davidylan:

1. What "justifications" did cannibals provide for eating flesh?

There is this group of cannibals in a part of Australia long ago (which I watched on a documentary on the national Geographic channel) who ate the flesh of their enemeis because they have this deeply held belief that doing so made them better hunters. That might not be an acceptable justification to you but to them it is. There are so many other reasons why cannibals eat the flesh of other humans.

2. What accounts for the striking similarity in morality among so many different cultures on earth?

Integration, Once people started integrating morality had to evolve, either willingly or unwillingly. For example those that were conqured had to forcefully accept the moral code of conduct of those that conquered them. Hundreds of years ago some tribe in Nigeria used to kill their twins because they thought they were an evil omen. They were thought to stop that practice by other people. Morality is NOT objective and MUST be learened, people just have to find a common ground when dealing with each other.

mazaje:

There is this group of cannibals in a part of Australia long ago (which I watched on a documentary on the national Geographic channel) who ate the flesh of their enemeis because they have this deeply held belief that doing so made them better hunters. That might not be an acceptable justification to you but to them it is. There are so many other reasons why cannibals eat the flesh of other humans.

Excellent. But it underscores the fact that you have a very wishy-washy argument going here. You claim that morality is simply about "providing justifications for why its right" . . . actually that doesnt wash. I could equally provide you 10 examples why the poor have every right to steal . . . does that make stealing "moral"?

mazaje:

Integration, Once people started integrating morality had to evolve, either willingly or unwillingly. For example those that were conqured had to forcefully accept the moral code of conduct of those that conquered them. Hundereds of years ago some tribe in Nigeria used to kill their twins because they thought they were an evil omen. They were thought to stop that practice by other people. Morality is NOT objective and MUST be learened, people just have to find a common ground when dealing with each other.

Good point.

When yahweh traumatized Abraham by demanding that he kill his son, isaac, in sacrifice to him, what moral lesson is meant to be put across there?If abraham had refused bluntly to commit murder of his own son in the name of sacrificing to show obedience to a sick deity, would that have been immoral?What moral response was right in this case?WHAT IS MORALITY?

davidylan:

Excellent. But it underscores the fact that you have a very wishy-washy argument going here. You claim that morality is simply about "providing justifications for why its right" . . . actually that doesnt wash. I could equally provide you 10 examples why the poor have every right to steal . . . does that make stealing "moral"?

Justification from the people that set out the moral codes of conduct is what matters. Lets take the endearment towards sharia law for example. All what is needed is for the people that created that moral code of conduct to convince others and make them accept it. It doesn't have to be justifiable to everybody. Stealing is wrong, Yes, but that it self is not an absoulte, there are cases where people convice themselves and try justify their acts of theft, like during wars or natural disasters etc.

mazaje:

Justification from the people that set out the moral codes of conduct is what matters. Lets take the endearment towards sharia law for example. All what is needed is for the people that created that moral code of conduct to convince others and make them accept it. It doesn't have to be justifiable to everybody. Stealing is wrong, Yes, but that it self is not an absoulte, there are cases where people convice themselves and try justify their acts of theft, like during wars or natural disasters etc.

Your sharia law argument is invalid. It wasnt created by a group of folks, it is alleged to have been handed down by allah himself. No justification is needed.

You claim that stealing being wrong is not an absolute . . . well that is WRONG. Stealing is considered "immoral" in virtually all cultures . . . is this simply down to "integration"? NO!

there is no justification for stealing, it is considered a punishable crime.

^^^^ And if one finds oneself in a situation where one have to steal in other to survive, like in the wartime, what then?Is stealing justified,then?This thing is totally dependent on momentary circumstances.Stealing only becomes morally compromising in "normal" times like peace times for example, and not in times of war, or times of climactic cataclysms.

jagunlabi:

^^^^ And if one finds oneself in a situation where one have to steal in other to survive, like in the wartime, what then?Is stealing justified,then?This thing is totally dependent on momentary circumstances.Stealing only becomes morally compromising in "normal" times like peace times for example, and not in times of war, or times of climactic cataclysms.

If i came to rob you at gunpoint because i cant feed my family, would you consider it moral and acceptable?

mazaje:

And what is the origin of morality?

