De Beauvoir:
I understand where you're coming from but I was thinking, since the individual is the primary concern of existentialists, personal morality and ethics supersede social morality and popular ethics and existentialists agree there are no absolute moral laws.
Infact, existentialism is very much about rejecting the commonly accepted notion of morality or the morality of the masses and following an existential system of laws would be to be inauthentic. So basically morality in this sense is a very subjective thing and what I would consider ethical to myself and others might actually bring them a great deal of harm.
Let me be honest here, I am still trying to understand the complex nature of existential morality
I know that individual responsibility and the need to preserve one's freedom and the freedom of others is greatly stressed in existentialism but then there is the issue of moral subjectivity to consider.......


Nigerian women are placed under very great pressure to marry and bear children. A woman is prepared right from her childhood for a life of matrimony and child care, there is barely any other option available for them. The ones who have decided to stay single or unmarried are ridiculed and make to feel less than human (as you can see from the way one of them was treated on this thread) so many women just go with what is accepted as the norm for women mostly because they do not want to face the disrespect/shame that comes with a lifetime of spinsterhood.

Me too. Still trying to understand the whole existentialist thing. But when i look at existentialist philosophers who lived, i don't think there was ever reason to consider them anarchists, even though social norms was never their thing.
Moral subjectivity is a whole new topic on its own. Am sure that's taboo for the many Nigerians i know. On another note, am quite impressed with your philosophical knowledge. You didn't answer about what you study.

I understand the plight of Nigerian women. I mean, the pressure is enormous, but isn't that what they had in America or Europe several years back? Nigerian/African women willing to go the length must do so without fear, in the hope of finally liberating the others who have less courage. There is very little the men can do in this regard. Tongues may wag now; but the future will only have these women to honor.
It's quite a pity having to live in such hostile environment. I wish Nigerians would open their thoughts more and practice 'live and let live'. Whatever the case, Nigerian feminists must still make the required sacrifice. This freedom doesn't come that easy.

sauer:

Me too. Still trying to understand the whole existentialist thing. But when i look at existentialist philosophers who lived, i don't think there was ever reason to consider them anarchists, even though social norms was never their thing.
Moral subjectivity is a whole new topic on its own. Am sure that's taboo for the many Nigerians i know. On another note, am quite impressed with your philosophical knowledge. You didn't answer about what you study.

I understand the plight of Nigerian women. I mean, the pressure is enormous, but isn't that what they had in America or Europe several years back? Nigerian/African women willing to go the length must do so without fear, in the hope of finally liberating the others who have less courage. There is very little the men can do in this regard. Tongues may wag now; but the future will only have these women to honor.
It's quite a pity having to live in such hostile environment. I wish Nigerians would open their thoughts more and practice 'live and let live'. Whatever the case, Nigerian feminists must still make the required sacrifice. This freedom doesn't come that easy.

I didn't do philosophy in school. I just read it in my free time.
About feminists making sacrifices; it is easier said than done. The herd mentality of Nigerians is very strong and it is very difficult for a person to stand alone and face the opposition that comes from going against the generally accepted standard. This is especially true for women who are expected to conform more than men.
Are you against marriage generally or you just think women should not go into it at least until the issues of gender equality are eliminated?

d problem with wealthy woman is dat some feel, the reason why they respect man is because of what she is geting.so when she get those things by her self no need of respecting man.they believe that what make man is what he provide.when she is providing table has turn,so she is man now .so is only women thajt understand will obey their man.

De Beauvoir:
I didn't do philosophy in school. I just read it in my free time.
About feminists making sacrifices; it is easier said than done. The herd mentality of Nigerians is very strong and it is very difficult for a person to stand alone and face the opposition that comes from going against the generally accepted standard. This is especially true for women who are expected to conform more than men.
Are you against marriage generally or you just think women should not go into it at least until the issues of gender equality are eliminated?

