Serious is buda's disease!

budaatum:

If you believe but don't go and officially change the name of the country

LOL ok #Sighs Dude official documents are also imagined order, an official document is only effective if people believe it is, just like money. Legality is also an imagined order humans employ.

where would planes taking off in foreign lands land when they say they are going to Nigeria? Or do they too need to share this your believing in the imaginary with you?

Believing the crap in your head has no effect on reality! What you all believe is irrelevant unless you act on that believe!

I am pretty sure i said intersubjective are shared beliefs meaning a plane going from Nigeria to America is a literal expression of the belief in these entities, but ok, at this point, it is mind boggling how i still need to explain how imagined orders work after doing that many times already.

Even though a good percentage of human society is in fact imagined order. LOL.

johnydon22:
LOL ok

Your error, in my opinion, was in equating an objectively existing Nigeria which no ones subjective thought affects, with the intersubjective value of money which depends on our collective subjective opinion.

I'm learning, see.

Got this from quora though:

The central issue with this is that there are several different understandings of what intersubjectivity actually is. Even inside of psychology there is disagreement as to what it quite is.

So lets start with philosophy.

We start with the subjective. The subjective is you and your experiences. It is you and your viewpoints. It is the experience of existence.

The next is the objective. The objective is that which is tangible. It is E=MC2, gravity, biology, chemistry and physics. No matter what you think it exists and is so. Think 2 + 2 = 4.

Interestingly there is not, however one subject. There are actually many individuals (around 7,000,000 Homo Sapiens).

Animals may very well have a subjective reality, i.e consciousnesses. Not insects and other less animals, but Elephants, Chimps and Whales clearly are aware of their own existence. It is almost certain that the same held true for the other hominids, such as Neanderthal. The intelligence gap between us and these creatures is present, but not truly significant.

Now humans have something that these creatures don’t have, language. Language in terms of raw communication is common across the animal world, but complex language is unique to humans. Its range and breadth is also unique to humans.

This language required changes to our imagination as animals and memory. The humans were therefore best at coming up with ideas and remembering them. These ideas were not too complex. Humans when in small numbers tend not to be much more creative than Chimps; in isolated populations such as some pacific islands and even Tasmania we slowly lost technology including the bow and arrow and stone tools!

But were were able to do something brand new; create an intersubjective reality. These are things that don’t exist but in our own minds. Animals lie; monkeys have been seen faking lion calls in order to scare other monkeys away from tasty bananas. Intersubjective realities are not always fake (though they can be grounded in untruths) . They are often grounded in physical reality to make them seem more real.

Let me give you an example.

Money. Money and its values only exist in the human mind. It is grounded in reality in the form of gold blocks and bits of paper (but not always; most money is now digital). It is not real. It’s not a lie. That bit of paper you really can trust. But one day money can dissolve; a few months back India got ride of several type of note. The reality was altered on the order of the government.

Countries are great examples of Intersubjectivity. The USSR was pretty fucking tangible. It was a country with borders and flags and seemed real enough. On the 25th of December 1991 it stopped existing; simply because a few people said it did.

Intersubjective reality is THE most powerful tool that humans have. It means that we can create tangible realities that are not real and yet are. The USSR did not exist. Neither does money, the USA, or communism. They are simply strange shared hallucinations. Yet they wield huge power. The USSR killed tens of millions of very real humans. Money defines the day to day reality for everyone on earth. The USA put a man on the moon. Communism defined half a century and for a while seemed poise to seize the globe.

That is intersubjectivity. Now go analyse something more complex like religion, or the self.

budaatum:

Your error, in my opinion, was in equating an objectively existing Nigeria which no ones subjective thought affects, with the intersubjective value of money which depends on our collective subjective opinion.
I'm learning, see.

LOL, there isn't any shred of error in that explanation; countries are not objective anymore than their monetary value is. You don't seem to be learning as you say you are.

There is a land, there is a people, these things exist objectively (land and people) establishing and expressing that this land, these people, these cultures are part of a whole called Nigeria, is a belief.

Intersubjectivity does not define physical qualities but rather conceptual value and nature.

money is paper - does this paper exist? Yes.

the belief in money doesn't cover on whether the paper exists or not but whether this paper has a value.

A legally signed document like the constitution or partnership contract is only effective because we believe it is just like money.