I dnt think there could be such a thing as morality without it originating from a higher authority,powers,laws or higher being.
If theres non of d above listed to place a form of restriction directly/indirectly to pples conscience,then everything would be permissible including a man marrying his grandmother/mother.That morality originates from supreme authority/power,then everythng is not permissible

mazaje:

And what is the origin of morality?

I dnt think there could be such a thing as morality without it originating from a higher authority,powers,laws or higher being.
If theres non of d above listed to place a form of restriction directly/indirectly to pples conscience,then everything would be permissible including a man marrying his grandmother/mother.That morality originates from supreme authority/power,then everythng is not permissible

davidylan:

If i came to rob you at gunpoint because i cant feed my family, would you consider it moral and acceptable?

In wartimes when everybody is scrounging to survive, yes, i would understand, but that would not stop me from switching to survival mode myself in order to protect myself, my properties and my family. Survival, that is what it comes down to when a society has broken down due to war or any other kind of violent social disruption, and not morality as we normally know it. That is my point.

jagunlabi:

In wartimes when everybody is scrounging to survive, yes, i would understand, but that would not stop me from switching to survival mode myself in order to protect myself, my properties and my family. Survival, that is what it comes down to when a society has broken down due to war or any other kind of violent social disruption, and not morality as we normally know it. That is my point.

you didnt answer my question . . . at all.

Morality is not a war-time issue, infact no where on this thread are we discussing what occurs during a war.

I asked a very simple question based on your own words - if i came to rob you, killing your daughter in the process because i have to feed my own kids, would you consider that "moral"?

davidylan:

you didnt answer my question . . . at all.

Morality is not a war-time issue, infact no where on this thread are we discussing what occurs during a war.

I asked a very simple question based on your own words - if i came to rob you, killing your daughter in the process because i have to feed my own kids, would you consider that "moral"?

Davidylan, i gave the wartime as an example to let you know that the matter of morality is not black and white, that there are grey areas. What morality does a society run with in times of anarchy, huh?What sort of morality was yahweh working with when he was faced with a daunting task of settling "millions" of exiled jews in the desert after bringing them out of Egypt and had to plunder a whole city in order to settle them?Was it moral to wipe out an entire city just to settle the jews in your own opinion?
In normal and balanced state of the society when there exists in abundance options or alternatives to taking another man's properties, sure it is morally wrong to steal, and if the the situation you stated takes place within a society that is not found in the unbalanced state of anarchy, then it is immoral for you or any man to take my properties away from me and kill my child, because in a normal society it is against the law, and it is against the law because that society accepts it as immoral.
The point of my arguement still remains that circumstances determine whether to subject one to morality or survival.

A question for you too.If you find yourself and your family in a collapsed society with back to the wall, with no other alternative when survival is the only option, would you steal to feed yourself and your hungry family or you would rather watch them die?What would be the most moral thing to do in your case?Watch your family gradually die in your face or take another person's property to keep them alive?

davidylan:

Your sharia law argument is invalid. It wasnt created by a group of folks, it is alleged to have been handed down by allah himself. No justification is needed.

My sharia law argument is valid. Sharia law WAS created by a group of folks like EVERY OTHER moral code of conduct. Allah DID NOT hand down any law himself to anybody. People sat down and wrote all the laws themselves. The point I was trying to make was that convincing people and providing justification for moral codes of conduct is what is necessary for its acceptance.

You claim that stealing being wrong is not an absolute . . . well that is WRONG. Stealing is considered "immoral" in virtually all cultures . . . is this simply down to "integration"? NO!

Stealing being wrong is NOT an absolute because it varies from place to place. Even in the bible the Jews were allowed to steal the belonging of those that worship other gods when they wage war against them. I know moslems who believe it is right to steal from unbelievers when waging jihad against them. Stealing is considered to be wrong because people realized that its not for the common good of all and decided to criminalize it.

there is no justification for stealing, it is considered a punishable crime.