Marriage can be a bit of a burden in that it completely takes one's independence away. And if there is anything one loses so quickly, it's independence or individuality.
I think this is more true for women than it is for men.

Yes, i think women should be completely certain that the marriage offers them the equality they deserve before going into it. At the same time, they should be very willing to quit the marriage once it begins to limit their freedom or if the man starts to become intolerant. Same should apply to the guy as well. I strongly believe in live and let live. Anyways, both parties should be in the clear what each one's responsibility is and how much freedom each has. Maybe that way expectations are clear and understanding improves.

There are some women who just deserve freedom and independence. Marriage could limit these women if they fall into the wrong man's hand. It's for such women i do not recommend marriage. That's my opinion anyways. What do you think?

sauer:
Marriage can be a bit of a burden in that it completely takes one's independence away. And if there is anything one loses so quickly, it's independence or individuality.
I think this is more true for women than it is for men.
Yes, i think women should be completely certain that the marriage offers them the equality they deserve before going into it. At the same time, they should be very willing to quit the marriage once it begins to limit their freedom or if the man starts to become intolerant. Same should apply to the guy as well. I strongly believe in live and let live. Anyways, both parties should be in the clear what each one's responsibility is and how much freedom each has. Maybe that way expectations are clear and understanding improves.
There are some women who just deserve freedom and independence. Marriage could limit these women if they fall into the wrong man's hand. It's for such women i do not recommend marriage. That's my opinion anyways. What do you think?

I agree that marriage leads to loss of individuality and freedom, especially when kids are involved. However there are people who know that they would have to give these things up but don't mind doing so maybe because they are in love with each other or because they have a great desire to start a family and such people are the ones that should get into marriage because they understand that they would have to make sacrifices and are willing to do so.
Unfortunately in Nigeria, marriage is thrust upon people regardless of whether they can handle the restrictions or not.
And yes, before the marriage, there should be an agreement by the intending couple to decide how they ought to live their lives after signing the marriage certificate.

Personally, I don't think there is any need for marriage apart from tax benefits in developed countries. A child can be catered for by both parents or even by a single parent without both parents getting married first.

De Beauvoir:

I agree that marriage leads to loss of individuality and freedom, especially when kids are involved. However there are people who know that they would have to give these things up but don't mind doing so maybe because they are in love with each other or because they have a great desire to start a family and such people are the ones that should get into marriage because they understand that they would have to make sacrifices and are willing to do so.
Unfortunately in Nigeria, marriage is thrust upon people regardless of whether they can handle the restrictions or not.
And yes, before the marriage, there should be an agreement by the intending couple to decide how they ought to live their lives after signing the marriage certificate.

Personally, I don't think there is any need for marriage apart from tax benefits in developed countries. A child can be catered for by both parents or even by a single parent without both parents getting married first.

I agree very much with the above. Here is where western societies are different. Those who can't handle marriage never bother themselves with getting into it. At the same time, they suffer no social accusations. Well, most times.

I think we share almost the same opinion about this. I also don't think it necessary that a couple must get married before having children. A child can always been raised by one parent or both parents without their getting married first.

sauer:

I agree very much with the above. Here is where western societies are different. Those who can't handle marriage never bother themselves with getting into it. At the same time, they suffer no social accusations. Well, most times.

Why do you think our mentalities are so different? Why is conformity with respect to marriage not a big deal in Western countries but is actively enforced in African countries?

De Beauvoir:

Why do you think our mentalities are so different? Why is conformity with respect to marriage not a big deal in Western countries but is actively enforced in African countries?

Well, first humans are built to thrive on social acceptability. I think that's the key thing here. Every society has what it terms right, wrong; what it terms normal and abnormal. Personally, I think this is central to societal order and functioning. Without this, would there even be a society at all?
A good example is respect for elders among the many Nigerian tribes. It's a social demand that the young obey the older without question. This ideal has become so woven into the Nigerian social fabric that it has even crept into many offices erasing professionalism. Those with higher seniority in the workplace demand respect from workers below them; and this respect bears a lot of similarity to the kind you would see among siblings in a Nigerian family.