Let me borrow the words of Yuval

" Sapiens rule the world, because we are the only animal that can cooperate flexibly in large numbers. We can create mass cooperation networks, in which thousands and millions of complete strangers work together towards common goals. One-on-one, even ten-on-ten, we humans are embarrassingly similar to chimpanzees. Any attempt to understand our unique role in the world by studying our brains, our bodies, or our family relations, is doomed to failure. The real difference between us and chimpanzees is the mysterious glue that enables millions of humans to cooperate effectively.

This mysterious glue is made of stories, not genes. We cooperate effectively with strangers because we believe in things like gods, nations, money and human rights. Yet none of these things exists outside the stories that people invent and tell one another. There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money and no human rights—except in the common imagination of human beings. You can never convince a chimpanzee to give you a banana by promising him that after he dies, he will get limitless bananas in chimpanzee Heaven. Only Sapiens can believe such stories. This is why we rule the world, and chimpanzees are locked up in zoos and research laboratories."

Yuval Noah's words should help make this simpler to understand



How did Homo sapiens came to dominate the planet? The secret was a very peculiar characteristic of our unique Sapiens language. Our language, alone of all the animals, enables us to talk about things that do not exist at all. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death, in monkey heaven. Only Sapiens can believe such fictions. But why is it important? After all, fiction can be dangerously misleading or distracting. People who go to the forest looking for fairies and unicorns would seem to have less chance of survival than people who go looking for mushrooms and deer.



Fiction is nevertheless of immense importance, because it enabled us to imagine things collectively. We can weave common myths such as the biblical creation story, the Dreamtime myths of Aboriginal Australians, and the nationalist myths of modern states. And it is these myths that enable Sapiens alone to cooperate flexibly with thousands and even millions of complete strangers.

True, ants and bees can also work together in huge numbers, but they do so in a very rigid manner and only with close relatives. Wolves and chimpanzees cooperate far more flexibly than ants, but they can do so only with small numbers of individuals whom they know intimately. If you tried to bunch together thousands of chimpanzees into Wembley Stadium, Oxford Street, St Paul’s Cathedral or the House of Commons, the result would be pandemonium. Sapiens, in contrast, gather there by the thousands and together they organize and reorganize trade networks, mass celebrations, and political institutions. That’s why we rule the world, whereas ants eat our leftovers and chimps are locked up in zoos and research laboratories.



At the heart of our mass cooperation networks, you will always find fictional stories that exist only in people’s collective imagination. Two Catholics who have never met can nevertheless go together on crusade or pool funds to build a hospital because they both believe that God was incarnated in human flesh and allowed himself to be crucified to redeem our sins. Two Serbs who have never met might risk their lives to save one-another because both believe in the existence of the Serbian nation, the Serbian homeland, and the Serbian flag. Two lawyers who have never met can nevertheless combine efforts to defend a complete stranger because they all believe in the existence of laws, justice, human rights—and the money paid out in fees.

Yet none of these things exists outside the stories that people invent and tell one another. There are no gods, no nations, no money and no human rights, except in our collective imagination.

Let’s leave gods and nations aside for a moment, and focus our attention on the economic sphere. The most important players in our modern economy are business companies. What are they exactly? Take Peugeot, for example. Peugeot is one of the oldest and largest of Europe’s carmakers. It was founded by a man called Armand Peugeot, back in 1896. Armand Peugeot died in 1915. But Peugeot, the company, is still alive and well. Today it employs about 200,000 people worldwide, most of whom are complete strangers to each other. These strangers cooperate so effectively that in 2008 Peugeot produced more than 1.5 million automobiles, earning revenues of about 55 billion euros.

In what sense can we say that Peugeot exists? There are many Peugeot vehicles, but these are obviously not the company. Even if every Peugeot vehicle in the world were simultaneously junked and sold for scrap metal, Peugeot would not disappear. It would continue to manufacture new cars and issue its annual report. The company owns factories, machinery and showrooms, and employs mechanics, accountants, managers and secretaries, but all these together do not comprise Peugeot. A disaster might kill every single one of Peugeot’s employees, and go on to destroy all of its assembly lines and executive offices. Even then, the company could borrow money, hire new employees, build new factories and buy new machinery. Peugeot has managers and stockholders, but neither do they constitute the company. All the managers could be dismissed and all its shares sold, but the company itself would remain intact.

