Mr anony:
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.

Thank you o!

BUT my leaving Hitler out of it is VERY deliberate: and strangely enough Plaetton has already seized upon the reason: the proximity in time makes us all sensitive to his atrocities: and Plaetton himself confessed that some detached future generations may celebrate him as a brilliant conqueror. This proximity in time brings the horror into your face such that you recognize the despot for what a horrible creature he is. Now, I choose Alexander and Caesar and co because the detachment of time removes that emotional subjective horror and enables a dispassionate assessment of reality!

@Deepsight and Pastor AIO:

For some reason , you guys are pretending no to understand what i am saying. Perhaps I am not saying clear enough?

I have never said or implied that UNDHR was the first recognition of human rights and dignity.
The struggle had started long ago.

I used the UNDHR as an example of the harmonisation and globalisation of morality. The enactment of an evolved universal moral ideals into universal law.
Surely, you both recognise that there had to be a reason, a necessity, for making such a global declaration.

Come on. When the British colonized Africa, they also brought their moral codes and imposed them on us. We accepted and adapted our lives to such. Many things that were seen as immoral in pre-colonial times are now accepted as ok. Likewise, many attitudes or acts that were deemed ok at that time are now seem as immoral or even illegal.

Polygamy is an example the fluidity of morality. In Africa as well as many parts of the world, polygamy is celebrated, whereas, in the west, it is seen as immoral and even illegal.
Where is the innate sense of morality?
Same can be said of many many traditions.

Deep Sight:

Thank you o!

BUT my leaving Hitler out of it is VERY deliberate: and strangely enough Plaetton has already seized upon the reason: the proximity in time makes us all sensitive to his atrocities: and Plaetton himself confessed that some detached future generations may celebrate him as a brilliant conqueror. This proximity in time brings the horror into your face such that you recognize the despot for what a horrible creature he is. Now, I choose Alexander and Caesar and co because the detachment of time removes that emotional subjective horror and enables a dispassionate assessment of reality!

Alexander the Great, Ghengis khan, Napoleon, Hitler, etc., are celebrated for their Notoriety, not for any positive contributions to human progress.
Humans are fascinated by Notoriety. That is common knowledge.

If these men were celebrated for their any positive contributions to humanity, then many many would be trying everyday to emulate their deeds.

plaetton: @Deepsight and Pastor AIO:

For some reason , you guys are pretending no to understand what i am saying. Perhaps I am not saying clear enough?

I have never said or implied that UNDHR was the first recognition of human rights and dignity.
The struggle had started long ago.

I used the UNDHR as an example of the harmonisation and globalisation of morality. The enactment of an evolved universal moral ideals into universal law.
Surely, you both recognise that there had to be a reason, a necessity, for making such a global declaration.

Come on. When the British colonized Africa, they also brought their moral codes and imposed them on us. We accepted and adapted our lives to such. Many things that were seen as immoral in pre-colonial times are now accepted as ok. Likewise, many attitudes or acts that were deemed ok at that time are now seem as immoral or even illegal.

Polygamy is an example the fluidity of morality. In Africa as well as many parts of the world, polygamy is celebrated, whereas, in the west, it is seen as immoral and even illegal.
Where is the innate sense of morality?
Same can be said of many many traditions.

^^^ Do you think that -

1. Cavemen considered it wrong to steal, pillage, kill one another for resources.

2. Would YOU, looking at them, consider such wrong?

Now, your comments lead me to believe that you are quite confused on this matter, and you also do not watch Historical Drama and Series. If you did, you would recognize how perfectly natural scavenging and bullying are to humanity (which by the way, continue till this day).

Because, for confusion, you say that there was a necessity which led to such declarations as the Magna Carta, UDHR, etc. Now if you recognize that there was a necessity, then you MUST PER FORCE agree that the moral sense was ALREADY THERE: that it was INNATE: and that it did not evolve as you claimed through the ways that you claimed - and as such it already intrinsically wrong to, for example, do human sacrifice, already intrinsically wrong to kill twins and other multiple births for being such, already intrinsically wrong to ra.pe, kill and steal from one another ever before any cultural evolution identified such as wrong and articulated such as wrong.

However these are all things that animals do, and these things remain perfectly natural for animals. This is why I asked you if it is immoral when animals do these things. The strict materialist atheist says that man is an animal, only a more intelligent one. Such a person should have no problems with a more intelligent animal doing what animals do, in a more intelligent way. Period.

plaetton:

The UN declaration of of fundamental human rights and the Geneva convention is are two great example of contrived morality.
Magna Carter is another great example, as is the rule of law, Habeas Corpus, etc.

These are contrived morality that have become universal and enshrined in the legal codes of all nations.

