Nairaland Forum

okeyxyz:

^^^ Yes I know. You are referring to Mathew 5:43-48(..."For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?...)

This is the misunderstanding because you interpret literally. The enemies in the passage does not refer to literal enemies but the Gospel itself because it's meant to cause you pain and loss mindsets and values you used to be comfortable with. Love in the passage is not about a love of the world but love of the gospel because it is hard(thus is an enemy of your old self/mindset).

Buhahahahah! What a story.

Atheist:-D:


Sickening

So what if he had condoms? Does that entitle him to be mercilessly beaten? What if he was to use it on his wife

That would be Onanism.

Uyi Iredia:

Does that describe you ?

ish. I say ish cos I do speculate about the gardener, though I bear in mind that my speculations and concepts can be confounded at anytime. However I am totally committed to having the best time possible in the garden.

wiegraf:

Che.. Limit the foolishness, pls. You are ignoring just about EVERYTHING.

My point is those laws are there despite you yourself admitting it's perfectly logical in some situations, like the bolded, yes? It is still VERY illegal and considered morally bad even in those situations, why? Because of the VALUE most of us place on human life, a value that need not be logical*.


I have no idea what sort of mental block some of you here have. It's usually related to gods, I know. My point is very, very simple. Your motivation, goals, desires etc dictate your values. Your values dictate morality. Especially not logic. Logic is just a tool you use to achieve your aims, simple. Lower animals do not have logic/reasoning skills of note like you would have us to believe, else pls do show us an animal explaining why it took such and such action. They act on instinct, little to no thought involved, yet they have their own rudimentary moral codes, yes? In fact, that's why the op uses them as an example in his misguided attack on materialism, yes?

Random, skip the rest if you wish, not really relevant;
As for this thread in general, now, we humans tend to value human life more than others, we place a very high premium on it. This is not necessarily logical. Look around, we're the greatest scourge this planet has ever seen. We ought to have killed off more species than any other extinction level event by now. We are a vile, VILE species (you disagree? I give you...well, human history...read up), yet most of us go around entitled, assuming we're extra special and good, and this entire, ginourmous universe was custom built, just very special just right just for special just us.

Please, we won the lottery, attained intelligence, that's ALL (usual materialist's stance).

Op's whole argument is built more or else around this, thus the question of why we value human life more than other animal life. Humans are simply animals, a particularly nefarious bunch no less, arguably the worst ever. So why place more value on human life than on other animal life? That's not logical, is it?

Ignore society and it's effects, ignore the standards of most society's morality. If we were being strictly logical, materialists perhaps should push for the position of valuing all life equally, ie assuming there's nothing particularly special about humans to a materialist. For instance, when you examine what humanity has achieved and balance it with the mayhem it's caused you can possibly see the case for this view (and I do actually, but like I said, I'm a hypocrite, for one, other animals taste too good). Basically, logically speaking, why put such a premium on humans? We're animals, we act like animals (albeit more intelligently), so why so special? Why different rules? (Again, ignore practical effects related to what the populace thinks).

Most people think they are ordained by a 'higher power' (DOG!) to assign a higher value to 'spirit' lives, which supposedly we humans qualify as. Obvious rubbish, but they at least use it to justify why they assign more value to human life. So again, the question here is what is the materialist's excuse?

As has been pointed out to both you and the op for the n'th time, morals DO NOT derive from logic. Again, VALUES. Simple. We value human life more than others, each and everyone of us who has this stance for whatever personal (read: subjective) reasons. For all who place this value on human life, other human life helps us achieve our personal objectives, whatever they may be. Trivial $hit, I want to watch the CL Finals yearly, make sure high quality pron is always available, etc. To more basic, fundamental stuff; food in stomach, family concerns, etc. All these are things I VALUE. Without them I FEEL like $hit. Note the word FEEL. Same with other animals @uyi, they might not be able to compute or reason like us, but they FEEL hungry, then react. Feel h.orny, then react. Etc, etc.