Peugeot is impervious to all these upheavals, because Peugeot is a fictional story. It belongs to a particular genre of legal fictions called ‘limited liability companies’. The idea behind such companies is among humanity’s most ingenious inventions. During most of recorded history property could be owned only by flesh-and-blood humans. If in thirteenth-century France Jean set up a wagon-manufacturing workshop, he himself was the business. If Jean had borrowed 1,000 gold coins to set up his workshop and the business failed, he would have had to repay the loan by selling his house, his cow, his land. He might even have had to sell his children into servitude. If he couldn’t cover the debt, he could be thrown in prison or enslaved by his creditors. Jean was fully liable, without limit, for all obligations incurred by his workshop.

If you had lived back then, you would probably have thought twice before you opened an enterprise of your own. And indeed this legal situation discouraged entrepreneurship.

This is why people began collectively to imagine the existence of limited liability companies. Such companies were legally independent of the people who founded them, invested in them, or managed them. Over the last few centuries such companies have become the main players in the economic arena, and we have grown so used to them that we forget they exist only in our imagination.

How exactly did Armand Peugeot, the man, create Peugeot, the company, back in 1896? In much the same way that priests and sorcerers have created gods and demons throughout history and in which thousands of French priests were still creating Christ’s body every Sunday in the parish churches. It all revolved around telling stories, and convincing people to believe them. In the case of the French priests, the crucial story was that of Christ’s life and death as told by the Catholic Church. According to this story, if a Catholic priest dressed in his sacred garments solemnly said the right words at the right moment, mundane bread and wine turned into God’s flesh and blood. The priest exclaimed “Hoc est corpus meum!” (Latin for “This is my body!”) and hocus pocus—the bread turned into Christ’s flesh. Seeing that the priest had observed all the right procedures, millions of devout French Catholics behaved as if God really existed in the consecrated bread and wine.

In the case of Peugeot the crucial story was the French legal code. According to that story, if a certified lawyer followed all the proper liturgy and rituals, wrote all the required spells and oaths on a wonderfully decorated piece of paper, and affixed his ornate signature to the bottom of the document, then hocus pocus—a new company was incorporated. When in 1896 Armand Peugeot wanted to create his company, he paid a lawyer to go through all these sacred procedures. Once the lawyer had performed all the right rituals and pronounced all the necessary spells and oaths, millions of upright French citizens behaved as if Peugeot company really existed.

The end result is that in contrast to all other animals, we Sapiens are living in a dual reality. On the one hand, the objective reality of rivers, trees and lions; and on the other hand, the imagined reality of gods, nations and companies. As history unfolded, the imagined reality became ever more powerful, so that today the very survival of rivers, trees and lions depends on the grace of imagined entities such as Almighty God, the European Union and Google.

johnydon22:


Again whether i like to be killed or not is not a pointer to the morality of killing. WTF!

It can be, if one is basing morality on benefit to the organism.

LordReed:

It can be, if one is basing morality on benefit to the organism.

That require a basis too and also creates a massive slippery slope.

Want to know how?

johnydon22:
That require a basis too and also creates a massive slippery slope.

Want to know how?

Yes

johnydon22:
LOL, there isn't any shred of error in that explanation; countries are not objective anymore than their monetary value is. You don't seem to be learning as you say you are.

There is a land, there is a people, these things exist objectively (land and people) establishing and expressing that this land, these people, these cultures are part of a whole called Nigeria, is a belief.

No! It is not a belief! At least it isn't "an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof" sort of belief like a belief in extraterrestrial life! It is at best a belief based on the concrete, objectiably verifiable land, people, cultures that are part of a whole called Nigeria which one can have "trust, faith, or confidence in".

johnydon22:

Intersubjectivity does not define physical qualities but rather conceptual value and nature.

Besides the point, but Nigeria is a "physical qualities (the land, the people, the cultures) with measurable "value and nature".

johnydon22:
money is paper - does this paper exist? Yes.

the belief in money doesn't cover on whether the paper exists or not but whether this paper has a value.

A legally signed document like the constitution or partnership contract is only effective because we believe it is just like money.

Nigeria is not the same as money or a constitution.. The value of money changes everyday of every minute according to our subjective valuation of it. A constitution is by its nature subject to our constant subjective reinterpretation of it. Nigeria is a bit more stable and constant than our subjective whims permit. Its land area does not change by our whims and believes nor can we increase its number of people by believing it in our heads.

johnydon22:
Let me borrow the words of Yuval

" Sapiens rule the world, because we are the only animal that can cooperate flexibly in large numbers. We can create mass cooperation networks, in which thousands and millions of complete strangers work together towards common goals. One-on-one, even ten-on-ten, we humans are embarrassingly similar to chimpanzees. Any attempt to understand our unique role in the world by studying our brains, our bodies, or our family relations, is doomed to failure. The real difference between us and chimpanzees is the mysterious glue that enables millions of humans to cooperate effectively.

