The Basis Of Human Morality - Religion - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / The Basis Of Human Morality (13548 Views)
Dialectics Of Violence And Morality / Self-service, Selfless-service And Nigerian Christian Morality. / The Decent Of Human Morality (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (19) (Reply) (Go Down)
| The Basis Of Human Morality by DeepSight(m): 10:03am On May 18, 2013 |
i addressed these questions to Plaetton on another thread, but I now think this merits a thread of its own. These questions are for strict materialist atheists. To avoid all mystery, the questions are intended to contest the basis of morality of the strict materialist atheist. 1. Is it wrong or evil to kill animals and please state the reason for your answer. 2. Is it wrong or evil when animals kill other animals and please state the reason for your answer. 3. Is it wrong or evil for a cannibal to kill you for the purpose of consuming your meat as food for his sustenance. Your answers please. Oh, and for those whose answers do not address the questions, kindly don't bother with hand-waving and other such dismissive tactics, thanks. 1 Like |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Nobody: 11:04am On May 18, 2013 |
Deep Sight:from my own atheistic point of view it is not wrong to kill animal for food. its natural since humans are omnivores we cant fight nature.. though some can stay away from meats but it doesn't mean its wrong to eat one 2. Is it wrong or evil when animals kill other animals and please state the reason for your answer.is still somehow the same. it's natural for animals to kill other animals for food especially carnivorous animals 3. Is it wrong or evil for a cannibal to kill you for the purpose of consuming your meat as food for his sustenance.it is wrong for cannibals to kill fellow humans, even animals don't kill the same specie for food. its absolutely wrong. lion don't kill lion, tigers don't kill tigers. they kill other animals |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by DeepSight(m): 11:45am On May 18, 2013 |
9jadelta: Therefore you will agree that the taking of life in itself is not intrinsically wrong. Especially as, as an atheist, you of course regard humans and animals as merely different creatures with different degrees of intelligence all trying to survive and preying on one another. 2. is still somehow the same. it's natural for animals to kill other animals for food especially carnivorous animals And, if the theory of evolution holds correct; then we are merely advanced animals and surely it remains natural for us to kill for food just as animals do. 3. Well if survival of the fittest holds true, then why is this wrong? If anything, it will help weed out the weak amongst us, and facilitate the generation of the stronger genes. Remember that Lions do this: when they take over a pride, they kill off all the cubs to ensure the generation of their own genes. That is nature. If humans are only higher animals as espoused by evolution, why is it wrong for humans to do the same? If I desire your wife, why is it wrong for me to kill you, kill your children, and take over her by force - - - > as Lions do, within their natural culture? 1 Like |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Nobody: 12:13pm On May 18, 2013 |
Question 3 reminds me of the spelucean explorers case. Morally speaking, if there are other sources of food available, one has no business killing another human for food. Talking about moral relativity, societal norms and morals will always supersede individual morals because "I am because you are". Thus it is immoral and evil to kill another human for sustenance sake. |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Nobody: 12:20pm On May 18, 2013 |
First of all, let us get the basis of morality for a materialist atheist and also a definition of "good" for the atheist Good- a definition; Something that is beneficial to human survival or causes less harm than benefits when a situation is assessed. Basis of Morality for the materialist (3 bases) 1)Evolution; our primal instincts is survival. Eat, kill, hustle in the jungle to survive. This is our "animalistic morality". It is not perfect as survival instincts can turn one to do drastic and regretable things- eg rats kill deformed children for there to be resources to feed the healthy ones. 2) Logic; We use logic to hone our animalistic instincts. We dont have se.x with every se,xual partner, especially without consent. Our actions should be reasonable. We are good to others because we want others to be good to us. We respect elder's wisdom because they naturally have experience. We dont inhale exhaust smoke because it will kill us. 3)Society; two heads are better than one and society makes some logical decisions (this is why religion must be separate from govt). Businesses have to pay tax and have to be audited so that they dont engage in illegal businesses, there should be an armyn to defend a country etc. This is why laws must be based on reason alone....one foolish law can destroy a country. Deep Sight: i addressed these questions to Plaetton on another thread, but I now think this merits a thread of its own. These questions are for strict materialist atheists. To avoid all mystery, the questions are intended to contest the basis of morality of the strict materialist atheist. 1) Survival....either most of humans die or they eat meat. It is the basis of survival...we must eat to survive or we are committing suicide....even if you are a vegetarian, you are killing plants which are living things 2) Same as above 3) Cannibalism is dangerous, even for the human cannibal. The chance of transferring disease from human meat to umans is high plus other viruses known to come with cannibalism. Secondly, do unto others.......would you love your fellow human beings to eat your or your family? We have logic and reasoning- cannibalistic animals dont...... As long as there are options to eat other meat or plants why should one be a cannibal? War and starvation is another case 1 Like |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Mranony: 12:36pm On May 18, 2013 |