How our social situation became what it is at the moment is the more difficult thing to describe. Apparently, this must have happened over several centuries experiencing only little patches here and there as it was handed from one generation to the other.

Somehow, I wouldn't say it's enforced in Nigeria. It just happens that everyone desires social acceptability; no one wants to be cut off from social circles, from family and friends. Hence, they must desperately seek that which the society demands. Little wonder, many a Nigerian begins to take Nigerian norms a tad less seriously once they find themselves in a society (e.g. western cities) that demands less from them in that regard in exchange for acceptability. Only those who look forward to returning to Nigeria someday still wallow in the worry created by their marriageless or single-parent situation. Maybe.

In the end, it really is about friendship, bond and society. No man is an island. If not getting married will make many lose face among their family members, make them lose position in the country or render them worthless among friends, they certainly would rather avoid it. Best bet? Just change social circles or change country entirely!

sauer:
Well, first humans are built to thrive on social acceptability. I think that's the key thing here. Every society has what it terms right, wrong; what it terms normal and abnormal. Personally, I think this is central to societal order and functioning. Without this, would there even be a society at all?
A good example is respect for elders among the many Nigerian tribes. It's a social demand that the young obey the older without question. This ideal has become so woven into the Nigerian social fabric that it has even crept into many offices erasing professionalism. Those with higher seniority in the workplace demand respect from workers below them; and this respect bears a lot of similarity to the kind you would see among siblings in a Nigerian family.
How our social situation became what it is at the moment is the more difficult thing to describe. Apparently, this must have happened over several centuries experiencing only little patches here and there as it was handed from one generation to the other.
Somehow, I wouldn't say it's enforced in Nigeria. It just happens that everyone desires social acceptability; no one wants to be cut off from social circles, from family and friends. Hence, they must desperately seek that which the society demands. Little wonder, many a Nigerian begins to take Nigerian norms a tad less seriously once they find themselves in a society (e.g. western cities) that demands less from them in that regard in exchange for acceptability. Only those who look forward to returning to Nigeria someday still wallow in the worry created by their marriageless or single-parent situation. Maybe.
In the end, it really is about friendship, bond and society. No man is an island. If not getting married will make many lose face among their family members, make them lose position in the country or render them worthless among friends, they certainly would rather avoid it. Best bet? Just change social circles or change country entirely!

I think marriage conformity is enforced in Nigeria.
Women and men of a certain age who are unmarried are usually ridiculed. The men are called insultive names like useless/irresponsible man while the woman is called an old hag, old cargo, expired product etc
Nigerians don't allow those who wish to remain unmarried live their lives in peace, they don't even consider the individual's personal reasons for making that choice they simply oppose it because they believe that every normal adult person should desire marriage

Other than that I agree with what you said.

So you believe that we need to follow society's notion of right and wrong for there to be social order and functioning? Doesn't that conflict with the existentialist philosophy?

De Beauvoir:
I think marriage conformity is enforced in Nigeria.
Women and men of a certain age who are unmarried are usually ridiculed. The men are called insultive names like useless/irresponsible man while the woman is called an old hag, old cargo, expired product etc
Nigerians don't allow those who wish to remain unmarried live their lives in peace, they don't even consider the individual's personal reasons for making that choice they simply oppose it because they believe that every normal adult person should desire marriage

Other than that I agree with what you said.

So you believe that we need to follow society's notion of right and wrong for there to be social order and functioning? Doesn't that conflict with the existentialist philosophy?

Well. enforced? Okay, I...erm...agree. Of course, it's true people will just give you a completely different social treatment once you make it known you wish to remain unmarried. That much is unarguable.
For me, though, I think it's just better to disregard what people may say and just live one's own life.