This mysterious glue is made of stories, not genes. We cooperate effectively with strangers because we believe in things like gods, nations, money and human rights. Yet none of these things exists outside the stories that people invent and tell one another. There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money and no human rights—except in the common imagination of human beings. You can never convince a chimpanzee to give you a banana by promising him that after he dies, he will get limitless bananas in chimpanzee Heaven. Only Sapiens can believe such stories. This is why we rule the world, and chimpanzees are locked up in zoos and research laboratories."

I like Yuval, but I disagree with the notion that Nigeria is a figment of the imagination that exists only because we believe it does unlike the value of money, the constitution, and gods which exist subjectively, and intersubjectively for many..

In fact, and on second thought, I take gods back as there's nothing intersubjective about gods apart from god's existence. Once you delve into the individuals' conception of god you'd find everyone has a subjective idea of their god and not an intersubjective agreed upon notion of god at all!

budaatum:

No! It is not a belief! At least it isn't "an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof" sort of belief like a belief in extraterrestrial life! It is at best a belief based on the concrete, objectiably verifiable land, people, cultures that are part of a whole called Nigeria which one can have "trust, faith, or confidence in".


Besides the point, but Nigeria is a "physical qualities (the land, the people, the cultures) with measurable "value and nature".


Nigeria is not the same as money or a constitution.. The value of money changes everyday of every minute according to our subjective valuation of it. A constitution is by its nature subject to our constant subjective reinterpretation of it. Nigeria is a bit more stable and constant than our subjective whims permit. Its land area does not change by our whims and believes nor can we increase its number of people by believing it in our heads.


I like Yuval, but I disagree with the notion that Nigeria is a figment of the imagination that exists only because we believe it does unlike the value of money, the constitution, and gods which exist subjectively, and intersubjectively for many..

ok

LordReed:


Yes

Ok.

1. Basis for benefit - When you say what benefits an organism is what constitutes morality, you must first establish why the benefits of this organism is worth considering.

It benefits A
Why is the benefits of A Paramount?

Morality has always constituted benefits, it is afterall our way of bypassing the chaotic nature of natural interaction, but it requires still a belief on the subject.

For you to constitute what benefits humans as good or bad, you are by implication asserting that there is something special about humans, that there is something that makes human benefit worth considering.

2. Slippery slope - Clash of benefits.

If let's say a human kills a goat for food, is this good or bad?.

Going by your principle of benefits, it is good because it benefits the human. It is also wrong because it is detrimental to our dear goat.

So which is it?

Whose benefits outweights the other on this moral scale?

Why?

If you say human benefit outweights that of a goat, this means that you are making an assumption that humans are more special to goats, vise versa.(this assumption on the subject is in fact the fundamental basis for moral derivations, assumption on the subject not the action)

Let's also assume LordReed killes Johny and took Johny's 1m.

Is this wrong or right?

After all, Lordreed needed the money, it is directly beneficial to him, therefore it is good?

But Johny's property and life has been ended which is detrimental to Johny's benefit, so this is wrong?

Whose benefit should we consider more? Why?

You see? 1 action that reach 2 opposite moral conclusions when you employ the principle of benefits as a basis.

So, benefits are considering factors but not a moral basis - Moral basis is simply a belief of an arbitrary or non-arbitrary value for the moral subject.


Do you understand this slope?

johnydon22:
Ok.

1. Basis for benefit - When you say what benefits an organism is what constitutes morality, you must first establish why the benefits of this organism is worth considering.

It benefits A
Why is the benefits of A Paramount?

Morality has always constituted benefits, it is afterall our way of bypassing the chaotic nature of natural interaction, but it requires still a belief on the subject.

For you to constitute what benefits humans as good or bad, you are by implication asserting that there is something special about humans, that there is something that makes human benefit worth considering.

2. Slippery slope - Clash of benefits.

If let's say a human kills a goat for food, is this good or bad?.

Going by your principle of benefits, it is good because it benefits the human. It is also wrong because it is detrimental to our dear goat.

So which is it?

Whose benefits outweights the other on this moral scale?