Deep Sight: i addressed these questions to Plaetton on another thread, but I now think this merits a thread of its own. These questions are for strict materialist atheists. To avoid all mystery, the questions are intended to contest the basis of morality of the strict materialist atheist.Lol, nice topic. Dude, we have gist. I have been pondering this objective morality thingy for sometime, I think you'll like where my thoughts have been going. |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Nobody: 1:16pm On May 18, 2013 |
Mr anony: yeah..because sometimes i feel only the "agnostic" atheists have a sense of morality. the strict atheists and their "follow follow crew pets"  talk a way sometimesthat's truly troubling. all this "survival of the fittest" bull. Nothing but selfishness.  *logicboy will enter thread in.* [size=18pt]5-4-3-2-1[/size] |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Mranony: 1:19pm On May 18, 2013 |
*Kails*:Logicboy is already on the thread spreading his nonsense as usual. 1 Like |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Nobody: 1:29pm On May 18, 2013 |
*Kails*: Mr anony:  2 Likes |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Nobody: 1:54pm On May 18, 2013 |
Mr anony: Lmao. I saw his comment. but i figured he would come to try to debunk my claims though. Logicboy03:  Awe come on... |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by wiegraf: 2:20pm On May 18, 2013 |
First, why can't dismiss? All this is my view only. First. No. As we're capable of advanced reasoning I hold us to higher standards. But I'm hypocritical. Second. Ideally, no. But I wouldn't apply the same standards to both sentient and non-sentients. I think it would be silly, so yes. It's acceptable and unavoidable. Some what related (but not really) sef, think of all the micro-life you kill inadvertently or necessarily. Third. Obviously no, as a sentient on another sentient, that's a clear no. Ultimately I believe in a deterministic and probalistic universe. My stance may be even more 'ruthless' than where I think you're going, as I don't hold people responsible for their actions per se. But I think being morally good (in the somewhat traditional sense) is the practical, reasonable way to go, however you look at it. Edits: minor |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by plaetton: 2:36pm On May 18, 2013 |
Sorry Deepsight, I must have missed the thread you were referring to. I will ponder a bit and try to address the questions. However, you know very well that I'm not a materialist atheist, and I might approach this from a holistic point of view. So, I don't know if that disqualifies me from participating. |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by DeepSight(m): 3:25pm On May 18, 2013 |
Hi Plaetton; Here is the post on the other thread: i reacted to a comment of yours, and that is the basis for this thread - https://www.nairaland.com/1289717/atheists-arrogant-confess-it-true#15772694 No: Not being strict materialist does not disqualify you; I will very much like to hear your views although I still await strict materialists. @ Wiegraf, i see you, and will revert. The other thread we had a long discussion on a while back, which you created; I did not forget it; i simply had too much to say and was too lazy to type. I will revert to it sometime soon. I have been known to make my responses sometimes after months or even years. |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by wiegraf: 3:49pm On May 18, 2013 |
Deep Sight: Take your time good ser. Time is rather expensive (despite the way I waste a good deal of it) |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by plaetton: 4:46pm On May 18, 2013 |
I see the earth as ball of pulsating life. Ever since the accident of universal evolution bestowed the spark of life on this ball of floating water,life has continued, unabated, in the ceaseless interactions of life and more life. Within the earth herself, billions of species, her children , are ceaselessly engaged in the process of life, and each according to the strict Hierarchy of biological evolution. So, to eat, or to be eaten, depends on a species evolutionary hierarchy, vis-a-vis, it's sustenance needs and its special features or tools that gives it an advantage over its preys. |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by plaetton: 5:49pm On May 18, 2013 |