One could deceive himself into thinking that respect for human life need be ordained by a 'higher power', that this is the only option. THIS IS PATENTLY FOO.LISH. Peel off all the layers, our moral codes are dictated by our values, simple. Hence, if I stop valuing life? Suicide. I value 72 virgins in the next life more than my current life and the lives of a few victims? Suicide bomber. Etc, etc, etc. All these 'evil' things now become 'good' to you, see? Your logic used as a tool to achieve an objective, but the objective is based around your values, or what makes you FEEL good.

Everyone has his/her own convictions. So what of a materialist? NOT necessarily linked to morals, and I've stated this repeatedly. However, he would place a rather high value/respect on/for life generally, moreso than most religious people actually, as he doesn't place any value on any life other than these ones. No spirits, no next lives, etc. Hence you hear all the talk about you have only one life to live, live it well and try to do the best for humanity, etc.

Consider when you combine these views with being say a humanist, which note, does indeed directly say something about your values and morals unlike materialism, then one would also place a high value on the potential of what humans can achieve, and thereby award them much more respect than say a religionist, whose ultimate focus is - god. You could say humanists worship humanity (or at least its potential), and want to see it progress as far as is possible, unleash all that potential we piss all over. There's a saying that's something like 'within everyone is the potential to move mountains', that sort of optimism is to be found often in humanists. Not so with most religious, everything is contingent on.....gods. Look at muslims eg, hold back half the population (women), why? Because god. Look at xtians, deny people's happiness (homosexuals) why? Because god. Etc etc. You're not going to find many secular humanists affording santa that much respect, no sir.

Anyways, tldr; Your values determine your moral code, not logic.




*btw, general trend is if in such a situation, assuming the victim was at death's door and you can show that, actually is you usually don't get convicted when tried (arguing with @LB actually made me look it up sometime ago, don't tell him he may have been right though). However, in such situations people usually consider the act a necessary evil. Still evil, but unavoidable. Some would even consider it good. As with all things morality, it depends on who you ask and what he values, see?

EDITS

Sorry but I insist on this being the Last word.

musKeeto:
Men, just testing each before I settle.. Better an open mind than a closed one anyways.. But I sense I'm moving towards deism everyday. My mind's been dwelling on the origin of life and consciousness. Maybe, we have the wrong concept of GOD.

I feel that we can't help but have the wrong concept of God, All of the Time. If our fellow man can confound us in all our expectations and beliefs of him then how much more so with God.

Uyi Iredia:
A simple analogy. 3 people enter a garden full of flowers. One person says there must be a gardener (deist). The other says there is a gardener, the gardener likes cookies and is always present with the flowers (theist e.g Muslims). The last person says he sees no gardener so there is none (atheist)

There is a dude there too that entered the garden and thought, 'wow, what a wonderful Garden!!! How best can I enjoy this garden?', and did not waste his time speculating fruitlessly on the existence of a gardener and what the tastes of the gardener may be for biscuits or foreign women.
Though he acknowledged the existence of a Gardener he also realised the pointlessness of creating ideas about the Gardener.

^^^^^^^^
I believe that this thread has been effectively ended with the above post by Wiegraf. Splendid!!! There are some other avenues that remain unexplored but I won't go into them cos I believe that how a thread ends is very important and a post like Wiegraf's above should be one of the last few on this thread. It would have been last, but alas I've just ruined that.

Anyhoo, RIP 'Basis of Morality' thread.

Ihedinobi:

Oga, "physical" has a very specific meaning, I think. Can these phenomena be fit into that meaning?

What do you understand by 'physical' please?

Deep Sight:

Ol boy no tricks. The spirit gets information from the entire spiritual environment about it, just as the brain gets information from the entire material environment about it.

This in no way suggests or infers that the spirit would have a panoramic view of all eternity and all permutations of all events, period. So stop dancing about ol pal.

Okay, no wahala.

Deep Sight:

If only one human being ever existed, there would be no discussion on morals, would there?

You see? Same ol, same ol.

Abeg.

I thought you were establishing a morality for the entire human race and now have settled for just Group morality (ie one social group). But no! It's worse you want to reduce the issue to a one-man-matter.