Ermm...actually, on the notion of right and wrong, I subscribe to some form of moral relativism. I don't think one should blindly follow society's notion of right and wrong. One certainly doesn't have to for there to be social order and functioning. There will always be social order even if a few decide to go against it.

Personally, I think one should follow what is valid within one's moral framework. In the end though, if you walk too far away from social norms, you should be ready to accept the social consequences that come with it. This is often social non-acceptance; it can be scary and could mean isolation. But if that's the price to pay for individual freedom, my personal opinion is that it's worth it.

sauer:

Well. enforced? Okay, I...erm...agree.

Did I use the wrong word?

sauer: For me, though, I think it's just better to disregard what people may say and just live one's own life.

Ermm...actually, on the notion of right and wrong, I subscribe to some form of moral relativism. I don't think one should blindly follow society's notion of right and wrong. One certainly doesn't have to for there to be social order and functioning. There will always be social order even if a few decide to go against it.

You are basing your argument on the assumption that only a few people will go against society's notions of right and wrong. If that is the case then there won't be significant disruption in social order but you can't guarantee that only a few people will go against the morality of the masses.
Even at that, moral relativism is not likely to ensure social order. Why? Because basically, there are no set standards in that philosophy. What is moral or immoral can only be defined by the individual. Moral relativism condones all behaviour, no matter how many rights are violated or what the consequences are. It would be to believe that another person has the right to kill you and other defenseless people as long as they can personally justify their reasons for doing so.
Or take politics and government into consideration, what if a ruler decides to force his subjects to follow laws that would destroy the society's peace and order? With MR there would be absolutely nothing wrong with the ruler taking that decision as long as he can justify his morality to himself. He isn't under obligation to adhere to what his subjects think is fair or ethical.


Do you still think we don't need to have a set of established laws in place to ensure order and peace?

De Beauvoir:
Did I use the wrong word?

It's just my personal opinion that the word is too strong. I don't think any one goes around ensuring every Nigerian must be married or face punishment. Enforce = Compel. On the contrary, people are still kinda left the option of deciding if or if not. If they go with it, all well and good. Society smiles at them. If they don't, then society may stigmatize them, but cannot punish them. In fact, if they were stronger, they could turn out to be trend-setters in a society that, in the first place, lacked the courage to pursue these ideals.

You are basing your argument on the assumption that only a few people will go against society's notions of right and wrong. If that is the case then there won't be significant disruption in social order but you can't guarantee that only a few people will go against the morality of the masses.
Even at that, moral relativism is not likely to ensure social order. Why? Because basically, there are no set standards in that philosophy. What is moral or immoral can only be defined by the individual. Moral relativism condones all behaviour, no matter how many rights are violated or what the consequences are. It would be to believe that another person has the right to kill you and other defenseless people as long as they can personally justify their reasons for doing so.
Or take politics and government into consideration, what if a ruler decides to force his subjects to follow laws that would destroy the society's peace and order? With MR there would be absolutely nothing wrong with the ruler taking that decision as long as he can justify his morality to himself. He isn't under obligation to adhere to what his subjects think is fair or ethical.


Do you still think we don't need to have a set of established laws in place to ensure order and peace?

Yea, I agree with you. But if you look at it in the whole, only a few people will go against the morality of the masses. Of course, I can't guarantee that; but I dare say that will most likely be case. No one really wants to be in the bad book of the society, anywyz.

I agree that moral relativism by the many is not likely to ensure social order. But with a learned few practicing moral relativism, there is a high chance society can be brought into or remain in a comfortable balance. Of course, am not saying some people are more equal than the others, even though I may imply this. But if you take Napoleon for instance, he could move France forward because he had the freedom to exercise his feelings of what was right and what was wrong. Same applies to Alexander the Great's conquest; and in today's world, same applies to Jerry Rawlings's revolution in Ghana and in fact, any revolution at all.

