Mr anony:
Lol, she is yours to have and to hold in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer until death do you part.....

Yeepeee!!!

Mr anony:
......as long as you can pay her bride price of 7 kegs of palm wine, 3 baskets of tomatoes, two cows and most important;

No P!

Mr anony:
a one-eyed mosquito.

Hmmm...I hope muskeeto is a strict materialist Atheist...***scheming on how to convince him that having one eye and making himself part of the dowry is good morals***

Mr anony:
Congratulations on your wedding.

Your affectionate in-law,
Anony

Thanks man!

striktlymi:

Yeepeee!!!



No P!



Hmmm...I hope muskeeto is a strict materialist Atheist...***scheming on how to convince him that having one eye and making himself part of the dowry is good morals***



Thanks man!

Lololol. You are welcome.

Mr anony:
Is the act immoral because it is murder or because it is in broad daylight?

Neither and both, along with other reasons. Basically though it would be immoral because chances are someone would deem it so, simple. It would also be moral to some. What you want to ask is "is the act inherently immoral?". No.

Note this says nothing about whether it's illegal.


Random: And flexibility is a good thing, loudly endorsing it is a good thing as well, despite what some fear. Unless you think say living as if it were 1400 years ago today, as our good muslims with their objective moral code for all the ages do, is a good idea. You know how many atrocities have been committed through history by people who thought they had arrived at an objective good? With infallibly good god on their side? How many objectively 'good' deeds did the god himself do in the OT sef? People need to negotiate, discourse and see the other side before making judgements. To hone their reason.

If there is an objective moral code, someone should present this magical, logically absurd formula which can somehow quantify or objectify personal values, which of course are primarily determined by personal feelings. Replace 'personal' with 'societal' and you'd still get the same results. Until then talk about this mysterious objective moral code is just that; talk.

Wiegraf, you do not seem to be addressing yourself to the pure logic of this matter.

Please start with the question of whether or not such a thing as a malum in se exists.

Your answers are now actually contradicting your earlier statements. This is of course what happens when people have yet to think full circle: same as dear Pastor AIO who still does not see his great contradictions.

Mr anony:
Is the act immoral because it is murder or because it is in broad daylight?

THAT distinction is most important: and the fact that he had to say "in broad day light" is extremely telling. But of course, he, and those others here on this thread who refuse to see that which is beneath their noses, will continue in their refusal to cognize the obvious.

wiegraf:

Neither and both, along with other reasons. Basically though it would be immoral because chances are someone would deem it so, simple. It would also be moral to some. What you want to ask is "is the act inherently immoral?". No.

Are you really saying that it is only immoral as long as someone deems it so?

Note this says nothing about whether it's illegal.

noted

Random: And flexibility is a good thing, loudly endorsing it is a good thing as well, despite what some fear. Unless you think say living as if it were 1400 years ago today, as our good muslims with their objective moral code for all the ages do, is a good idea. You know how many atrocities have been committed through history by people who thought they had arrived at an objective good? With infallibly good god on their side? How many objectively 'good' deeds did the god himself do in the OT sef? People need to negotiate, discourse and see the other side before making judgements. To hone their reason.

If there is an objective moral code, someone should present this magical, logically absurd formula which can somehow quantify or objectify personal values, which of course are primarily determined by personal feelings. Replace 'personal' with 'societal' and you'd still get the same results. Until then talk about this mysterious objective moral code is just that; talk.

Read my comment on what objective moral principles are in the case of Mr DeepSight vs Madam WitchKiller here:
[url] https://www.nairaland.com/1294489/basis-human-morality/7#15884362[/url]

Tell me what you think.

Deep Sight:
THAT distinction is most important: and the fact that he had to say "in broad day light" is extremely telling. But of course, he, and those others here on this thread who refuse to see that which is beneath their noses, will continue in their refusal to cognize the obvious.

In my experience, I have found that many people here have the ability to look directly at a point then seat back and carefully and deliberately work out how best to miss it.

Deep Sight:

In the bold, you will see why you are being either clever by half, or completely missing the issue.

Oh! Maybe you're making a distinction between our sense of Morality, Morality per se (in se, or even sen se millia).

