extremely profitable to you and others about, perhaps even to the person becoming dinner as well, why should you then not do it? Why would it still be considered morally bad by most? Why is euthanasia of patients in extreme pain and with no chance of survival considered bad by many? Or even abortion? etc etc

wiegraf:

Actions are deemed moral when they satisfy a value system. Value systems need not be logical or objective, at all. For instance, if you subscribe to a religious moral code, that would entail basing your actions around faith based system, not logic. Logic is viewed as just a tool, a tool to satisfy goals which are based on values.

Gbam-u!!! Now we're getting closer to What morality actually is.

Maybe a little off topic but anyway . . .

Nietzsche's table of values [edit]

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) in Thus Spoke Zarathustra said that a table of values hangs above every great people. Nietzsche points out that what is common among different peoples is the act of esteeming, of creating values, even if the values are different from one people to the next. Nietzsche asserts that what made people great was not the content of their beliefs, but the act of valuing. Thus the values a community strives to articulate are not as important as the collective will to act on those values.[3] The willing is more essential than the intrinsic worth of the goal itself, according to Nietzsche.[4] "A thousand goals have there been so far," says Zarathustra, "for there are a thousand peoples. Only the yoke for the thousand necks is still lacking: the one goal is lacking. Humanity still has no goal." Hence, the title of the aphorism, "On The Thousand And One Goals". The idea that one value-system is no more worthy than the next, although it may not be directly ascribed to Nietzsche, has become a common premise in modern social science. Max Weber and Martin Heidegger absorbed it and made it their own. It shaped their philosophical endeavor, as well as their political understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact–value_distinction#Nietzsche.27s_table_of_values

wiegraf:

Actions are deemed moral when they satisfy a value system. Value systems need not be logical or objective, at all. For instance, if you subscribe to a religious moral code, that would entail basing your actions around faith based system, not logic. Logic is viewed as just a tool, a tool to satisfy goals which are based on values.

Again, go look up the thread were your brethren admit they do not use their brains when religion is involved. Their moral codes are built around religion, yes? That isn't exactly basing your actions around logic, yes? Or do you think killing apostates or persecuting homosexuals is logical? Yet these actions are deemed moral in certain societies, yes?

Or even the op, provide the answer (I hope) most people on the globe would give to it.

Supposing you could get away with cannibalism, in fact, it would be extremely profitable to you and others about, perhaps even to the person becoming dinner as well, why should you then not do it? Why would it still be considered morally bad by most? Why is euthanasia of patients in extreme pain and with no chance of survival considered bad by many? Or even abortion? etc etc

"Necessary evil does not mean 'morally' good"-- Wiegraf

BTW... Pastor AIO, where do you stand in all these? Even though Deepsight's issue is settled.
Sincerely wanna know your perspective.

kwangi:

BTW... Pastor AIO, where do you stand in all these? Even though Deepsight's issue is settled.
Sincerely wanna know your perspective.

I think that Wiegraf almost defined it for me, according to my own understanding. My definition of morality is a scale of values, from Most preferable (good) to Least preferable (evil), and as Moral creatures when faced with options we choose that which according to our scale of Values is the More preferable.

Where this Scale of Values comes from is another matter. Also of interest is how it evolves over time. It determines all of human affairs on an individual level, and also on a social and global level.

Pastor AIO:

I think that Wiegraf almost defined it for me, according to my own understanding. My definition of morality is a scale of values, from Most preferable (good) to Least preferable (evil), and as Moral creatures when faced with options we choose that which according to our scale of Values is the More preferable.

Where this Scale of Values comes from is another matter. Also of interest is how it evolves over time. It determines all of human affairs on an individual level, and also on a social and global level.

Wow!!! A politician couldn't have done a better job...

Pastor AIO:

I think that Wiegraf almost defined it for me, according to my own understanding. My definition of morality is a scale of values, from Most preferable (good) to Least preferable (evil), and as Moral creatures when faced with options we choose that which according to our scale of Values is the More preferable.

Where this Scale of Values comes from is another matter. Also of interest is how it evolves over time. It determines all of human affairs on an individual level, and also on a social and global level.

Nice one...

wiegraf:

Actions are deemed moral when they satisfy a value system. Value systems need not be logical or objective, at all. For instance, if you subscribe to a religious moral code, that would entail basing your actions around faith based system, not logic. Logic is viewed as just a tool, a tool to satisfy goals which are based on values.

Again, go look up the thread were your brethren admit they do not use their brains when religion is involved. Their moral codes are built around religion, yes? That isn't exactly basing your actions around logic, yes? Or do you think killing apostates or persecuting homosexuals is logical? Yet these actions are deemed moral in certain societies, yes?

Or even the op, provide the answer (I hope) most people on the globe would give to it.

