Pastor AIO: I like the reasoning here:

kwangi: What happens when everybody starts using their high intelligence to STEAL food from each other?
Violence comes into the picture.
Life becomes nasty, short and brutish.
It is because of our supposed high intellect that morals exist in order to ensure the survival of our specie.
Or do you think you can survive if you are to be the only human left in whatever town you are living in? After you must have "survived" by eating the flesh of others who also ate others flesh and so on.
What is survival?

plaetton:

This unique event buttresses my point in a way.
First, where the survivors eating the dead corpses of others , or were they killing each other for the purpose of sustenance?

It is unlikely that they fought amongst themselves to see who would eat each other, as this would have been counter-productive and would have drastically reduced their chances of survival.

And that is the point we are trying to make why cannibalism would be wrong, immoral and evil. It would ,in no way, enhance anyone survivability even in the short run.

Imagine what would happen if rather than plant food, hunt animals, build shelter, learn, sing and dance, humans spent their time hunting other humans or trying to evade capture by other humans.
Though a great deal of humanity, Africans especially, have undergone similar trends in their history, we have the mental ability, which other animals do not have ,to look back, rationalize and conclude that those acts were irrational and detrimental the broad spectrum of the human psyche.

That is why we label such acts immoral, evil-mutally detrimental.

kwangi: What happens when everybody starts using their high intelligence to STEAL food from each other?

Pastor AIO: Are we discussing Morality or Survival of the Specie. Is Survival of the Specie intrinsically linked to morality? What about self sacrifice? Could that ever be a moral thing to do?

Deep Sight:

But this is what happens in reality: such is, for example, official corruption on a massive scale. It has been the case throughout history. What makes it evil or immoral, if we are merely highly intelligent competitive apes?

Uyi Iredia: I find that the problem with materialism is that concepts such as morality, empathy and logic are not strictly reducible to the material processes responsible for them. We know the basis of all mentations is the human brain but why should the materials in the brain evoke these mentations. There is no reason for a purposeless, amoral material to start considering purpose, yet this is what we see in the brain and in all biological systems. Going by the known fact that purpose & morals can only be defined in context of that which has intelligence I can extrapolate that morality (particularly in humans) ultimately comes from an intelligent being (God).
Materialists must realize that matter alone can't think or feel. These attributes require a specific assemblage of materials which CANNOT self-assemble the only reasonable option is to infer from human ability to create intelligent machines that intelligence is required to create intelligence and this necessitates a God. After all is said and done I think the basis of morality is intelligence.

wiegraf:

Even if might were right, it's still logical to be moral

Within human society specifically, every other being in competition with you is a being like you, so they can strike back if you strike them. If you go about blindly using might, there's a good chance someone will strike you back. You have to be careful, and hence the need for moral codes, to protect our individual and collective interests. For instance, if eating people becomes acceptable, you might become the next item on the menu.

We won the genetic lottery, we've surpassed the rest of nature. We are the only ones capable of reason on this level, to arrive at simple truths like the above. We are the only ones capable of eschewing nature's usual modus operandi. We are capable of laying down a purposeful, intelligent and more efficient way to achieve our goals, as opposed to nature's usually capricious whims, so why not use this ability? It's in our best interest, both individually and collectively.

kwangi:
What is survival?

Deep Sight:

The question is about morality: and not efficiency. Morality goes to the individual and what is right and wrong. Why should an individual even be concerned about the group? Why would it be wrong or immoral to be only concerned about himself? Indeed, talking about group survival, why would it be wrong for an individual to be actively interested in decimating the entire group for his own selfish interest and pleasure. What makes that immoral for him to do - if indeed he is merely a smarter ape? Would you consider a very smart ape to be acting immorally if in his smartness he decided to eliminate other apes to conserve resources for himself? Why would that be bad or immoral?

Uyi Iredia:

Circular reasoning, because it is well-known that it is moral (or good) to be logical. BTW the Incas and Aztecs were cannibalistic yet built great empires. Furthermore, I always note that people use circular reasoning to justify morality or the origin of morality it is said that morality is useful, advantageous, necessary which clearly means the same thing and are all presumably moral. Some even say reason or logic, but these also are presumably moral.

wirinet:

correction, the Aztecs and incas were not cannibalistic. Human meat was not a delicacy eaten by ordinary citizens in the society. It was practiced as a religious ceremony by the high priests at certain times of the year and it involves very few persons. What is eaten at such ceremonies is the heart, not that a pot of human meat soup.

wirinet:

Morality is often set by a group and not the individual. Moral codes are a set of rules that bind the group together and set to promote progress and developments of the group. And these moral codes differ from society to society. Some society see killing and eating certain animals as immoral, others see having muliple spouses as immoral, same for drinking alcohol. japan sees suicide as a very moral thing to do to save a family name from disgrace while most people sees it a very immoral thing to do.