Okay if we grant that there is a Morality which is objective, how can we be aware of it? is it not with our Sense of morality? How can we be sure that the sense of morality is accurate? We can't? It is the whole epistemology/ontology question. How can you Know that something exists? The Truth is that all that is available to us is not knowledge but beliefs, Beliefs with varying measures of certainty.

Bottom line is that Sense of morality is subject to change. We are limited to what we can sense and the only thing that we can meaningfully talk about its our sense of morality. I Sense morality therefore I am Moral. lol

Deep Sight:

You therefore assert that the notion and idea of mala in se is actually a false notion and idea and does not exist. Are you willing to stand by this assertion?

So to answer the above I say that I am not equipped to make any pronouncement on Mala in Se but I can make pronouncements on my sense of Mala.

You can only discuss 'Mala in Se' with people from the same wider cultural milieu as yourself.

People say that genocide is wrong is wrong is wrong. Tell that to the Israelites that invaded Canaan. It wasn't just during the invasion. But for centuries afterwards is was an issue of pride. Reading the bible there is nowhere at any point that you get any sense of remorse and the bible spans centuries. So for centuries we have an act of genocide that not only were the perpetrators not ashamed of, but furthermore it was actually a matter of pride for them.

Go and tell them about Mala in Se.

Pastor AIO: I think that Deepsight is being fundamentally misunderstood in this thread. Possibly because 'Morality' is such a murky idea here, and each of us actually has a different thing he is talking about when we mention morality. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, or being dismissed again with a disdainful 'I don't do definitionism', I think we need to set out a definition of Morality so we know what we are talking about here.

And it is obvious now why Deepsight is getting so hissy. He is arguing for a Morality that has an independent ontological existence (yeah tautology, whatever), while I'm arguing for a Sense of Morality, or rather the experience of Morality. I fear he will have a hard time proving this objective Morality.

Pastor AIO:

Oh! Maybe you're making a distinction between our sense of Morality, Morality per se (in se, or even sen se millia).

Okay if we grant that there is a Morality which is objective, how can we be aware of it? is it not with our Sense of morality? How can we be sure that the sense of morality is accurate? We can't? It is the whole epistemology/ontology question. How can you Know that something exists? The Truth is that all that is available to us is not knowledge but beliefs, Beliefs with varying measures of certainty.

Bottom line is that Sense of morality is subject to change. We are limited to what we can sense and the only thing that we can meaningfully talk about its our sense of morality. I Sense morality therefore I am Moral. lol


So to answer the above I say that I am not equipped to make any pronouncement on Mala in Se but I can make pronouncements on my sense of Mala.

This reply strikes me as a bit weird. You have resorted to the kind of argument a person makes when he seeks to escape an argument rather than reason it through.

Why stop at morality? let's apply the same thing to the existence your mind. You only have a sense of your mind, you don't really know whether you truly have a mind or not. You also don't know that other people have minds. Consequently, you also do not have a sense of logic and a sense of mathematics. You don't know what is logical or that 2+2=4, you only believe it to a "high degree of certainty"(whatever that means because I wonder how one can talk of degrees of certainty if he claims that there is no knowledge).
By your logic, you can never know anything at all to be real because all you have are your senses. In your bid to evade the argument, I am afraid you have managed to saw off the branch that you were hanging by.

You can only discuss 'Mala in Se' with people from the same wider cultural milieu as yourself.

Not true. When you really think about it, everyone goes by the same moral principles

People say that genocide is wrong is wrong is wrong. Tell that to the Israelites that invaded Canaan. It wasn't just during the invasion. But for centuries afterwards is was an issue of pride. Reading the bible there is nowhere at any point that you get any sense of remorse and the bible spans centuries. So for centuries we have an act of genocide that not only were the perpetrators not ashamed of, but furthermore it was actually a matter of pride for them.

Go and tell them about Mala in Se.

This is a red herring, but I'll argue that 1. The Israelites did not commit genocide and 2. The Israelites did not have a different sense of morality

Mr anony:
This is a red herring, but I'll argue that 1. The Israelites did not commit genocide and 2. The Israelites did not have a different sense of morality

Sure as long as you also agree that Hitler did not also commit genocide against the Jews. . .

mazaje:
Sure as long as you also agree that Hitler did not also commit genocide against the Jews. . .

