Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,166,079 members, 7,863,796 topics. Date: Tuesday, 18 June 2024 at 06:37 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Dialectics Of Violence And Morality (33156 Views)
Atheists And Morality. A Question! / Atheism And Morality; Do Atheists Have A Foundation For Morality / Dialectics Or How To Debate (very Important For Both Theists And Non-theist) (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) ... (20) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by KingEbukasBlog(m): 6:54pm On Apr 06, 2016 |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by neocortex: 6:56pm On Apr 06, 2016 |
KingEbukasBlog: Its funny how the mouthpiece os "god" runs from simple questions. |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by KingEbukasBlog(m): 7:18pm On Apr 06, 2016 |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by neocortex: 7:24pm On Apr 06, 2016 |
KingEbukasBlog: I have heard that religios fanatics are people who are too dumb to think. I never believed until I saw your reply. Please keep it up. 6 Likes |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by thehomer: 12:47am On Apr 07, 2016 |
KingEbukasBlog: Why shouldn't I throw the question back at you? Don't you have an answer? His intentions may have been good and the effects bad. I can't form a conclusion about his character from those pieces of information. You need to take a chill pill and learn how to think and answer questions. Was I able to answer the question I posed to you? You see, your ignorant babbling doesn't help you in any way. 1 Like |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by thehomer: 12:49am On Apr 07, 2016 |
DeepSight: What? DeepSight agrees with me on two points? The Singularity is truly near. 1 Like |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by thehomer: 12:51am On Apr 07, 2016 |
KingEbukasBlog: I noticed that you were being stupidly buffoonish. Those questions had clear and straightforward answers yet you couldn't answer them. I simply showed you your ignorance and the fact that I actually understand your world view better than you it seems. |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by thehomer: 12:53am On Apr 07, 2016 |
DeepSight: I honestly don't know the particular thread you're referring to. And I've still not seen the contradiction. Please show it to me. You claim to have the evidence before you. Why don't you show me the evidence you're accusing me with? |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by thehomer: 12:56am On Apr 07, 2016 |
Joshthefirst: My way of thinking has been examined and I can hold him to moral standards. |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by Joshthefirst(m): 1:10am On Apr 07, 2016 |
thehomer:Your way of thinking has not been examined as you still think you can hold him to moral standards. I don't need to explain, as I enjoy the futile back and forth we've been having for some time now. |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by AgentOfAllah: 6:48am On Apr 07, 2016 |
thehomer: It is absurd that anyone should mistake moral subjectivity for moral apathy. Then again, absurdity is the forte of the religiously inclined 3 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by Nobody: 7:09am On Apr 07, 2016 |
Tufanja:beautiful nonsense. 2 Likes |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by Nobody: 9:59am On Apr 07, 2016 |
sonOfLucifer: You know me, I do everything in style. Even blowing off a lucifer :p. |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by analice107: 2:15pm On Apr 07, 2016 |
Kay17:Wow, see reasoning. Am shamed. |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by thehomer: 6:01pm On Apr 07, 2016 |
Joshthefirst: You have tried explaining your aberrant thought processes and failed at defending your immoral God. You're talking about moral standards as if your immoral monster God is moral. |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by thehomer: 6:02pm On Apr 07, 2016 |
AgentOfAllah: Those accusing me of moral subjectivity are merely confused. That is why they've not been able to present evidence for their claims. |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by texanomaly(f): 4:56am On Apr 08, 2016 |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by wiegraf: 10:06pm On Apr 08, 2016 |
PastorAIO:he is correct though. in the battle of wills yours stands firmly against god's. well, at least yahweh's he, of course, remains a slave 1 Like |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by Joshthefirst(m): 12:26pm On Apr 09, 2016 |
thehomer:are you a moral subjectivist? |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by Logicbwoy: 12:57pm On Apr 09, 2016 |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by Joshthefirst(m): 1:07pm On Apr 09, 2016 |