I'm sorry if I'm seeming to misunderstand you Plaetton. When I read the above what I understand is that Man quite arbitrarily contrives a Morality (such as UNDR and Geneva conventions) that is subsequently" enshrined in the legal codes of all nations."

When you call them examples of contrived morality, I feel compelled to point out that the moral sense already existed long before the enactment of these things. If however I've misunderstood you and you are not claiming that UNDR and Geneva convention are not the inception of a moral attitude, then I'm sorry, but I'll need you to explain what it is exactly that you mean.

plaetton:

I say no, it is contrived, made up, and then evolves over time.

Could you give one example of a moral attitude that was arrived at by Contrivance? I believe that you've denied that UNDR and Geneva Convention are such.

plaetton:

Alexander the Great, Ghengis khan, Napoleon, Hitler, etc., are celebrated for their Notoriety, not for any positive contributions to human progress.
Humans are fascinated by Notoriety. That is common knowledge.

If these men were celebrated for their any positive contributions to humanity, then many many would be trying everyday to emulate their deeds.

Are you kidding me? Surely you are not this ignorant of History? Surely you will not claim to be ignorant of the great contributions to the march of civilization that all these men are credited with? Surely you will not claim to be unaware of the many developments and openings that were forced by the actions of these men?

plaetton:

Alexander the Great, Ghengis khan, Napoleon, Hitler, etc., are celebrated for their Notoriety, not for any positive contributions to human progress.
Humans are fascinated by Notoriety. That is common knowledge.

If these men were celebrated for their any positive contributions to humanity, then many many would be trying everyday to emulate their deeds.

Are you kidding me? Surely you are not this ignorant of History? Surely you will not claim to be ignorant of the great contributions to the march of civilization that all these men are credited with? Surely you will not claim to be unaware of the many developments and openings that were forced by the actions of these men?

Would you tell me that Shaka Zulu is not positively celebrated - in spite of his murderous resume?

Please go and read Robert Green's books and other such works on classical history. These men are celebrated for their winning mentality and outright genius and that is a fact.

@Deepsight let me butt in here to ask you a question.

If it was already morally wrong from the onset to kill twins, why did people feel it was morally right to do so?
Surely you know that the person who killed her own twin children did it because she was convinced that it was the right thing to do. Same applies to those Nigerians of not so long ago who hammered nails into the heads of their children in the name of "killing witches".

What do you have to say about these people? Were their acts objectively evil? Mind you, they were as convinced of their righteousness as you are convinced of their guilt.

Mr anony: @Deepsight let me butt in here to ask you a question.

If it was already morally wrong from the onset to kill twins, why did people feel it was morally right to do so?
Surely you know that the person who killed her own twin children did it because she was convinced that it was the right thing to do. Same applies to those Nigerians of not so long ago who hammered nails into the heads of their children in the name of "killing witches".

What do you have to say about these people? They were as convinced of their righteousness as you are convinced of their guilt.

Because they were evil people. Same as those who burnt "witches" and "heretics" at the stake in the Medieval Western world.

Evil, evil people.

plaetton:

Alexander the Great, Ghengis khan, Napoleon, Hitler, etc., are celebrated for their Notoriety, not for any positive contributions to human progress.
Humans are fascinated by Notoriety. That is common knowledge.

If these men were celebrated for their any positive contributions to humanity, then many many would be trying everyday to emulate their deeds.

There is another reason that all of the above except for Hitler are celebrated. None, apart from Hitler, executed a program of mass systematic genocide against a racial group. This is Hitler's great ill.

Alexander, apart from being a conqueror, set about spreading Greek philosophy and technology around the world. He was worshipped as a God in many of the nations he conquered. He actually took philosophers on his campaigns with him and introduced them to the thinkers and intellectuals of the nations he conquered.

Ghengis Khan . . . Okay, that one too was just a maniac . . . but he is not celebrated in history books except as a war leader.

Napoleon too, went around spreading the Napoleonic code which is imho is one of the greatest things that europe experienced at that time which helped to free them from feudalism. He too took scientists on his campaign. When he conquered Egypt he spent the occupation studying the ancient ruins. That was when the rosetta stone was decoded (I think). Personally I'm a napoleon fan (apart from his ego), I feel that the british just had Bad belle for him.

Deep Sight:

Because they were evil people. Same as those who burnt "witches" and "heretics" at the stake in the Medieval Western world.

Evil, evil people.

LOL! I wouldn't agree. I'd say because that was right in their moral opinion, but that Morality has evolved. By Morality I now mean the plurality of all moral codes. In other words you could say that One set of prevailing moral codes have been replaced by another set that come into prevalence.

Pastor AIO:


There is another reason that all of the above except for Hitler are celebrated. None, apart from Hitler, executed a program of mass systematic genocide against a racial group. This is Hitler's great ill.