I don't want to derail this thread but I'll ask you: What is genocide and how is it different from other acts of war?

If you like, we can handle it in another thread

Deep Sight:
Wiegraf, you do not seem to be addressing yourself to the pure logic of this matter.

Please start with the question of whether or not such a thing as a malum in se exists.

Nothing like objective morality.

Deep Sight:
Your answers are now actually contradicting your earlier statements. This is of course what happens when people have yet to think full circle: same as dear Pastor AIO who still does not see his great contradictions.

You probably misunderstand me, assuming this is about necessary evils ie. This is my very first post on this thread for some general context

wiegraf:
All this is my view only.

....

Ultimately I believe in a deterministic and probalistic universe. My stance may be even more 'ruthless' than where I think you're going, as I don't hold people responsible for their actions per se. But I think being morally good (in the somewhat traditional sense) is the practical, reasonable way to go, however you look at it.

Moving on, you eventually assert (or reassert) that having a materialistic world view leads to certain unavoidable conclusions, roughly here

ds:
@ Plaetton and all others arguing in terms of group survival and efficiency, etc, you still have not got the point at all. ....

The question therefore, would be if these acts of war targeted at achieving resources, are immoral or evil? ....

If we are merely highly developed animals, you can never argue that acts of warfare or seizing resources from one another are wrong or evil. NEVER.

My response

me:

Regarding some of what you've said, if we all go around warring and killing each other, revenge ensues, standards of morality are lowered, etc, where does it stop? How does that ensure safety? You're still making the environment a more dangerous place to operate. It's against your (and our) interests.

All sides think god is on their side. A lot of foolishness may be involved (see Hanlon's razor), all sides probably have honest intentions, but they'd still all be wrong warring. There's always a better solution to violence (do note again that I can be a hypocrite, short-sighted and impatient).

Again, sapience separates us from the rest, hence we should use it to our advantage. We should be evolving past strife, petty or otherwise. So in general, god might be on every side, but as he's wont to; he's wrong morally.

You could take a practical approach, but you're still wrong ultimately. Necessary evil does not mean morally good. I wouldn't persecute some 'necessary evils', in fact I'd very loudly support them, but I wouldn't call them morally 'good' either.

Need I add that this is my (subjective) world view?

I couldn't (and still can't) see why being a materialist is vital to my moral code (and this btw is crucial to your arguments). I therefore do not explicitly state that I'm one (still not sure) due to the uncertainty of if I qualify as one, but I left that there as an example of the views of a materialist, or at least of someone similar.

You yourself point out these are my (subjective) thoughts. My reply here

me:
Logic to attain what purpose?

If your point is that being logical will lead to situations we generally consider morally wrong by today's standards, mine is that this is probably a false dilemma. The premises do not inevitably lead to where you're heading. Despite how counter-intuitive it may seem, violence, necessary evils are not necessarily the most logical course. Strife leads to less stability, less productivity, etc. These objectives are usually not desirable, therefore it would be illogical to pursue them.

It remains to be seen if materialists disagree with this logic.

Note the italicized in particular. I don't think I need clarify further on this, yes?

edits

Mr anony:
I don't want to derail this thread but I'll ask you: What is genocide and how is it different from other acts of war?

If you like, we can handle it in another thread

According to Wikipedia. . .Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group" A legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I will go with this definition. . .

Mr anony:
Are you really saying that it is only immoral as long as someone deems it so?

Yes. Hence no universal immoral

Mr anony:
Read my comment on what objective moral principles are in the case of Mr DeepSight vs Madam WitchKiller here:
[url] https://www.nairaland.com/1294489/basis-human-morality/7#15884362[/url]

Tell me what you think.

About what part exactly, if you will?

wiegraf:
Yes. Hence no universal immoral

Then you are wrong

About what part exactly, if you will?

The whole thing if you may

Mr anony:
Then you are wrong

I see, because you say so.

If you're asking that I accept this just because you say so, kindly SHARRAP!!! Really, do I look like sheeple? When you do find this logically absurd magical formula, do show it though. I suggest you start searching for it where you'll find the legendary 'divide by zero' , '6 foot dwarfs', santa, god etc.