Well if one humanbeing existed there would still be morals, but yeah, you're right there won't be any discussion on morals, unless the dude spoke to himself.

Deep Sight:

Pastor in wonderland! Conveniently referring to good and nice instinctual urges, Lol.

^^^ Lol, you conveniently forget the deluge of bad, bad, very bad instinctual urges that mankind also have!

Many of them even perverse in the extreme!

There's no pushing the matter with you. Whichever way we turn, you have made it an absurdity that cannot be discussed.

What difference does it make whether the Urges are nice or bad? The fact is that we find ourselves experiencing a world. We find ourselves experiencing all sorts of urges. We discover that there seems to be some rigor and connectedness between the various events in this world of experience, so we are aware that our acts have consequences.

All these things affect our behaviour and also our sense of morality.

Deep Sight:

I should briefly add the following -

1. The promptings and intuitions of the spirit, while well appointed, do not constitute "full knowledge of all the factors that will play upon a situation", do they?

2. The promptings of the Spirit of individual persons in individual situations cannot be used to develop a moral code for a society. . . unless, as you know to be unlikely, they all receive the same spiritual prompting on every matter every time. Both impossible and absurd. Someone may have had a spiritual prompting to murder Adolf Hitler when he was a baby, for example. How would that rate on the moral compass of society if they actually did it?

3. The promptings of each spirit, even if lucid and clear, will reach towards their individual spiritual leanings. As such, as a rough example, where a man commits a grievous act, the promptings of the spirits of the victims may be vastly different from the promptings of the spirit of his family and those who may want to protect him.

4. As you may know, spiritual promptings are often unclear and not easily deciphered into the temporal mind. One meaning could be confused for another.

Think carefully on each of these, and perhaps you will see why this has little place in a discussion on the basis of morality. In the example you gave in the other thread about the man who gives his friend money, his action is probably kind, but neither moral nor immoral based on the outcome of the friend being mugged.

1. I think Knowledge in this case if quite different from carnal knowledge (not sex).

2. It guides the individual. Yes, it can't really be used to provide a moral code book for society.

3. I don't understand number 3.

4. Yes, I know very well. That is why it is important to stay connected, but I know all to well how it is to slip and fall.

Deep Sight:

Because not even the spiritual mind has a panoramic view of all eternity, all permutations and all results and consequences. Only God does.

And the Spirit gets information from Where?

Deep Sight:

In short, that talk is completely irrelevant to any discussion about group morality and this is why I say it is unnecessary and useless taking up the subject with you.

I see you've gone from Human Morality to Group Morality.

Deep Sight:

The whole extent of human experience could simply be in my thoughts and imagination and as such I am free to do anything therein and no question of morality or immorality should come up within it - I should only be concerned with my comfort and pleasurable existence within my thoughts and imaginations. Such obviates any notion of morality and this is why anyone who would advance that notion should kindly also stay away from discussions about morality completely, as the notion would thereby be dead on arrival. It would not exist at all.

The notion can be advanced to substantiate (to yourself) your existence, but has no place in a discussion about group morality and ethics.

Not true! Why? Because what do our experiences consist of. Apart from the obvious sense experiences we have first and foremost URGES. We learn that in the world of our experiences events are connected. If you put your finger in fire, you end up with a scalded finger. If you go to bed with an itchy bum, you'll most definitely wake up with a smelly finger. These two events, itchy bum and smelly finger, are connected in a causal link. This will temper your just doing anything you want to do because you'll be wary of the consequences.

Far from 'obviating' any notion of morality in fact we'll find that our Morals are very much based on our instinctual Urges. For instance we have an Urge to protect our loved ones. This is instinctive. You don't need any moral lawgiver to tell you that. We can empathise. We can feel the plight of others. These are just rudimental aspects of human experience.
If you have an Urge to shelter and nourish a weak foreigner then that is not because you are told to by some book, but rather because in doing so you will be satisfying a deep urge within you. The satiation of that urge is as satisfying as the satiation of any other urges whether it is to eat food, or to quench thirst.