Why?

If you say human benefit outweights that of a goat, this means that you are making an assumption that humans are more special to goats, vise versa.(this assumption on the subject is in fact the fundamental basis for moral derivations, assumption on the subject not the action)

Let's also assume LordReed killes Johny and took Johny's 1m.

Is this wrong or right?

After all, Lordreed needed the money, it is directly beneficial to him, therefore it is good?

But Johny's property and life has been ended which is detrimental to Johny's benefit, so this is wrong?

Whose benefit should we consider more? Why?

You see? 1 action that reach 2 opposite moral conclusions when you employ the principle of benefits as a basis.

So, benefits are considering factors but not a moral basis - Moral basis is simply a belief of an arbitrary or non-arbitrary value for the moral subject.


Do you understand this slope?

I wouldn't call what you have described a slippery slope but rather a dichotomy because it creates 2 classes, those who benefit and those who don't. I think this is where your intersubjectivity comes into play, we need to agree on what constitutes benefits and what doesn't as well as who gets to benefit and who doesn't. None of it is dictated by an absolute morality, us conscious and higher capacity cogitative creatures are the ones who create a scale. That scale will never be "perfect" that is cater for everyone to be a beneficiary, there probably will always be winners and losers. For the goat, right now on the scale it is a loser, maybe in future that changes but right now it is what it is.

LordReed:


I wouldn't call what you have described a slippery slope but rather a dichotomy because it creates 2 classes, those who benefit and those who don't. I think this is where your intersubjectivity comes into play, we need to agree on what constitutes benefits and what doesn't as well as who gets to benefit and who doesn't. None of it is dictated by an absolute morality, us conscious and higher capacity cogitative creatures are the ones who create a scale. That scale will never be "perfect" that is cater for everyone to be a beneficiary, there probably will always be winners and losers. For the goat, right now on the scale it is a loser, maybe in future that changes but right now it is what it is.

Great.

This is rather where moral basis comes into play. We know what benefits is, we know it can go either way.

Moral basis however lays the foundation to consider one subject ahead of the other hence moral weight on actions towards or from this subject.

For instance: using the goat and human example; obviously we don't abhor the killing of goats, even if we do, not to the value standard we would regard say a human life.

This implictly suggests that we see humans as something intrinsically more special, more sacred hence a human killing a goat for food is the superior benefit

But the thing is, value is a human assumption, hence the definition of moral basis is - the assumption of arbitrary or non-arbitrary value of a moral subject.

So, when i ask for a moral basis, i am not asking for another moral conclusion, i am asking for a fundamental belief (intersubjective) that makes a moral subject morally considerable.

I sincerely trust it is clearer now

johnydon22:

For you to constitute what benefits humans as good or bad, you are by implication asserting that there is something special about humans, that there is something that makes human benefit worth considering.

But there is "something special about humans"! Humans are the only species in the entire universe, as known, that have the special secret unique peculiar characteristic to assert! Why would you think our ability to assert is not worth considering johnydon22?

I disagree that my Nigeria is imagined though since we all know Nigeria exists. It as if you are claiming when we assert and say "Let there be light", the light that will be will be imaginary! If we get on a plane outside Nigeria and say, "take us to Nigeria please", na gidi we go land and not some place imagined in your head! Maybe read your own words and you might see.

johnydon22:
Yuval Noah's words should help make this simpler to understand



How did Homo sapiens came to dominate the planet? The secret was a very peculiar characteristic of our unique Sapiens language. Our language, alone of all the animals, enables us to talk about things that do not exist at all. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death, in monkey heaven. Only Sapiens can believe such fictions. But why is it important? After all, fiction can be dangerously misleading or distracting. People who go to the forest looking for fairies and unicorns would seem to have less chance of survival than people who go looking for mushrooms and deer.



Fiction is nevertheless of immense importance, because it enabled us to imagine things collectively. We can weave common myths such as the biblical creation story, the Dreamtime myths of Aboriginal Australians, and the nationalist myths of modern states. And it is these myths that enable Sapiens alone to cooperate flexibly with thousands and even millions of complete strangers.

True, ants and bees can also work together in huge numbers, but they do so in a very rigid manner and only with close relatives. Wolves and chimpanzees cooperate far more flexibly than ants, but they can do so only with small numbers of individuals whom they know intimately. If you tried to bunch together thousands of chimpanzees into Wembley Stadium, Oxford Street, St Paul’s Cathedral or the House of Commons, the result would be pandemonium. Sapiens, in contrast, gather there by the thousands and together they organize and reorganize trade networks, mass celebrations, and political institutions. That’s why we rule the world, whereas ants eat our leftovers and chimps are locked up in zoos and research laboratories.