Mr anony:
The whole thing if you may

You may not may me. What exactly? It's all been addressed before methinks. Get to your point if you will, good ser, then I'll clarify my stance.

mazaje:

According to Wikipedia. . .Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group" A legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I will go with this definition. . .

I like that definition. Now how does it differ from other acts of war?

For example:
1. Was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WW2 an act of genocide?
2. Was the killing of the Tutsis by the Hutu tribes an act of genocide?
3. Were the activities of Stalin starving his own people to death acts of genocide?
4. Was the Biafran war an act of genocide against Ibos?

I have asked the above questions so that I can have a better understanding of how you differentiate genocide from other acts of war. You can just answer with a yes or a no to the 4 questions

Mr anony:
I like that definition. Now how does it differ from other acts of war?

For example:
1. Was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WW2 an act of genocide?
2. Was the killing of the Tutsis by the Hutu tribes an act of genocide?
3. Were the activities of Stalin starving his own people to death acts of genocide?
4. Was the Biafran war an act of genocide against Ibos?

I have asked the above questions so that I can have a better understanding of how you differentiate genocide from other acts of war. You can just answer with a yes or a no to the 4 questions

Yes, all for are genocides. . .For example the Ruwandan war is referred to as the Ruwandan genocide. . .

mazaje:
Yes, all for are genocides. . .For example the Ruwandan war is referred to as the Ruwandan genocide. . .

I'm sorry but you have just classified all war as genocide. This doesn't help us in any way.

would say that apart from No.2, all the rest are not genocide. Please read your definition again

wiegraf:
I see, because you say so.

If you're asking that I accept this just because you say so, kindly SHARRAP!!! Really, do I look like sheeple? When you do find this logically absurd magical formula, do show it though. I suggest you start searching for it where you'll find the legendary 'divide by zero' , '6 foot dwarfs', santa, god etc.

Lol, you are still wrong sha.

You may not may me. What exactly? It's all been addressed before methinks. Get to your point if you will, good ser, then I'll clarify my stance.

Have you even read it at all?

Mr anony:

Have you even read it at all?

Abeg... I'll come back and read it properly.... I'm serious.. You know how it is, with my concentration..... I'll try to see what your point is....

Mr anony:
I'm sorry but you have just classified all war as genocide. This doesn't help us in any way.

would say that apart from No.2, all the rest are not genocide. Please read your definition again

As long as you are killing a group of people with the intention to kill them all and wipe them off. . .My definition says systematic destruction in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. . .

Mr anony:
This reply strikes me as a bit weird. You have resorted to the kind of argument a person makes when he seeks to escape an argument rather than reason it through.

Why stop at morality? let's apply the same thing to the existence your mind. You only have a sense of your mind, you don't really know whether you truly have a mind or not. You also don't know that other people have minds. Consequently, you also do not have a sense of logic and a sense of mathematics. You don't know what is logical or that 2+2=4, you only believe it to a "high degree of certainty"(whatever that means because I wonder how one can talk of degrees of certainty if he claims that there is no knowledge).
By your logic, you can never know anything at all to be real because all you have are your senses. In your bid to evade the argument, I am afraid you have managed to saw off the branch that you were hanging by.

I stop at morality, for now, cos to apply the same argument to the existence of mind would be retrogression. Why? Cos that is where the entire argument started in the first place. In fact that is where modern european philosophy started. I talking about one guy like that called Rene Descartes. The subject is called Epistemology which also overlaps with Ontology.

To put it short Descartes concluded that we cannot know anything for sure. All we can know is that there is someone who thinks he knows but is not sure he knows. So whatever is real or not, even if it is all a delusion at least we can be sure that there is someone who is experiencing the delusion. So to Conclude, Cogito Ergo Sum. Translation into original English: I think therefore I am. This is the beginning. Even if what you are thinking is rubbish, at least you can be sure that there is someone thinking the rubbish.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFGdA9PbLpY

Again, I'm not vouching for everything in this video, It just looks good as an introduction to Descartes.

Pastor AIO:

I stop at morality, for now, cos to apply the same argument to the existence of mind would be retrogression. Why? Cos that is where the entire argument started in the first place. In fact that is where modern european philosophy started. I talking about one guy like that called Rene Descartes. The subject is called Epistemology which also overlaps with Ontology.