If a learned few don't come up above mass morality to enforce their feelings of what is right and what is wrong, society will probably never get its balance. And I think that's what Nigeria needs today. There are sad consequences to this of course, and Dostoyevsky did justice to it in his book, Crime and Punishment.

If your ruler were fair in dispensing justice and decides to force his subjects to follow laws that won't destroy social peace and order, what do you think will result? Yes, peace and order! We never know what "fair" may be, but let's just say it's that action which brings peace and order.

Of course, because you never know which monarch will eventually screw the country with his set of moral laws, proponents of structured governance prefer a set of established laws which should be fair to all. And am thinking, did they derive this from the old testament's Ten Commandments?

For me though, I still think the Ubermensch is in a better position to bring order to a society if it so happens he is fair in his dealings.

sauer:
It's just my personal opinion that the word is too strong. I don't think any one goes around ensuring every Nigerian must be married or face punishment. Enforce = Compel. On the contrary, people are still kinda left the option of deciding if or if not. If they go with it, all well and good. Society smiles at them. If they don't, then society may stigmatize them, but cannot punish them. In fact, if they were stronger, they could turn out to be trend-setters in a society that, in the first place, lacked the courage to pursue these ideals.



Yea, I agree with you. But if you look at it in the whole, only a few people will go against the morality of the masses. Of course, I can't guarantee that; but I dare say that will most likely be case. No one really wants to be in the bad book of the society, anywyz.

I agree that moral relativism by the many is not likely to ensure social order. But with a learned few practicing moral relativism, there is a high chance society can be brought into or remain in a comfortable balance. Of course, am not saying some people are more equal than the others, even though I may imply this. But if you take Napoleon for instance, he could move France forward because he had the freedom to exercise his feelings of what was right and what was wrong. Same applies to Alexander the Great's conquest; and in today's world, same applies to Jerry Rawlings's revolution in Ghana and in fact, any revolution at all.

If a learned few don't come up above mass morality to enforce their feelings of what is right and what is wrong, society will probably never get its balance. And I think that's what Nigeria needs today. There are sad consequences to this of course, and Dostoyevsky did justice to it in his book, Crime and Punishment.

If your ruler were fair in dispensing justice and decides to force his subjects to follow laws that won't destroy social peace and order, what do you think will result? Yes, peace and order! We never know what "fair" may be, but let's just say it's that action which brings peace and order.

Of course, because you never know which monarch will eventually screw the country with his set of moral laws, proponents of structured governance prefer a set of established laws which should be fair to all. And am thinking, did they derive this from the old testament's Ten Commandments?

For me though, I still think the Ubermensch is in a better position to bring order to a society if it so happens he is fair in his dealings.

King Solomon says the excellency of knowledge is that Wisdom gives it life..... Some knowledge are waste of time and energy..... It doesn't make us wise

sauer:
It's just my personal opinion that the word is too strong. I don't think any one goes around ensuring every Nigerian must be married or face punishment. Enforce = Compel. On the contrary, people are still kinda left the option of deciding if or if not. If they go with it, all well and good. Society smiles at them. If they don't, then society may stigmatize them, but cannot punish them. In fact, if they were stronger, they could turn out to be trend-setters in a society that, in the first place, lacked the courage to pursue these ideals.


For me though, I still think the Ubermensch is in a better position to bring order to a society if it so happens he is fair in his dealings.

Moral relativism in my opinion, would work best in a society if there are already established laws in place to keep people from causing unnecessary harm to others. Human avarice and evilness would become untamed and destructive if there are no laws to keep them in check.

Just as there were good leaders who employed moral relativity, there were also bad ones like Hitler, Mao and Stalin.

There should be some fundamental laws to keep people from acting like sociopaths towards each other, nothing too restrictive though, just some basic laws to ensure the protection of the lives and property of innocent defenseless citizens. Then people should be left alone to decide whatever path they want to follow in life without being discriminated against.