There is justification for stealing in some cases just like there is justification for homicide in some cases. In times of natural disasters like earth quakes, floods, diseases or war stealing could be justified as long as it is done purely for survival.

jagunlabi:

Davidylan, i gave the wartime as an example to let you know that the matter of morality is not black and white, that there are grey areas. What morality does a society run with in times of anarchy, huh?What sort of morality was yahweh working with when he was faced with a daunting task of settling "millions" of exiled jews in the desert after bringing them out of Egypt and had to plunder a whole city in order to settle them?Was it moral to wipe out an entire city just to settle the jews in your own opinion?
In normal and balanced state of the society when there exists in abundance options or alternatives to taking another man's properties, sure it is morally wrong to steal, and if the the situation you stated takes place within a society that is not found in the unbalanced state of anarchy, then it is immoral for you or any man to take my properties away from me and kill my child, because in a normal society it is against the law, and it is against the law because that society accepts it as immoral.
The point of my arguement still remains that circumstances determine whether to subject one to morality or survival.

A question for you too.If you find yourself and your family in a collapsed society with back to the wall, with no other alternative when survival is the only option, would you steal to feed yourself and your hungry family or you would rather watch them die?What would be the most moral thing to do in your case?Watch your family gradually die in your face or take another person's property to keep them alive?

u're just bobbing and weaving. My question required a simple, direct answer. when i see it then i will address your "point".

Again your wartime analogy is way off the mark here.

toba:

I dnt think there could be such a thing as morality without it originating from a higher authority,powers,laws or higher being.

The constantly evolving moral codes of conducts shows that your assumption is FALSE.

If theres non of d above listed to place a form of restriction directly/indirectly to pples conscience,then everything would be permissible including a man marrying his grandmother/mother.That morality originates from supreme authority/power,then everythng is not permissible

Like a man marrying his half sister? Abraham did it in the bible. Your evidence to show that morality originates from any where other than humans is what?. . . .You have NO evidence of any supreme authority giving humans any moral code do you? All the evidence points to humans writing down their moral codes and ascribing them to their various deities.

mazaje:

My sharia law argument is valid. Sharia law WAS created by a group of folks like EVERY OTHER moral code of conduct.  Allah DID NOT hand down any law himself to anybody. People sat down and wrote all the laws themselves.

the sharia law comes from the quran and the hadiths. Its simple history.

mazaje:

The point I was trying to make was that convincing people and providing justification for moral codes of conduct is what is necessary for its acceptance.

Makes no sense which is why i asked jagunlabi the earlier question.

Does convincing my family + plus using my extreme poverty as justification prove that robbing your family at gunpoint is morally right?

mazaje:

Stealing being wrong is NOT an absolute because it varies from place to place.

Pls show us examples of where stealing is ok.

mazaje:

Even in the bible the Jews were allowed to steal the belonging of those that worship other gods when they wage war against them.

That isnt stealing, that is taking the spoils of war. Two different issues you cant just conflate to support a non-argument.

mazaje:

I know moslems who believe it is right to steal from unbelievers when waging jihad against them. Stealing is considered to be wrong because people realized that its not for the common good of all and decided to criminalize it.

I think you need to go look up the dictionary meaning of "stealing".

mazaje:

There is justification for stealing in some cases just like there is justification for homicide in some cases. In times of natural disasters like earth quakes, floods, diseases or war stealing could be justified as long as it is done purely for survival.

Chile troops, police attack post-quake looting

and here i thot we could just "convince" the police . . . afterall isnt an 8.8 magnitude earthquake a good "justification" for looting?

I think you and jagunlabi are basically confused.

mazaje:

Like a man marrying his half sister? Abraham did it in the bible. Your evidence to show that morality originates from any where other than humans is what?. . . .You have NO evidence of any supreme authority giving humans any moral code do you? All the evidence points to humans writing down their moral codes and ascribing them to their various deities.

that's absurd. Hypothetical example - if God were to bring down a moral code . . . would he not give it to humans? wouldnt that then count as morality originating from humans?

When you foolishly ask for "evidence" that a supreme deity hands down a moral code to humans you forget that you dont even believe that a supreme being exists in the first place . . . it is impossible for me to provide evidence that my father paid my school fees when you dont even believe i have a father in the first place.

davidylan:

u're just bobbing and weaving. My question required a simple, direct answer. when i see it then i will address your "point".

Again your wartime analogy is way off the mark here.