At the heart of our mass cooperation networks, you will always find fictional stories that exist only in people’s collective imagination. Two Catholics who have never met can nevertheless go together on crusade or pool funds to build a hospital because they both believe that God was incarnated in human flesh and allowed himself to be crucified to redeem our sins. Two Serbs who have never met might risk their lives to save one-another because both believe in the existence of the Serbian nation, the Serbian homeland, and the Serbian flag. Two lawyers who have never met can nevertheless combine efforts to defend a complete stranger because they all believe in the existence of laws, justice, human rights—and the money paid out in fees.

Yet none of these things exists outside the stories that people invent and tell one another. There are no gods, no nations, no money and no human rights, except in our collective imagination.

Let’s leave gods and nations aside for a moment, and focus our attention on the economic sphere. The most important players in our modern economy are business companies. What are they exactly? Take Peugeot, for example. Peugeot is one of the oldest and largest of Europe’s carmakers. It was founded by a man called Armand Peugeot, back in 1896. Armand Peugeot died in 1915. But Peugeot, the company, is still alive and well. Today it employs about 200,000 people worldwide, most of whom are complete strangers to each other. These strangers cooperate so effectively that in 2008 Peugeot produced more than 1.5 million automobiles, earning revenues of about 55 billion euros.

In what sense can we say that Peugeot exists? There are many Peugeot vehicles, but these are obviously not the company. Even if every Peugeot vehicle in the world were simultaneously junked and sold for scrap metal, Peugeot would not disappear. It would continue to manufacture new cars and issue its annual report. The company owns factories, machinery and showrooms, and employs mechanics, accountants, managers and secretaries, but all these together do not comprise Peugeot. A disaster might kill every single one of Peugeot’s employees, and go on to destroy all of its assembly lines and executive offices. Even then, the company could borrow money, hire new employees, build new factories and buy new machinery. Peugeot has managers and stockholders, but neither do they constitute the company. All the managers could be dismissed and all its shares sold, but the company itself would remain intact.

Peugeot is impervious to all these upheavals, because Peugeot is a fictional story. It belongs to a particular genre of legal fictions called ‘limited liability companies’. The idea behind such companies is among humanity’s most ingenious inventions. During most of recorded history property could be owned only by flesh-and-blood humans. If in thirteenth-century France Jean set up a wagon-manufacturing workshop, he himself was the business. If Jean had borrowed 1,000 gold coins to set up his workshop and the business failed, he would have had to repay the loan by selling his house, his cow, his land. He might even have had to sell his children into servitude. If he couldn’t cover the debt, he could be thrown in prison or enslaved by his creditors. Jean was fully liable, without limit, for all obligations incurred by his workshop.

If you had lived back then, you would probably have thought twice before you opened an enterprise of your own. And indeed this legal situation discouraged entrepreneurship.

This is why people began collectively to imagine the existence of limited liability companies. Such companies were legally independent of the people who founded them, invested in them, or managed them. Over the last few centuries such companies have become the main players in the economic arena, and we have grown so used to them that we forget they exist only in our imagination.

How exactly did Armand Peugeot, the man, create Peugeot, the company, back in 1896? In much the same way that priests and sorcerers have created gods and demons throughout history and in which thousands of French priests were still creating Christ’s body every Sunday in the parish churches. It all revolved around telling stories, and convincing people to believe them. In the case of the French priests, the crucial story was that of Christ’s life and death as told by the Catholic Church. According to this story, if a Catholic priest dressed in his sacred garments solemnly said the right words at the right moment, mundane bread and wine turned into God’s flesh and blood. The priest exclaimed “Hoc est corpus meum!” (Latin for “This is my body!”) and hocus pocus—the bread turned into Christ’s flesh. Seeing that the priest had observed all the right procedures, millions of devout French Catholics behaved as if God really existed in the consecrated bread and wine.

In the case of Peugeot the crucial story was the French legal code. According to that story, if a certified lawyer followed all the proper liturgy and rituals, wrote all the required spells and oaths on a wonderfully decorated piece of paper, and affixed his ornate signature to the bottom of the document, then hocus pocus—a new company was incorporated. When in 1896 Armand Peugeot wanted to create his company, he paid a lawyer to go through all these sacred procedures. Once the lawyer had performed all the right rituals and pronounced all the necessary spells and oaths, millions of upright French citizens behaved as if Peugeot company really existed.