An individual is concerned about it group survival because his own very survival depends on protection from the group. it is universal phenomena, social animals such as ants, bees and humans that put group interest above personal interest survives much better than solitary animals. Same for societies that put group interest above personal interest. That is why i believe the Nigerian society cannot survive very long, the individuals therein put personal interest above group interest.

History has shown that when a smart "ape" tries to decimate other less smart "apes", it always back fires in the end, because the less smart "apes" come together to fight the more powerful and smart "apes". this has happened throughout history, from hitler to Nero to saddam. The most successful societies are the most socially advanced societies and not necessarily the smartest.

kwangi: Yeah... True, what are the resultant effect of such habits?
However, this is not aptly analogous to the scenario we're discussing.

Deep Sight:

But this is what happens in reality: such is, for example, official corruption on a massive scale. It has been the case throughout history. What makes it evil or immoral, if we are merely highly intelligent competitive apes?

Deep Sight:

The question is about morality: and not efficiency. Morality goes to the individual and what is right and wrong. Why should an individual even be concerned about the group? Why would it be wrong or immoral to be only concerned about himself? Indeed, talking about group survival, why would it be wrong for an individual to be actively interested in decimating the entire group for his own selfish interest and pleasure. What makes that immoral for him to do - if indeed he is merely a smarter ape? Would you consider a very smart ape to be acting immorally if in his smartness he decided to eliminate other apes to conserve resources for himself? Why would that be bad or immoral?

musKeeto: Haven't had time to go through the thread completely, so forgive me if these questions have already been answered/asked.

- Without the quest for surival, would there be any need for morality?

- Secondly, if our quest for survival forces us to create moral codes to guard/protect/advance our species, then that's all 'morality' is.. A sort of defence mechanism to protect us from the harsh reality that the universe doesn't care about any of us. Just live and be the best while you're at it.

Following this line of thought, it would only be fair to say that nothing's moral or immoral of its own. As obadiah once put it, evil is 'simply something that goes against our goals/aims'

Uyi Iredia: I find that the problem with materialism is that concepts such as morality, empathy and logic are not strictly reducible to the material processes responsible for them. We know the basis of all mentations is the human brain but why should the materials in the brain evoke these mentations. There is no reason for a purposeless, amoral material to start considering purpose, yet this is what we see in the brain and in all biological systems. Going by the known fact that purpose & morals can only be defined in context of that which has intelligence I can extrapolate that morality (particularly in humans) ultimately comes from an intelligent being (God).
Materialists must realize that matter alone can't think or feel. These attributes require a specific assemblage of materials which CANNOT self-assemble the only reasonable option is to infer from human ability to create intelligent machines that intelligence is required to create intelligence and this necessitates a God. After all is said and done I think the basis of morality is intelligence.

Uyi Iredia: I find that the problem with materialism is that concepts such as morality, empathy and logic are not strictly reducible to the material processes responsible for them. We know the basis of all mentations is the human brain but why should the materials in the brain evoke these mentations. There is no reason for a purposeless, amoral material to start considering purpose, yet this is what we see in the brain and in all biological systems. Going by the known fact that purpose & morals can only be defined in context of that which has intelligence I can extrapolate that morality (particularly in humans) ultimately comes from an intelligent being (God).
Materialists must realize that matter alone can't think or feel. These attributes require a specific assemblage of materials which CANNOT self-assemble the only reasonable option is to infer from human ability to create intelligent machines that intelligence is required to create intelligence and this necessitates a God. After all is said and done I think the basis of morality is intelligence.

Kay 17: Morality is group sentiment, it is best studied sociologically, and in a cultural context.

Deep Sight: Again to Plaetton - looking at the question of group survival. Do you realize that as populations increase and you have cases of over population and limited resources - do you realize that a time comes when a decreased population would in fact be better for the health and survival of the group. In such a situation, would we then say that it becomes moral for a small portion of the population to eliminate and murder the rest. Such as 2 million people in Nigeria murdering the rest - 158 million, and thereby living bountifully, peacefully and in great health and wealth in the land.