^^^ Since evolution gives species special features to master it's environment and survive, there are NO moral considerations in what a species eats to survive. In the case of humans, our highly developed brain gives us our greatest advantage for survival. This highly developed brain also allows us to organize ourselves into cohesive social units for mutual benefits. Although less advanced species also exists in social units, the human social unit is very unique in that the social unit avails itself of choices to make in different circumstances. Over many millenia, human social units have advanced in stages to the current level where we have a set of rules and guideline to regulate all aspects of human behaviour, all for mutual benefit. So the answer to the ops questions are:. 1. It is not wrong to kill animals for food. In my opinion, nothing ever dies. Life begets life. 2. No, it is not wrong for animals to kill animals. There is no compromise in the evolutionary hierarchy. 3. Yes , it is evil and wrong for a cannibal to eat other humans for sustenance. The simple reason is that humans are not primarily driven by instinct. we weigh, we think, we have options and we make choices. We are omnivores. We depend on a wider variety of food for sustenance, so cannibalism would be a choice, and not an instinctive need. Again, since cannibalism, just like war, is a choice, it would weaken the human social unit and our survival. Most importantly, since our advanced brain has given us many many advances in agriculture, animal husbandry and medicine, human culture tends to lean towards the advancement and prolongation of life. So, interrupting a human life just for mere sustenance would be irrational, illogical and dangerous to the survival of the species. 1 Like |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by ijawkid(m): 6:23pm On May 18, 2013 |
plaetton: ^^^ 1 Like |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by mazaje1: 6:30pm On May 18, 2013 |
Deep Sight: i addressed these questions to Plaetton on another thread, but I now think this merits a thread of its own. These questions are for strict materialist atheists. To avoid all mystery, the questions are intended to contest the basis of morality of the strict materialist atheist. Nope, humans are omnivorous, animal meat is part of our food. . .Not wrong to kill animals for food or when they pose a danger to human life. . . 2. Is it wrong or evil when animals kill other animals and please state the reason for your answer. When an animal kills another for food, its not wrong. . .If it doesn't it will die. . . 3. Is it wrong or evil for a cannibal to kill you for the purpose of consuming your meat as food for his sustenance. Yeah, its wrong because as humans we have developed other methods of getting and processing for for our survival. Methods farming and animal husbandry have been developed fully. . .So taking another human life for food is wrong. |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by plaetton: 6:34pm On May 18, 2013 |
ijawkid: I see no contradictions here. You need to sharpen your comprehension skills. |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by ijawkid(m): 6:36pm On May 18, 2013 |
mazaje1: Does it matter??.....I thought we were just purposeless apes walking around the surface of the earth with no future....... I shouldn't be asking you this sef na that pleatton I suppose dey ask.... Mazaje how are you doing??....... .... |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by ijawkid(m): 6:41pm On May 18, 2013 |
plaetton: Mr evolution there is nothing to sharpen... why does it matter if we are eaten by our fellow humans or maybe you eat me??..........remember we are just animals under going evolution and with no purpose as to why we are here on earth irrespective of how advanced our brains are......so why don't we just eat oursleves and continue to evolve.......until maybe we evolve back to where we evolved from......lol........ |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by plaetton: 6:44pm On May 18, 2013 |
ijawkid: He he. Evolutionary lottery endowed us with an advanced brain for survival. With this brain, we have done more than just survival, we are creators or our destiny. You are the one , who is perhaps a purposeless ape who needs to cling unto stone aged myths to navigate and survive this impersonal universe. |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by mazaje1: 6:47pm On May 18, 2013 |
ijawkid: How does atheism equate to humans being purposeless beings?. . . Am good brother, how you dey?. . . |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by ijawkid(m): 6:48pm On May 18, 2013 |
plaetton:Which destiny my brother??..... Does a product of chance have any destiny??...... I can see how chance endowed us with an advanced brain so that we know it is wrong to eat ourselves ......so much for chance and accident.... ....... |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by plaetton: 7:06pm On May 18, 2013 |
ijawkid:C'mon man. Use your brain. There are a lot of things that our ancestors did yesterday, that we completely abhor and would not do today. That is called advancement. Over the past 10,000yrs of recorded human history, we undergone many many advancements: from cave to open land, from eating raw meat to cooking them, from gathering wild fruits to agriculture, from hunting to animal husbandry, from wooden tools to advanced metallurgy. I can bet that in your village , in the not too distant past, people engaged in some form of cannibalism because they did not know better. Today, man does not sit idly(except for Nigerian religious slaves) to await the benevolance of imaginary gods. No, man is a god, a designer and fashioner of his future and destiny, for good or for bad. So what exactly is your problem? It seems that common scientific sense tend to irritate you. |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by ijawkid(m): 10:23pm On May 18, 2013 |
plaetton: what scientific sense??....scientific sense that tells you you are a product of an accident and that we evolved from a fish....and suddenly through evolution our brains became so advanced that we dont have to live purposeless lives by eating ourselves to survive...... isnt man suppose to be a purposeless animal??.... |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by ijawkid(m): 10:25pm On May 18, 2013 |