The end result is that in contrast to all other animals, we Sapiens are living in a dual reality. On the one hand, the objective reality of rivers, trees and lions; and on the other hand, the imagined reality of gods, nations and companies. As history unfolded, the imagined reality became ever more powerful, so that today the very survival of rivers, trees and lions depends on the grace of imagined entities such as Almighty God, the European Union and Google.

johnydon22:

But the thing is, value is a human assumption, hence the definition of moral basis is - the assumption of arbitrary or non-arbitrary value of a moral subject.

No! You can ask for whatever you want johny, but you don't assert that my valuing of things is arbitrary or non-arbitrary assumption with no basis for asserting it!

I'm not surprised though since you seem to think that "something special about humans" that makes me moral is not "worth considering".

johnydon22:
Great.

This is rather where moral basis comes into play. We know what benefits is, we know it can go either way.

Moral basis however lays the foundation to consider one subject ahead of the other hence moral weight on actions towards or from this subject.

For instance: using the goat and human example; obviously we don't abhor the killing of goats, even if we do, not to the value standard we would regard say a human life.

This implictly suggests that we see humans as something intrinsically more special, more sacred hence a human killing a goat for food is the superior benefit

But the thing is, value is a human assumption, hence the definition of moral basis is - the assumption of arbitrary or non-arbitrary value of a moral subject.

So, when i ask for a moral basis, i am not asking for another moral conclusion, i am asking for a fundamental belief (intersubjective) that makes a moral subject morally considerable.

I sincerely trust it is clearer now

Yes, it is but I don't agree that the value we have for humans is intrinsically more special. As the agents creating a value scale, it would be foolish to rate ourselves lower than others. Aside from rather idiosyncratic individual people, I have seen no moral basis that rates humans lower than any other specie. Why? Because any such scale will automatically subject its makers under the specie(s) it has elevated above humans.

What I want you clarify though is what you mean by moral value, I do not understand what moral value means.

LordReed:


Yes, it is but I don't agree that the value we have for humans is intrinsically more special. As the agents creating a value scale, it would be foolish to rate ourselves lower than others. Aside from rather idiosyncratic individual people, I have seen no moral basis that rates humans lower than any other specie. Why? Because any such scale will automatically subject its makers under the specie(s) it has elevated above humans.

Which is why human morality is primarily considering humans

What I want you clarify though is what you mean by moral value, I do not understand what moral value means.

Simply value. The value we assume to make a subject morally considerable.

budaatum:

No! You can ask for whatever you want johny, but you don't assert that my valuing of things is arbitrary or non-arbitrary assumption with no basis for asserting it!

I'm not surprised though since you seem to think that "something special about humans" that makes me moral is not "worth considering".

#sighs ok

johnydon22:
Which is why human morality is primarily considering humans

Simply value. The value we assume to make a subject morally considerable.

So in other words the value we assign to something when we call it good or bad?

LordReed:


So in other words the value we assign to something when we call it good or bad?

No. The value we assign to something that gives moral weight to the actions against or for it.

johnydon22:


No. The value we assign to something that gives moral weight to the actions against or for it.

Example?

LordReed:


I wouldn't call what you have described a slippery slope but rather a dichotomy because it creates 2 classes, those who benefit and those who don't. I think this is where your intersubjectivity comes into play, we need to agree on what constitutes benefits and what doesn't as well as who gets to benefit and who doesn't. None of it is dictated by an absolute morality, us conscious and higher capacity cogitative creatures are the ones who create a scale. That scale will never be "perfect" that is cater for everyone to be a beneficiary, there probably will always be winners and losers. For the goat, right now on the scale it is a loser, maybe in future that changes but right now it is what it is.

that is it. It is the dichotomy that is the issue. But is that even an issue? What we call moral is indeed set societal rules that are thought to benefit the society

LordReed:


So in other words the value we assign to something when we call it good or bad?

good only cos it collectively benefits us as a society. Simple. Stealing is not objectively wrong but as a society we realize if it is made bad then we can collectively benefit from our individual labours without fear of losing what is ours. And same applies to everything we tag good and bad

LordReed:


Example?

Goat and human analogy above.