Did you read my post at all?My answer to your question was there.And yes, the state of the society one finds oneself plays a decisive role in what is considered as moral actions.There is no absolute, carved in stone basis for morality which is what you are looking for.

jagunlabi:

[b]Did you read my post at all?[/b]My answer to your question was there.And yes, the state of the society one finds oneself plays a decisive role in what is considered as moral actions.There is no absolute, carved in stone basis for morality which is what you are looking for.

I read it, it was a myriad of meaningless stuff that didnt address the question. You dont need 3 paragraphs to answer a simple question.

What is most funny is the fact that mazaje and jagunlabi seem to be grasping at the MOST EXTREME of situations to justify their claim that morality isnt set in stone.

for example jagunlabi talks of this - If you find yourself and your family in a collapsed society

In such a "society", there is virtually NO LAW or NO MORALITY left!

We are talking about a NORMAL FUNCTIONING SOCIETY no places with earthquakes!

davidylan:

I read it, it was a myriad of meaningless stuff that didnt address the question. You dont need 3 paragraphs to answer a simple question.

Ok, i will answer your question from my own perspective.
If you rob me and kill my child in a society that is in a normal, balanced state, then it is not only immoral, but also a heinous crime, and i would probably ask for your blood in retribution.Satisfied?

Now, go answer my question.

jagunlabi:

Ok, i will answer your question from my own perspective.
If you rob me and kill my child in a society that is in a normal, balanced state, then it is not only immoral, but also a heinous crime, and i would probably ask for your blood in retribution.Satisfied?

But i had "justification" for doing that no? I can very well convince a judge that i had to rob to stave off starvation for my 10 month old child no?

Now isnt that all i need to make my actions "moral"?

jagunlabi:

Now, go answer my question.

Your "question" made no sense . . . in a collapsed society there is no law or morals.

davidylan:

What is most funny is the fact that mazaje and jagunlabi seem to be grasping at the MOST EXTREME of situations to justify their claim that morality isnt set in stone.

for example jagunlabi talks of this - If you find yourself and your family in a collapsed society

In such a "society", there is virtually NO LAW or NO MORALITY left!

We are talking about a NORMAL FUNCTIONING SOCIETY no places with earthquakes!

No, we are talking about morality in ALL SOCIETAL STATES AND CONDITIONS.Not all societies on this planet exist in a normal, functioning state at the present moment in time.If we are talking about morality, then there is no reason to exclude such societies.

jagunlabi:

No, [b]we are talking about morality in ALL SOCIETAL STATES AND CONDITIONS.[/b]Not all societies on this planet exist in a normal, functioning state at the present moment in time.If we are talking about morality, then there is no reason to exclude such societies.

false. We never were . . . you and mazaje simply invented that to justify your baseless claims.

In a non-functioning society there is no law and no moral code. Somalia is a good example . . . piracy is wrong in every other society but is ok there because Somalia basically has NO maritime law, no navy, no coastguard.

davidylan:

But i had "justification" for doing that no? I can very well convince a judge that i had to rob to stave off starvation for my 10 month old child no?

Now isnt that all i need to make my actions "moral"?

Your "question" made no sense . . . in a collapsed society there is no law or morals.

Now, this is stupid,davidylan. You have absolutely no justification to do that in a properly functioning society because THERE ARE OPTIONS OPENED at all times for you to take, and you cannot tender such a justification in any court of law precisely because of that fact.You have options, your back is not to the wall in a functioning society, so your actions still remain immoral and criminal.

Now you are the one bobbing and weaving.

davidylan:

false. We never were . . . you and mazaje simply invented that to justify your baseless claims.

In a non-functioning society there is no law and no moral code. Somalia is a good example . . . piracy is wrong in every other society but is ok there because Somalia basically has NO maritime law, no navy, no coastguard.

Davidylan, if we are going to be talking about morality and how it affects us as human beings, then we have to consider every possible situations that humans can and do find themselves in and how morality applies in those cases.

davidylan:

the sharia law comes from the quran and the hadiths. Its simple history.

And who wrote the koran and the hadith?. . . . .

Makes no sense which is why i asked jagunlabi the earlier question.

Does convincing my family + plus using my extreme poverty as justification prove that robbing your family at gunpoint is morally right?