Supposing you could get away with cannibalism, in fact, it would be extremely profitable to you and others about, perhaps even to the person becoming dinner as well, why should you then not do it? Why would it still be considered morally bad by most? Why is euthanasia of patients in extreme pain and with no chance of survival considered bad by many? Or even abortion? etc etc

And these faith based systems are deemed logical by their adherents. Reasons can be forwarded as to why apostates are killed. But the more important thing to note is that the basing morality on anything other than intelligence is circular. For example, basing it on logic us circular because logic entails a moral imperative to PROPER (note the adjective) reasoning. In your case I can directly equate (or define) morality as satisfaction of a value system.

striktlymi:

Wow!!! A politician couldn't have done a better job...

Anyway, I hope we also notice that there is a big presumption in the 'definition'. That we are creatures that can make choices. We can recognise options and choose from them. The whole notion of optional futures (no, I'm not talking finance) is in conflict with the idea of a deterministic universe.

Pastor AIO:

Anyway, I hope we also notice that there is a big presumption in the 'definition'. That we are creatures that can make choices. We can recognise options and choose from them. The whole notion of optional futures (no, I'm not talking finance) is in conflict with the idea of a deterministic universe.

Mind me not...just catching my trips.

Deep Sight:

That human morality does not derive from evolution, animal instinct or survival, because all of these are completely amoral, ruthless and practical. It derives from the recognition of the spirit.

I have to disagree with the above at this point. Evolution is guided by survival of the fittest not the most ruthless. It is conceivable that there could be a point where evolution and compassion meet. Gregarious animals are thrive on compassion, common identity and purpose. Humans are no different.

Deep Sight:

That human morality does not derive from evolution, animal instinct or survival, because all of these are completely amoral, ruthless and practical. It derives from the recognition of the spirit.

There you go!.
I have never ever said such nor implied it.
I said that human morality evolves.
You and your theist friends are the one holding the position that human morality is derived from some kin dof divine source within.
I say no, it is contrived, made up, and then evolves over time.

Kay 17:

I have to disagree with the above at this point. Evolution is guided by survival of the fittest not the most ruthless. It is conceivable that there could be a point where evolution and compassion meet. Gregarious animals are thrive on compassion, common identity and purpose. Humans are no different.

Thank you, jare.

Pastor AIO:

I think that Wiegraf almost defined it for me, according to my own understanding. My definition of morality is a scale of values, from Most preferable (good) to Least preferable (evil), and as Moral creatures when faced with options we choose that which according to our scale of Values is the More preferable.

Where this Scale of Values comes from is another matter. Also of interest is how it evolves over time. It determines all of human affairs on an individual level, and also on a social and global level.

I find it odd that you could say this, while you disagreed with my earlier post saying similar, with perhaps different words. I gave Magna Carter and UN declaration of fundamental human rights as examples.

Pastor AIO:

There is a chicken and egg ish here. Let us take Magna carta for example. Do you really think that someone just arbitrarily came up with Magna Carta and then that became the moral viewpoint of the english. OR is it not more likely that first came the moral sense that King's ought to be held accountable and this then after a lengthy struggle became enshrined in law.

If the Moral sense did not precede the Law making then why the struggle to have laws made, struggles that are often seen as fights for Justice.

If morality came from written laws then how comes we can feel a sense of injustice towards even the Law itself.

Can you really say that before the UN declaration of human rights that people did not feel that other humans had fundamental inalienable rights?

It seems to me that the examples you gave are not examples of contrived morality, far from it, they are Laws contrived specifically to attend to a pre-existing moral disposition.

I do not think that you and Deepsight take time to read my post.
If an innate morality pre-existed before the enactment of moral codes, then the enactment of moral codes would be needless and redundant.
If we are born with a divine sense of right and wrong, why would human behaviour need any kind of regulation,?
Religion and religious codes would be redundant, since goodness would have been innate .

Magna carter would have been unnecessary.
The Universal declaration of human rights after 200,000 of human existence is ample proof that human morality has evolved over that period.

Deep Sight:

Now its glaring that you are becoming sentimental in your reasoning: which is what you accuse the religious of. My intentions in opening this thread are thus gradually being acheived.

This is a presumption. A great many men do NOT have choices. Millions live in stark starvation, even, as you must know, surely.

For many, it is a necessity.

Are you living in this world at all?

Every thinking human has a choice. When you wake up in the morning, you can decide to rob your brother to survive, eat your brother to survive, beg to survive, or go out to look for food.
These are choices.

Uyi Iredia:

And these faith based systems are deemed logical by their adherents. Reasons can be forwarded as to why apostates are killed. But the more important thing to note is that the basing morality on anything other than intelligence is circular. For example, basing it on logic us circular because logic entails a moral imperative to PROPER (note the adjective) reasoning. In your case I can directly equate (or define) morality as satisfaction of a value system.