Another example: Sex

johnydon22:


Again whether i like to be killed or not is not a pointer to the morality of killing. WTF!

it starts from there bro, before it becomes a collective decision... something u chose to call intersubjective morality.

johnydon22:
Of course i am, sometimes it is frustrating spoon feeding people things you'd expect they know.

And i know my arguments have become more intricate than they use to be, they no longer echo your beliefs intoto they in fact make you question them and think harder, i understand the discomfort

these days, u seem to want to complicate simple issues

johnydon22:
The effective moral belief must be pravelent, the thoughts of a minority do not affect an intersubjective imagined order (It is not up to lone individual convictions)

I'm pretty sure in Nigeria today, they are people who lack a belief in Nigeria but rather believes in Biafra or some that believe in the idea of Odua. Does this validate this belief? Not at all. Does it invalidate Nigeria? Nope.

But once we all agree either by coercion or volition that these entities exist independently, they do so.

Reaching a moral conclusions without first outlining a derivative basis is in fact puerile like a theist saying 'God did it' without outlying how that conclusion is reached

No actually, there wasn't any basis.

Postulation; killing is wrong.

Question; Killing an ant or a human

Answer: Human.

Question: why?

Answer: because it deprives people of what's theirs

Question; why is depriving people of their thing wrong?

Answer; would you like to be killed? Tell me your address

Question; Whether i like it or not isn't a moral weight. Again i ask, why is depriving people their thing wrong?

Answer; just tell me where you live.

See? This is pretty much how the whole thing is going. The postulation is a moral conclusion and he still tries to give weight to this moral conclusion using another moral conclusion. Lol.

Moral basis isn't another action, it is a fundamental belief on the subject not an action.

Men!!! This is tiring

Oga, humans, weather majority or minority decide what is moral or not based on (collective)interest and how affects them. it starts from each individual thinking alike and going ahead to propagate it as moral.

you are busy screaming jeez! and WTF!, why is this simple analogy difficult for u to grab?

johnydon22:
An imagined order doesn't become effective until it is held as a fundamental framework for the majority within the clime.

Nigeria for example doesn't objectively exist, it exists because we believe it does.

Value in money doesn't exist objectively, it is valuable only because we believe it is.

If Frank wakes up tomorrow and insist Nigerian naira is worth nothing, this is Frank's subjective belief, it doesn't really change or affect anything unless the whole of Nigeria adopts this belief in which case it becomes intersubjective.

This is how imagined orders work.

You seem to want to just stick with what you think is the basis for morality without considering that what most atheist are saying it the looking at it from the scratch.

Frank might wake up tomorrow and starts to propagate the idea that killing is moral. This is his subjective belief. but what if he has a good arguement as to why killing is good and he starts to convince people around him until many people buys his idea and start to advocate that Killing is good. if majority eventually accept this... killing becomes moral. This does not stop some people from seeing killing s immoral... to them killing will remain immoral and you cannot change that.

this is why i have been arguing with you that humans decides what is moral thats why its subjective. its start with individuals ad his argument can make others see the benefit of such idea and also inturn start to see the idea as moral.

frank317:


You seem to want to just stick with what you think is the basis for morality without considering that what most atheist are saying it the looking at it from the scratch.

I have demonstrated over and over again that this scratch isn't at all a scratch, i have shown countlessly how a moral basis is the first step.

Frank might wake up tomorrow and starts to propagate the idea that killing is moral. This is his subjective belief. but what if he has a good arguement as to why killing is good and he starts to convince people around him until many people buys his idea and start to advocate that Killing is good. if majority eventually accept this... killing becomes moral. This does not stop some people from seeing killing s immoral... to them killing will remain immoral and you cannot change that.

this is why i have been arguing with you that humans decides what is moral thats why its subjective. its start with individuals ad his argument can make others see the benefit of such idea and also inturn start to see the idea as moral.

Lol, and what you are not understanding is, once it is an intertwine of collective beliefs, it is no longer subjective.

frank317:


Oga, humans, weather majority or minority decide what is moral or not based on (collective)interest and how affects them. it starts from each individual thinking alike and going ahead to propagate it as moral.

you are busy screaming jeez! and WTF!, why is this simple analogy difficult for u to grab?

Have i argued that God decides morality? Morality is derived through a basic derivative method and the beginning of this method is the assumption of value and this is the argument; the basis of morality. You are probably reading the back of your phone to come up with this non-sequitur above.