Alexander, apart from being a conqueror, set about spreading Greek philosophy and technology around the world. He was worshipped as a God in many of the nations he conquered. He actually took philosophers on his campaigns with him and introduced them to the thinkers and intellectuals of the nations he conquered.

Ghengis Khan . . . Okay, that one too was just a maniac . . . but he is not celebrated in history books except as a war leader.

Napoleon too, went around spreading the Napoleonic code which is imho is one of the greatest things that europe experienced at that time which helped to free them from feudalism. He too took scientists on his campaign. When he conquered Egypt he spent the occupation studying the ancient ruins. That was when the rosetta stone was decoded (I think). Personally I'm a napoleon fan (apart from his ego), I feel that the british just had Bad belle for him.

Even Hitler's irascible determination led to a great many inventions, discoveries and acts of industrial capacity building.

Deep Sight:
Because they were evil people. Same as those who burnt "witches" and "heretics" at the stake in the Medieval Western world.

Evil, evil people.

You answered too hastily. There is something I wanted you to notice which you missed.

If these people are as convinced of their goodness in the same way you are convinced of their evil then surely there cannot really be objective moral principles if both of you are subject to very different moral principles. Or don't you think so?

Deep Sight:

Even Hitler's irascible determination led to a great many inventions, discoveries and acts of industrial capacity building.

I agree. His was the first government to really use Fiscal policy, I think even before Keynes talked about it. If Hitler had just stopped there, and not gone on to start WWII we would probably be calling him the greatest leader in 20th century europe today.

The determination with which he lifted a war damaged germany from the doldrums to the great military power it became by the end of the 30s was laudable. Not to mention the building of the autobahns etc.

Pastor AIO:

LOL! I wouldn't agree. I'd say because that was right in their moral opinion, but that Morality has evolved. By Morality I now mean the plurality of all moral codes. In other words you could say that One set of prevailing moral codes have been replaced by another set that come into prevalence.

Then you are also confused and contradicting yasef.

People who burnt other people to death for not sharing their beliefs on such trivial things as church doctrine, are. . . . .not evil? what?

Abeg take a position and stop dithering this way and that as is your wont.

Pastor AIO:

LOL! I wouldn't agree. I'd say because that was right in their moral opinion, but that Morality has evolved. By Morality I now mean the plurality of all moral codes. In other words you could say that One set of prevailing moral codes have been replaced by another set that come into prevalence.

While you hit closer than DeepSight, I won't say I agree with you. I hold firmly that Moral principles do not evolve. I also don't think that there is a plurality of moral codes in the true sense of that word. I think the problem is that we are not looking at morality closely enough.

Deep Sight:

Then you are also confused and contradicting yasef.

People who burnt other people to death for not sharing their beliefs on such trivial things as church doctrine, are. . . . .not evil? what?

Abeg take a position and stop dithering this way and that as is your wont.

I was referring to the abandoning of twins actually. Worldview has a great effect on what you think is morally right or wrong.

Deep Sight:

Even Hitler's irascible determination led to a great many inventions, discoveries and acts of industrial capacity building.

But ofcourse, every act, good or evil, inevitably charts a new course to something else.
So if a measurable positive emerges from the act of evil, then it is simply serendipity.

The end cannot justify the means.

Mr anony:
You answered too hastily. There is something I wanted you to notice which you missed.

If these people are as convinced of their goodness in the same way you are convinced of their evil then surely there cannot really be objective moral principles if both of you are subject to very different moral principles. Or don't you think so?

No thanks.

Evil people will believe and be convinced of evil things. Good people will believe and be convinced of good things. Secondly, many eveil people actually know of and believe that which is right and good but are overwhelmed by their stronger desires towards greed, ambition, power, domination, etc.

Henry, that vile King of England who created the Anglican Church from a cesspit of adultery and serial murder of his wives, was actually a great intellectual who associated with great intellectuals of his time and he wrote alot on humanism and morality. So some of these people actually know right from wrong. Their stronger desire however, they find irresistible.

Deep Sight:

Because they were evil people. Same as those who burnt "witches" and "heretics" at the stake in the Medieval Western world.

Evil, evil people.

I see a contradiction here.
If they were evil, then Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, etc were aslo very very evil, for their reckless ambitions led to the loss of millions of lives. These men cut swaths of blood throughout their paths.

Pastor AIO:

I was referring to the abandoning of twins actually. Worldview has a great effect on what you think is morally right or wrong.

Yeah yeah yeah, neither here nor there as always. I can't believe you do not recognize that your last few posts entirely contradict everything you have said before on this thread. Worever. We are used to you by now.

Mr anony: @Deepsight let me butt in here to ask you a question.