Logicbwoy:I'm only asking him so he'll state his position and not accuse anyone of misrepresentation. If he is a subjectivist then he has no stance to judge the subjective views of others unreasonable or irrational. That is hypocrisy. |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by Logicbwoy: 1:44pm On Apr 09, 2016 |
Joshthefirst: Your logic is good. However, the issue is a multi-dimensional one and so even if he is a subjectivist, he can still judge against some subjective values. |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by thehomer: 6:28pm On Apr 09, 2016 |
Joshthefirst: What is a moral subjectivist? |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by Joshthefirst(m): 9:58am On Apr 10, 2016 |
thehomer:someone who believes that right and wrong are only concepts of our various subjective views. |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by Logicbwoy: 10:02am On Apr 10, 2016 |
Joshthefirst: I am an atheist and I believe in both a subjective and objective morality. Morality is multi-dimensional like time and so, it can hold contradictory properties as an abstract concept. For the most part, morality is objective. There is a logical balance to it. The part where morality is subjective is where there are logical paradoxes/conundrums. Take for instance, it is quite clear that just killing a random person is wrong. We can list the disadvantages or cons of that. |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by thehomer: 1:58pm On Apr 10, 2016 |
Joshthefirst: No I'm not. Is your God a moral subjectivist? |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by DeepSight(m): 11:55am On Apr 12, 2016 |
PastorAIO: Why? I do not do as you do. You are the one to be feared. I noticed that there is some distance between where I'm coming and where Plaetton and others are coming from with the relativity of morality thing There is indeed. However you are not really clear on the subject. At least I can't decipher what exactly you are saying, perhaps I am just rather thick. Funny thing is… I believe I already understand you on this morality issue I strongly doubt it. Your tendency to throw petulant tantrums do not help if you want to convince me of anything. Go look in the mirror Ol' boy. Besides do not imagine I imagine it possible to convince you of anything. Nor am I interested in so doing. Perhaps I should take a risk and try to explain relativity to you (at least as I understand it). Nothing wrong with the above. It's obvious, hardly needs to be mentioned. Someone like you that argues for a fixed Sense of Morality for all peoples throughout all ages is like someone that argues that Time is always measured the same regardless of the speed of the observer even though observers moving at various speeds have recorded their observations and we can all see the difference.[quote] Fair enough, but detracts nothing with respect to the discussion on moral values.
This is false. No society has ever existed on the above principle. In fact, it is impossible for any society so to do. So the only way one can argue these issues is to demand your interlocutor to give a moral appraisal of a situation (such as rape). This is irrelevant. |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by PastorAIO: 2:42pm On Apr 12, 2016 |
DeepSight: Your words not mine. It remains a possibility. My opinion on the subject is that Morality evolves over time, and it is relative. What is good in one instance is not necessarily good in another instance and vice versa. I strongly doubt it. I was always under the impression that you were arguing for an objectively determined Moral system that was absolute and fixed. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Good lord!! I couldn't possibly imagine any of your imaginings. My brain cells would explode if I even thought to attempt.
One can't be too obvious these days. The way people get misconstrued is quite alarming. You wouldn't want that to happen to me, dear chap, would you? |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by PastorAIO: 2:56pm On Apr 12, 2016 |
DeepSight: Dude, you're the one that brought temperature in as an analogy. You said everybody will feel the same temperature. I denied it and now you say my rebuttal detracts nothing. Your analogy adds nothing to you point is what you should be saying. All these measurements and evaluations that I've mentioned are all relative. Then I moved on to morality and demonstrated that Morality too is similarly relative to the observer.
Dude, it's much easier to shut me up than that. All you have to do is produce the machine that we use to objectively measure morality. Since it is done in every society that ever existed (according to you), it should not be too difficult. What is the machine that they use to objectively measure morality in Lagos Island. Or your village, if you want to make it really personal.