plaetton: plaetton: |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by ooman(m): 12:36am On May 19, 2013 |
Ijawkid, nothing wrong with the above, no contradictions. u'v lost your specks or something? |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by ooman(m): 12:41am On May 19, 2013 |
Deep Sight: This is a very wrong view of evolution and survival of the fittest. Evolution does not occur in individuals but in the whole population. A whole population become extinct or become built by natural selection of survival traits. So survival of the fittest does not mean intra-species war. Animals kill their own kind only in time of severe lack. This behavior is also recorded in human history. Stories of parents eating their children, or giving them up for sacrifice spread through many culture. Its also found in the bible. So this behavior remains in all animals including human as a last resort. You dont kill a member of your kind to survive, it doesn't favour survival of your species since evolution does not occur in individual but in the whole population. Survival of the fittest is always misunderstood by creationists so no surprise here. Death in itself is not bad or wrong. |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by DeepSight(m): 5:51am On May 19, 2013 |
ooman: You miss the point, kind sir. No one has said that survival of the fittest means intra-species war (although in human history it often has, and still does). What is asked, rather, is simply if the act or acts of taking lives are thereby morally wrong? Animals kill their own kind only in time of severe lack. This behavior is also recorded in human history. Stories of parents eating their children, or giving them up for sacrifice spread through many culture. Its also found in the bible. So this behavior remains in all animals including human as a last resort. . . . And therefore is not morally wrong? No? You dont kill a member of your kind to survive, it doesn't favour survival of your species since evolution does not occur in individual but in the whole population. Why should I be concerned about the survival of my species, and not simply about the survival of myself and my family and those I choose to be concerned about. If anything, I could argue that my species have been very bad for the health of the earth (extinctions, global warming, the threat of nuclear warfare, etc) and seek to decimate them and live in primitiveness with myself and my family. Why is that morally wrong? Survival of the fittest is always misunderstood by creationists so no surprise here. You need to address yourself to the question: why is it morally wrong to kill your fellow man? If we live in a competitive world, and are merely highly developed animals, there surely is no moral wrong in conquering your fellow man to survive, and in fact this happens everyday through wars, conquests, colonization, corruption, oppression, stealing, and the like. |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by DeepSight(m): 5:59am On May 19, 2013 |
plaetton: This does not address the question, it evades the questions. That we are highly developed animals and have found more efficient ways of surviving does not address the morality or otherwise of our primitive ways (which, by the way, are evidently still in existence given the state of the world). The question is if any of the acts cited can be objectively described as immoral from the Atheistic world-view. If I am simply a more intelligent animal than other animals, why is it wrong for me to use that intelligence to kill, oppress, seize and generally garner advantages for myself within the competitive and predatory environment in which we live. Why would it be wrong for me to use my high intelligence to steal food and resources from others? Is this not survival? An animal surviving through its skills and abilities, no? Is this not what occurs in nature and indeed in human society continuously? If Lions evolved further to a stage where they could farm meat from the soil, would it then become immoral for Lions to kill and eat other creatures for meat? You need to think carefully on this; for you suggest that the bigger brain and better methods suddenly mean that there is a moral wrong in applying more primitive methods of survival. I am a Lion. Lions kill and take over other Lion Families. Now, as human, I am a more intelligent form. What's wrong with using that greater intelligence to selfishly advance my personal desires? What makes that morally wrong? If anything, since I am a highly intelligent animal, you, my fellow man, had better wise up and become smarter than me, otherwise, it is legitimate for me to use my smarts to conquer you, seize your goods, family, wife and all - since this is what obtains in the natural world, no? What makes such an approach morally wrong for a highly developed animal? In nature, might is indeed right! From the atheistic PoV, how is man excluded from nature? If you will ponder carefully, you will see that in fact, this is what has been going on throughout human history - Might, and not right! What is morally wrong with that, when this is the obvious way of nature? 2 Likes |
| Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by DeepSight(m): 6:23am On May 19, 2013 |
9jadelta: Why do you make a special exemption for humans. We are merely smarter animals no? What's wrong with using our smarts to go about our grisly business? |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (19) (Reply)
Angel Caught On Camera In Ghana - The End Time Is Here. / 6 Rules For New Christians / Never Give Up!
(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. 116 |