De Beauvoir:
Moral relativism in my opinion, would work best in a society if there are already established laws in place to keep people from causing unnecessary harm to others. Human avarice and evilness would become untamed and destructive if there are no laws to keep them in check.

Just as there were good leaders who employed moral relativity, there were also bad ones like Hitler, Mao and Stalin.

There should be some fundamental laws to keep people from acting like sociopaths towards each other, nothing too restrictive though, just some basic laws to ensure the protection of the lives and property of innocent defenseless citizens. Then people should be left alone to decide whatever path they want to follow in life without being discriminated against.

Pretty much agree. A few moral relativists in a society with established laws can't do any bad, I think.

Knew you would mention Hilter & Stalin. But just as we had those, we also had Roosevelt & Gorbachev. Great men must rise above the moral of the masses. Whatever the consequence is, society can bear.

You want to join a thread in the Religion section about moral relativism? I'd be glad to carry our discussion there. I mean, it could be moral relativism and pretty much any other philosophical topic of interest.

sauer:

Pretty much agree. A few moral relativists in a society with established laws can't do any bad, I think.

Knew you would mention Hilter & Stalin. But just as we had those, we also had Roosevelt & Gorbachev. Great men must rise above the moral of the masses. Whatever the consequence is, society can bear.

You want to join a thread in the Religion section about moral relativism? I'd be glad to carry our discussion there. I mean, it could be moral relativism and pretty much any other philosophical topic of interest.

Ok. What topic do you want to discuss?

De Beauvoir:

Ok. What topic do you want to discuss?

Say, can feminism be separated from atheism?

sauer:
Say, can feminism be separated from atheism?

It sounds like a good topic.

But don't you think it would be better if you started it in the general section? Anything goes in the general section.....

De Beauvoir:

It sounds like a good topic.

But don't you think it would be better if you started it in the general section? Anything goes in the general section.....

Okay. General it is then. But since it's religion-related, you don't think they'll route it there? I create it meanwhile.

What's your position on this? You think a feminist is necessarily an atheist?

sauer: What's your position on this? You think a feminist is necessarily an atheist?

No....no that's not what I think. I know some religious people that are strong feminists.

De Beauvoir:

No....no that's not what I think. I know some religious people that are strong feminists.

I disagree with you. I think you can't separate feminism from atheism. These "strong feminists" who are religious are either not as religious as they claim, or they are just not the consummate feminist.

Religion, especially the Abrahamic religions, emphasizes the superiority of men over women. A feminist practicing any of such religions is only just set to teach herself everything wrong about her feminist ideals.

We can argue about this in the General section and I'd certainly love to see your responses. Btw, are you religious?

sauer:
I disagree with you. I think you can't separate feminism from atheism. These "strong feminists" who are religious are either not as religious as they claim, or they are just not the consummate feminist.
Religion, especially the Abrahamic religions, emphasizes the superiority of men over women. A feminist practicing any of such religions is only just set to teach herself everything wrong about her feminist ideals.
We can argue about this in the General section and I'd certainly love to see your responses. Btw, are you religious?

No I am not.
I also agree that many religions emphasize the superiority of men over women. The religious people I spoke of before are simply giving their own personal/dubious interpretation to the misogynistic parts of their scriptures and using their wrong interpretations to convince themselves that they worship a god of gender equality.
I think they do this because they cannot deal with the fact that their gods deem women to be inferior to men.

De Beauvoir:

No I am not.
I also agree that many religions emphasize the superiority of men over women. The religious people I spoke of before are simply giving their own personal/dubious interpretation to the misogynistic parts of their scriptures and using their wrong interpretations to convince themselves that they worship a god of gender equality.
I think they do this because they cannot deal with the fact that their gods deem women to be inferior to men.

I don ready for you
https://www.nairaland.com/1525613/feminism-atheism-other-philosophical-topics

As a guy, I like independent women. What I don't like is too independent women. Go figure.

HNM