Mr anony:
So if I get you correctly, you are saying that you know that you exist period. The rest is a mystery/paradox? If that's what you are saying, then I won't push this further because I see no way out this. Let's move on to things that are not so mysterious shall we?

Not quite.

I know I exist. I know I have experiences. I believe various things about my experiences with varying degrees of certainty. I realise that at the heart of all thought systems I've come across is paradox. Leading me to believe, with fairly high certainty, that all thought systems are bounded by paradox.

Let's move on, indeed. I'd rather talk about stuff that can be spoken about.

You see questions like "is cannibalism wrong? Yes or No" strike me as lazy questions that have no interest in understanding morality but are more interested in winning arguments. I'd rather ask the question "why is cannibalism wrong?" That leads us beyond merely the action to the intent which is where moral judgments are actually made.

I'll link you to a comment I made earlier on this, read it and tell me what you think, let us discuss further from there.

Here it is:

my comment on the nature of morality

I hear what you said. And this is what I said earlier in this thread and elsewhere which I believe is not too far away from what you are saying.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deep Sight:

Then you are also confused and contradicting yasef.

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

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

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

In other words the attitude to dead, whether it is murder, or suicide, or illness, of a person depends a great deal on his worldview. If for instance he believes in life after death, or reincarnation then death is a much more trifling affair. If he thinks that he will be going to a party in Valhalla if he dies in battle that is going to affect how he will fight.
If he thinks he is going to paradise to Be Intimate with 72 virgins if he blows himself up, then he is not going to consider that move such a waste of life.

It is actually the Atheist/materialist viewpoint that sees a life as a one off 'miraculous' event that considers it more preciously. You hear them say things like, 'you only have one life' 'live life to the max cos one day you'll just die'. The man who is hoping for an afterlife is going to live this life with an eye to 'making heaven' even to the extent of compromising the fullness with which he lives this life. It'll even be okay to burn a heretic at the stake so as to eventually 'save his eternal soul'.

Deep Sight: @ Pastor, here are your words -



It is not possible for anyone to ever have knowledge of all the factors that will play upon a situation, end of.

Not with the carnal mind, and not even with the spiritual mind -

How are you so certain of the part that I put in bold?

Deep Sight:
Now, Pastor, Anony -

I take this quote from one of Pastor's comments in that thread 4 years ago -



Let me make my self perfectly clear: that post (you can read it in the link above) was utterly masterful and brilliant. It was in many ways so so true. However, take a look at the sentence I have extracted above. With that sentence alone, Pastor renders it impossible for anybody to make a moral judgment on anything or any situation whatsoever.

Absolutely and permanently impossible.

He also renders it permanently and absolutely impossible to know anything whatsoever (Descartes) even and including knowing anything about your own life, and the people and situations you interact with. For this reason, it is purposeless debating anything with Pastor because the eternal escapist response is that nobody can know anything. All discussions are thus futile with him, and such discussions may even be useless as we do not know that we are even having a discussion: it may well just be our imagination playing with itself.

There you go: Its out rightly nihilistic.

You do me a grave injustice, Mr Deepsight. For a start I never said it was impossible for anyone to make a moral judgement. I said that the human faculties cannot do so, for the reasons that I set out above, however there are other faculties that we have access to that inform us to do THE RIGHT THING.

2)Neither I, nor Descartes, said it was impossible 'to know anything whatsoever'. Descartes said it was possible to know that 'I' exists.

3) It is not purposeless discussing anything with me. It is just purposeless discussing the wrong things with me, the pointless things, the things lacking pertinence.

Experience does not lack pertinence and can be discussed. I mean the whole extent of human Experience. Whether real or delusory there is no denying an experience and in life we all seek pleasant experiences and abhor bad ones. Even the delusions. Before going to sleep you might drink Camomile tea because it gives you pleasant dreams. Other food or drink, or drugs might give you horrid dreams.
We go to the movies in search of pleasant experiences even though we know that the story on the screen is not real. We still immerse ourselves in it and fully enjoy the experience.

So what is worth discussing with me is not 'objective reality' but rather experience.

Mr anony:
I have not said that you contradicted yourself at all. I am only wondering why you would bother going through a long argument on morality if in the end you'll say that we don't and cannot know anything.