What exactly are you on about with the bold?

Do other animals use reason?

wiegraf:

Do other animals use intelligent reason?

Yes. But not to the same degree as humans.

Uyi Iredia:

Yes. But not to the same degree as humans.

https://www.google.com.ng/search?num=30&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=HAi&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=reason+definition&oq=reason+definition&gs_l=serp.3..0l8.6156.8311.0.8662.11.9.0.2.2.2.553.1449.4j3j0j1j0j1.9.0...0.0...1c.1.14.serp.K59ZqGgFAt4

google:
rea·son
/ˈrēzən/
Noun
A cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
Verb
Think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic: "humans do not reason entirely from facts"; "the reasoning behind the review".
Synonyms
noun. cause - motive - occasion - ground - mind - intellect
verb. argue - think

The other animals can give you a reason for their actions? Or they understand said actions?

wiegraf:

https://www.google.com.ng/search?num=30&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=HAi&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=reason+definition&oq=reason+definition&gs_l=serp.3..0l8.6156.8311.0.8662.11.9.0.2.2.2.553.1449.4j3j0j1j0j1.9.0...0.0...1c.1.14.serp.K59ZqGgFAt4



The other animals can give you a reason for their actions? Or they understand said actions?

Animals have been experimentally demonstrated to show cognition, solve puzzles and think abstractly albeit to a limited extent. You can check this out on Google.

plaetton:

I do not think that you and Deepsight take time to read my post.
If an innate moral pre-existed before the enactment of moral codes, then the enactment of moral codes would be needless and redundant.
If we are born with a divine sense of right and wrong, why would human behaviour need any kind of regulation,?
Religion and religious codes would be redundant, since goodness would have been innate .

Magna carter would have been unnecessary.
The Universal declaration of human rights after 200,000 of human existence is ample proof that human morality has evolved over that period.

I think I need to shout:

[size=24pt]The point is whether or not such morality existed before the UDHR or if they only came to exist upon the proclamation of the UDHR.

IF, AS YOU SAY, MORALITY EVOLVES AND COMES TO EXIST AS MADE IN SUCH DECLARATIONS, THEN YOU CANNOT AT THE SAME TIME SAY THAT THE ACTIONS OF ALEXANDER OR JULIUS CAESAR WERE IMMORAL, AS NO SUCH CODES EXISTED AT THEIR TIME.

GET THE QUESTION NOW? GET THE ISSUE NOW? GET THE DISTINCTION NOW?[/size]

^^My ribs don crack finish.
You didn't have to shout bro.
Ofcourse, morality pre-dates any goddamn enactment!
What distinction are you talking about?
What issue?
What question?
Bros jeje o!
I'm just asking. Peacefully.
Just lay it out.

plaetton:

I do not think that you and Deepsight take time to read my post.
If an innate moral pre-existed before the enactment of moral codes, then the enactment of moral codes would be needless and redundant.
If we are born with a divine sense of right and wrong, why would human behaviour need any kind of regulation,?
Religion and religious codes would be redundant, since goodness would have been innate .

Magna carter would have been unnecessary.
The Universal declaration of human rights after 200,000 of human existence is ample proof that human morality has evolved over that period.

I think that the enactment of moral codes is nothing more than the articulation of a moral predisposition.

What you are saying is like, 'If I already love my wife then there is no need for to open my mouth to say that I love my wife'. As if one only starts to love commencing with the pronouncement of love.


However you touch on some very interesting and important points when you ask why human behaviour would need any regulation. Why would people commit acts that they well know ( or have a subtle sense) is wrong? We can start to investigate the nature of this innate moral code and how it affects behaviour, we can investigate whether there is just one or rather a number of them at play in any individual,

Pastor AIO:

I think that the enactment of moral codes is nothing more than the articulation of a moral predisposition.

What you are saying is like, 'If I already love my wife then there is no need for to open my mouth to say that I love my wife'. As if one only starts to love commencing with the pronouncement of love.

[size=16pt]GBAM! GBA! ! GBOGA! ! ![/size]

Deep Sight:

I think I need to shout:

[size=24pt]The point is whether or not such morality existed before the UDHR or if they only came to exist upon the proclamation of the UDHR.

IF, AS YOU SAY, MORALITY EVOLVES AND COMES TO EXIST AS MADE IN SUCH DECLARATIONS, THEN YOU CANNOT AT THE SAME TIME SAY THAT THE ACTIONS OF ALEXANDER OR JULIUS CAESAR WERE IMMORAL, AS NO SUCH CODES EXISTED AT THEIR TIME.

GET THE QUESTION NOW? GET THE ISSUE NOW? GET THE DISTINCTION NOW?[/size]

Lol, Julius and Alexander are too far. Try Hitler instead. He had already massacred 6 million Jews before it was declared that they had human rights.