If it was already morally wrong from the onset to kill twins, why did people feel it was morally right to do so?
Surely you know that the person who killed her own twin children did it because she was convinced that it was the right thing to do. Same applies to those Nigerians of not so long ago who hammered nails into the heads of their children in the name of "killing witches".

What do you have to say about these people? Were their acts objectively evil? Mind you, they were as convinced of their righteousness as you are convinced of their guilt.

Good question Anony.
You are I on the same team, even if for a fraction of a second.
lol.

plaetton:

I see a contradiction here.
If they were evil, then Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, etc were aslo very very evil, for their reckless ambitions led to the loss of millions of lives. These men cut swaths of blood throughout their paths.

Now, you are truly not with the game at all. Do you mean you do not recognize that I have been arguing that ALL of these people and acts are horrendously EVIL? That the strict materialist worldview is wrong, because going with strict materialism, there is nothing evil or wrong with all of these acts?

Deep Sight:

No thanks.

Evil people will believe and be convinced of evil things. Good people will believe and be convinced of good things. Secondly, many eveil people actually know of and believe that which is right and good but are overwhelmed by their stronger desires towards greed, ambition, power, domination, etc.

Henry, that vile King of England who created the Anglican Church from a cesspit of adultery and serial murder of his wives, was actually a great intellectual who associated with great intellectuals of his time and he wrote alot on humanism and morality. So some of these people actually know right from wrong. Their stronger desire however, they find irresistible.

C'mon DeepSight surely you know that I do not believe morality is subjective but then by saying that we have inherited the burden of showing that our witch killers are objectively evil even when they sincerely believe that their deeds are good.
You can't simply write it off as "they are evil and that's final".

Deep Sight:

Yeah yeah yeah, neither here nor there as always. I can't believe you do not recognize that your last few posts entirely contradict everything you have said before on this thread. Worever. We are used to you by now.

He he he.
Both of you are hereby indicted for contradicting yourselves.
Judgement is hereby in favour of Plaetton.
Case adjourned.

plaetton:

Good question Anony.
You are I on the same team, even if for a fraction of a second.
lol.

Your confusion is only on the rise. You do not see where Anony is going. He is heading towards a higher source of morality: God. As for you, if that question of his holds any meaning, the meaning it holds squarely shows that everything you have said is self contradictory: because if witch burners, child killers and conquistadors believed their actions to be right, then, under your theories so far, their belief alone renders such acts right, as that was the level of the cultural evolution at the time. Ol boy, you never think this matter well at all. At all at all!

plaetton:

Good question Anony.
You are I on the same team, even if for a fraction of a second.
lol.

Lol, don't count you chickens yet o. We are not on the same team exactly. I'm just trying to bring out something I think we have all been overlooking.

Deep Sight:

Your confusion is only on the rise. You do not see where Anony is going. He is heading towards a higher source of morality: God. As for you, if that question of his holds any meaning, the meaning it holds squarely shows that everything you have said is self contradictory: because if witch burners, child killers and conquistadors believed their actions to be right, then, under your theories so far, their belief alone renders such acts right, as that was the level of the cultural evolution at the time. Ol boy, you never think this matter well at all. At all at all!

Lol, I wasn't even heading towards God per se. I just wanted to show that Moral principles are truly objective much like logical and mathematical principles.

Deep Sight:

Now, you are truly not with the game at all. Do you mean you do not recognize that I have been arguing that ALL of these people and acts are horrendously EVIL? That the strict materialist worldview is wrong, because going with strict materialism, there is nothing evil or wrong with all of these acts?

I guess it's because you too have been all over the place.
I could not figure out exactly what your point has been.
I do not agree with any person, atheists or not who holds such a view.
But I do not see the connection with holding such views,even if wrong, with the atheistic worldview.

plaetton:

Alexander the Great, Ghengis khan, Napoleon, Hitler, etc., are celebrated for their Notoriety, not for any positive contributions to human progress.
Humans are fascinated by Notoriety. That is common knowledge.

If these men were celebrated for their any positive contributions to humanity, then many many would be trying everyday to emulate their deeds.

Very wrong. Go to Wikipedia. Alexander the Great's war tactics have been used to teaching entrepreneurial skills. Napoleon may have indeed terrorized Europe but it can't be denied that France reached the height of its prestige under him. His charisma won him many dedicated soldiers.

Mr anony:
Lol, I wasn't even heading towards God per se. I just wanted to show that Moral principles are truly objective much like logical and mathematical principles.

Oh, I know where Anony always heads.
I was not celebrating that. Thats why I said we were team mates for a fraction of a second.
I was happy that he asked you a very important question.

Uyi Iredia:

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.

Do they possess free will as well?