To put it short Descartes concluded that we cannot know anything for sure. All we can know is that there is someone who thinks he knows but is not sure he knows. So whatever is real or not, even if it is all a delusion at least we can be sure that there is someone who is experiencing the delusion. So to Conclude, Cogito Ergo Sum. Translation into original English: I think therefore I am. This is the beginning. Even if what you are thinking is rubbish, at least you can be sure that there is someone thinking the rubbish.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFGdA9PbLpY

Again, I'm not vouching for everything in this video, It just looks good as an introduction to Descartes.

I know about Descartes, but that's not what I am arguing about. What I have a problem with is why you would suddenly adopt that stance. It appears to me as an attempt to escape the topic rather than confront it.

wiegraf:

Abeg... I'll come back and read it properly.... I'm serious.. You know how it is, with my concentration..... I'll try to see what your point is....

ok

mazaje:

As long as you are killing a group of people with the intention to kill them all and wipe them off. . .My definition says systematic destruction in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. . .

Good, the bold is what genocide is. 1,3 and 4 do not fit that description but that's by the way. I think the question before us now is: Did the Israelites attack the Canaanites with the intention of killing them all and wiping them off? I don't think so.

Let us look at the bible now shall we? We'll start with your favorite character of recent times: Moses. I'll let you pick a war and then we'll examine it together to see if it was indeed genocide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTvC6ReLw4g

Mr anony:
I know about Descartes, but that's not what I am arguing about. What I have a problem with is why you would suddenly adopt that stance. It appears to me as an attempt to escape the topic rather than confront it.

What do you mean Suddenly adopt that stance? I'm terribly sorry if I said anything previously that contradicted that stance. Please show me where I did so so that I can make amends.

Mr anony:
I know about Descartes, but that's not what I am arguing about. What I have a problem with is why you would suddenly adopt that stance. It appears to me as an attempt to escape the topic rather than confront it.

Hahahahahaha! Welcome to Pastor AIO. This is Pastor AIO 101. The basic and essential Pastor AIO. Some of us have experienced this with him for years now. He's a brilliant lad, but he can never, nor will ever see just how vague, "obfuscatory", [particularly] escapist, irrelevant and contradictory his approach often is and many of his posts often are.

This is one chap who is capable of telling you "My name is X" and once you respond "Oh, so your name is X", he, terrified of being defined or labelled or put in a box, would instantly tell you that he has not said that his name is X, and that you are mis-reading him. It has happened a zillion times. The ol chap cannot even see the devastating contradictions between two extremes that he has advanced on this thread alone. He can never see it, and I am too used to his ways to bother to start quote mining them.

Great lad, nonetheless. Really great lad.

Mr anony:
I like that definition. Now how does it differ from other acts of war?

For example:
1. Was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WW2 an act of genocide?
2. Was the killing of the Tutsis by the Hutu tribes an act of genocide?
3. Were the activities of Stalin starving his own people to death acts of genocide?
4. Was the Biafran war an act of genocide against Ibos?

I have asked the above questions so that I can have a better understanding of how you differentiate genocide from other acts of war. You can just answer with a yes or a no to the 4 questions

Other acts of war are not necessarily a systematic destruction of a people in whole or in part. You can wage war against their army with the intention of subjugating them but not wiping them out. You can put people under siege, another act of war, with the intention of subjugating them but not wiping them out. The Israelite invasion of Canaan according to the bible was done with the intention of wiping them out.

Deep Sight:

Hahahahahaha! Welcome to Pastor AIO. This is Pastor AIO 101. The basic and essential Pastor AIO. Some of us have experienced this with him for years now. He's a brilliant lad, but he can never, nor will ever see just how vague, "obfuscatory", [particularly] escapist, irrelevant and contradictory his approach often is and many of his posts often are.

This is one chap who is capable of telling you "My name is X" and once you respond "Oh, so your name is X", he, terrified of being defined or labelled or put in a box, would instantly tell you that he has not said that his name is X, and that you are mis-reading him. It has happened a zillion times. The ol chap cannot even see the devastating contradictions between two extremes that he has advanced on this thread alone. He can never see it, and I am too used to his ways to bother to start quote mining them.

Great lad, nonetheless. Really great lad.

Please lay the contradicting position side by side for me to see.