This part is quite important and I will come back to it.

Mr anony: I've read the first 2 pages of that thread; it gave me a few chuckles. In a weird way, the thread actually made me like AIO a bit more.

If you ask me, statements like "We cannot know anything" are the easiest kind of statements to refute because all you have to do is ask "How do you know that to be true?" and the statement immediately crumbles. ditto those that say morality is subjective. Nobody truly believes that morality is subjective. All you have to do is insult them or lie against them and immediately, they start telling you why your actions are wrong. They conveniently forget at that moment that you might just be observing your own private moral principles.

Number of points. 1) I never said that 'we cannot know anything'. For instance I said that I can be sure that 'I' exist. How and where, I may not know, but I know that I exist.

2) No statement crumbles with your approach above. Rather you are caught in a paradox. It is Paradox that certain people find so unpalatable. Yet we find Paradox in every system of thought. If it makes you feel uncomfortable then don't think too deeply about life.
What you consider a crumbling argument is what I would term a mystery. I can't remember where exactly but I have defined my used of 'mystery' on nairaland before as 'Not a catch all term for the as yet unknown, but rather a term for the Unknowable'.

Many say something is a mystery but they hope that with time the mystery will clear up and they'll know.

I say there are somethings that are beyond the categories of knowledge. When we approach these things we are met with paradox. That shows that you are at the limits of knowledge/beliefs/epistemological claims.

3) I would not just say that Morality was subjective. I would say that I have a bias for my morality. This bias instinctively makes me fight to defend my biased morals. It's a common method when say a theist and an atheist from the same country are arguing over morality, that an example is advanced, say cannibalism. 'Is cannibalism moral'? Of course the other party would never say cannibalism was moral because he comes from the same cultural milieu as the person asking the question and so has the same bias to hate cannibalism.
No, such an approach is just plain dumb. The perfect response to that question would be, 'I, too, find cannibalism objectionable because I've been raised to do so and I will go to the end of the world to have it stamped out, however to demonstrate that it is an objective moral, my friend, you would have to travel to Papua New Guinea and convince some aborigines with logic and arguments that it is morally wrong. If you can do that then I'll start to concede that it might be universal.'

Deep Sight:

I would, if i believed it would make any difference. You would simply revert saying that you have not said that your name is X; and as such, I cannot waste my time with such work with you; sorry, no offence intended at all.

No offence taken. However I believe this is just your own houdini manoeuver. It would have helped if you had defined what you meant by Morality at the start. All the way through I have spoken of the moral sense, or sense of morality. I never thought of a objective morality, and if I made any error it was not to realise that you were pushing an objective morality.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.



http://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 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.

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.

Deep Sight:

What is Mala in se?

See my post above. Can you tell me that no such thing as Mala in se exists.

I would say that what is deemed Mala in se is 'merely' deemed so. it is the deeming part . . .

The issue of euthanasia suffices to complicate the murder part.

The idea of theft suggests the violation of ownership, yet there are those who would say that ownership in itself is theft.

What it all boils down to is that it is wrong to make people do things against their will, or to violate the will of others. Of course having your will thwarted is not a nice experience, whether it is your will to live, your will to hold own to your possessions, or your will to be left alone.

I have my own subjective attitude to these things which I will defend with absolute vigour but I cannot get up to argue that these values are objective.

Deep Sight:

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

Okay, so can I take it that you think there is an objective morality beyond the human sense of morality? Even then I still think that is subject to change. But I won't go into that part. Rather I'll press you to demonstrate this objective morality.


ps. I get that you are making this thread over a somewhat different issue. That against the claims of materialists etc etc.

yeah, 'naughty lady' works too! lol!

Deep Sight:

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

Stop whining. It doesn't befit you.

My last few post do not contradict anything that I've said before. I am of the opinion that the sense of Morality changes from time to time and culture to culture, you obviously aren't. I'm okay with that, you obviously aren't, but you don't have to Naughty Lady about it.

Deep Sight:

Then you are also confused and contradicting yasef.

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

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

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