You must therefore realize that that which is more efficient which is what you are advocating, has many sides and does not equate with that which is moral or immoral.

plaetton:
What you consider purpose are just infinitely random systems, that seem, from our perception, to resemble order.
In most cases, it means nothing in the grander scheme of existence.
If morality is innate, then can we say that animals also follow an innate moral code from god?

plaetton: How do you know that matter alone can't think or feel?
If thinking and feeling emanate from the brain cells, then how can you say the brain does not have the required assemblage of materials to generate and transmit electrical impulses that make us think and feel?

plaetton: When the brain cells are diseased or damaged, what happens to thinking and feeling?
They become haphazard, distorted indecipherable.
Not so?
In these cases, we dont see the god gene, miraculously superceding and maintaining the required equilibrium conditions that promote thinking and feeling. Do you?

Uyi Iredia:

Circular reasoning, because it is well-known that it is moral (or good) to be logical.

Deep Sight:

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!

Uyi Iredia:
BTW the Incas and Aztecs were cannibalistic yet built great empires.

Uyi Iredia:
Furthermore, I always note that people use circular reasoning to justify morality or the origin of morality it is said that morality is useful, advantageous, necessary which clearly means the same thing and are all presumably moral. Some even say reason or logic, but these also are presumably moral.

wiegraf:

No, it's not. Did you read the post I was replying to?




Are you telling me you cannot pick up from this that he's saying a ruthless application of logic does not mean more moral (in the traditional sense)? He's very clearly saying so. So do must of your xtian brothers actually. You hear it time and again; being logical leads to a ruthless application of survival of the fittest, it's the logical conclusion.

Visit the abortion thread and watch your friend anony (and others) appeal to emotion, visit this thread and watch your bretheren admit they do not use their brains with these issues, and your xtianity does define your moral code, does it not? Or are you telling me your faith-based religious system, which dictates your moral code, is built around logic? God ordering abraham to sacrifice his son was being logical? The genocides perhaps?

Empathy is the trait most people associate with morality, not logic. Logic they imagine leads to a dog eat dog world. At best it's seen as a necessary evil, not the driving force of morality.





You're not even disputing that more logical means more moral, in fact you assert that (while paradoxically adhering to a faith-based religious system, this is probably why you had problems with your 'faith'), so why bring this up? It's meaningless actually.

If more logical means more moral (by our standards), and more logical implies less crimes like cannibalism, why bring this up? They might have built great empires, true, but have you looked at their neighbors/competition, the conditions at the time, etc? Have you looked at where this cultures evolved from, which cultures they advanced, their legacies, etc?

You do understand just how isolated and barbaric South-America was circa these civilizations' golden years? Despite the blood lust of these civilizations, they were probably less blood thirsty than most of their peers.

And just how advanced did these empires become? Consider your ancestors in Guinea were eating each other less than 200 years ago, they were also in no way anywhere near European Empires at the time, no? That is the usual level of development of cannibalistic societies. Even if the Aztec and Incan Empires no longer existed by the time Europeans arrived at SA, their descendents were still around. They didn't put up much of a fight, did they? Do you think they would have put up more resistance even in the glory years of those Empires?

Through history you'd find that more advanced = less violent, fact (I'm reading a fat book atm with hard numbers to back this assertion up, see here for him talking about his sources). More advanced civilizations generally, not necessarily, tend to be more logical. They also generally tend to be regarded as more 'moral' or good, at least by today's definitions of good. Again, even you assert that. While great, their greatness has to be examined in context. Relatively, they weren't that great.



I have no idea about what you're on about, but see above.

Uyi Iredia:

Logic simply defined is the principles of correct reasoning. Logic is therefore something considered moral. It seems to me that Deep Sight was questioning why certain things which are advantageous (e.g stealing for money for one's upkeep) aren't considered moral.

wiegraf:

Again, it is not.

Even going by your definition, as it's (ostensibly) advantageous to do certain immoral things, making the reasoning behind such acts seem correct, or logical, most people assume it would be logical to be immoral. Do you get it?

Here for instance, ds could assume it would be logical to steal in these scenarios, as logic supports the act. This is an act deemed immoral by modern standards, yes? In other words, strict application of logic, or doing what may seem reasonable, would lead to situations we consider immoral. Simply put; that it is logical to be immoral.

I may not have hard numbers, but I would DEFINITELY say this is the prevailing view of most of the world. Do you know how many people go around insisting that without the fear of hell fire we'd all be hedonistic rapine loving monsters? Why do you think that's the case?