Let me patiently explain it's relevance to you. You claim to have a machine, or a gadget with which to objectively measure morality. Although you are yet to produce the machine I will take you word for it for now. Me, I say such a machine does not exist and the only way you can gauge the morality of an action is by engaging an interlocutor. But all that is done then is find an agglomeration of subjective viewpoints and then you brush it a little and dust it a little and then claim it is an objective viewpoint. That will not work for me. |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by DeepSight(m): 3:34pm On Apr 12, 2016 |
PastorAIO: You rascal. Abami Eda. My opinion on the subject is that Morality evolves over time, and it is relative. What is good in one instance is not necessarily good in another instance and vice versa. Okay. I understand that point of view and to be honest it's fair enough. What I would like you to understand are mala in se and mala prohibita. Your friend the lunatic Wiegraf says that no such thing as mala in se exists. What are your thoughts on the distinction? Are you familiar with the jurisprudence of natural law and positive law? I was always under the impression that you were arguing for an objectively determined Moral system that was absolute and fixed. Nothing is absolute or fixed and it's somewhat irritating that you insinuate this into my arguments. However there is natural law as distinct from positive law. And the objective morality I refer to proceeds from natural law. Most of criminal law is derived from natural law. The distinctions between felonies and misdemeanors also relies on the distinction between natural and positive law. If you look carefully at the OP in the thread that first brought this issue up (The evolution of morality, by Mr. Troll) - you would find that the presuppositions contained therein would render the existence of moral values or any ethics whatsoever as we know them, dead on arrival. It would be proper, positively moral and of good ethics to do anything whatsoever to advance one's personal interests regardless if such would include murder, theft, r.ape - you just name it. Might would be right. There is a huge body of learning that advises us that this is not the case: that might is not right: and that there exist such things as proper ethics and honour. I will elaborate on this perhaps when I have more time late in the evening. Good lord!! I couldn't possibly imagine any of your imaginings. My brain cells would explode if I even thought to attempt. That's a given. One can't be too obvious these days. The way people get misconstrued is quite alarming. You wouldn't want that to happen to me, dear chap, would you? People who speak devoid futility and entanglement rarely get misconstrued. |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by DeepSight(m): 3:44pm On Apr 12, 2016 |
^^^ To dwell very briefly again on the point about Murder. Merely killing another human being is not the definition of murder. With murder, there would have to be what is called the mens rea and the actus reus. If a person kills in self defense, or in a case of reasonable provocation (where there has not been time for the passion to cool), or in a state of insanity, none of these things qualify as murder. There are very fine lines of thought that lead to these conclusions in criminal jurisprudence, and yes, criminal jurisprudence has a most direct bearing on the issue of moral relativity and the issue of moral objectivity or subjectivity. I would advise you to acquaint yourself with these lines of thought if you are not already. I presume you are. However it befuddles me that if you are then you should have long understood where I am coming from. |
Re: Dialectics Of Violence And Morality by DeepSight(m): 3:47pm On Apr 12, 2016 |
PastorAIO: Perhaps it was a bad example as you have shown. In fact, it was a poor example. I retract it with apologies. It wasn't carefully thought out. All these measurements and evaluations that I've mentioned are all relative. Then I moved on to morality and demonstrated that Morality too is similarly relative to the observer. It is not, else there should be no such thing in existence as a court or a prison at all. Dude, it's much easier to shut me up than that. All you have to do is produce the machine that we use to objectively measure morality. Since it is done in every society that ever existed (according to you), it should not be too difficult. What is the machine that they use to objectively measure morality in Lagos Island. Or your village, if you want to make it really personal. I can't take this seriously. Let me patiently explain it's relevance to you. You claim to have a machine, or a gadget with which to objectively measure morality. Although you are yet to produce the machine I will take you word for it for now. Me, I say such a machine does not exist and the only way you can gauge the morality of an action is by engaging an interlocutor. But all that is done then is find an agglomeration of subjective viewpoints and then you brush it a little and dust it a little and then claim it is an objective viewpoint. Nor this. |
(1) (2) (3) ... (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) ... (20) (Reply)
'Some Women Roll Their Eyeballs To Entice Me' - Anthony Okogie / Why Deeper Life Turned Down Gej’s Request To Visit Church During Campaign / Uyo Church Collapse: This Is How I Lost My Only Sister - Photos
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 79 |