Sure, If you could convince your family that stealing is morally right then YES to you and your family it will be morally right, Just like those cannibals or those that used to kill their twin babies were able to convince themselves and others around them that those actions were morally right. . People have convinced themselves and others that stoning to death people that commit adultery is right but does that make it right in the eyes of those that do not see things that way?. . . The ability to justify or convice people is what makes actions morally acceptable or unacceptable. A simple case is that of pork.

Pls show us examples of where stealing is ok.

In times of natural disasters.

That isnt stealing, that is taking the spoils of war. Two different issues you cant just conflate to support a non-argument.

You don't even know what you are talking about. That action is nothing but STEALING no matter how you try to sugar coat it. Why don't we see the present IDF taking the spoils of war when engaging with the palestinians or the hamas militants?. . . .Why is the USA not taking spoils of war in afganistan or iraq?. . . .You see, you have just supported my argument. Here you are justfying a clear act of theft by saying that it is not theft but taking the spoils of war. . . .The only thing you have done here is convince yourself that their action it is not theft, but in reality IT IS. . . . .

I think you need to go look up the dictionary meaning of "stealing".

Chile troops, police attack post-quake looting

and here i thot we could just "convince" the police . . . afterall isnt an 8.8 magnitude earthquake a good "justification" for looting?

I think you and jagunlabi are basically confused.

What applies to Chile might not apply to all societies, If the govenrment of Chile fails to provide relief materials for the people and leaves them off to die of hunger or diseases, then it has no right to prescute them for looting. The govenment will only have such a right after it must have made arrangements of provided adequte measures to take care of those affected. If the government leaves its people without helping them, then looting to survice will be justified and will not be considered immoral.

jagunlabi:

Now, this is silly,davidylan. You have absolutely no justification to do that in a properly functioning society because THERE ARE OPTIONS OPENED at all times for you to take, and you cannot tender such a justification in any court of law precisely because of that fact.You have options, your back is not to the wall in a functioning society, so your actions still remain immoral and criminal.

Now you are the one bobbing and weaving.

Excellent . . . i used that question to prove that mazaje's flimsy idea that all you need to ratify moral law is that you can convince others that it is right or provide justification for it.

Stealing is stealing . . . convincing or justification cannot change that code. It is pretty much set in stone.

jagunlabi:

Davidylan, if we are going to be talking about morality and how it affects us as human beings, then we have to consider every possible situations that humans can and do find themselves in and how morality applies in those cases.

that is basically nonsense . . . we are concerning ourselves with NORMAL FUNCTIONING societies. The question now is where did morality come from? Why do we have it?

davidylan:

Excellent . . . i used that question to prove that mazaje's flimsy idea that all you need to ratify moral law is that you can convince others that it is right or provide justification for it.

Stealing is stealing . . . convincing or justification cannot change that code. It is pretty much set in stone.

To a certain extent, he is correct. Morality and how we view it is subjective and relative, it is only when it is applied on a societal context that a common ground has to be achieved to be able to establish a collective morality that can serve all.
BTW, has the bible also not convinced you christians that the heinous acts of your god, yahweh, is moral and just?

davidylan:

that's absurd. Hypothetical example - if God were to bring down a moral code . . . would he not give it to humans? wouldnt that then count as morality originating from humans?

If there is a god that gives moral codes then why do we have different moral codes?. . . .Different religions have different moral codes and they all claim that those codes came from their various gods. . . . .If moral codes come from god then why are moral code of conduct always evolving?. . . . .Why are some of the moral codes in the bible considered to be unacceptable or immoral today?. . . . .

When you foolishly ask for "evidence" that a supreme deity hands down a moral code to humans you forget that you dont even believe that a supreme being exists in the first place . . . it is impossible for me to provide evidence that my father paid my school fees when you dont even believe i have a father in the first place.

Lets assume that I do not accept that you have a father, but insist that he paid your school fees, All that will be required of you is to show me some evidence like the telex copy from the bank he used to remit the funds to your school account and his description. If I really feel like checking I could call the bank and ask them if the sender matches your description, If the ban corrobrates your story then I will just have to accept your evidence.

When all you have as evidence for god sending down moral code of conduct is nothing other than what a particular group humans choose to write down and accept within their culture then you have NOT provided any evidence to show that that code of conduct came from any where other than that particular group of people. . . . . .All human code of conduct originated from humans. . . . .

mazaje:

And who wrote the koran and the hadith?. . . . .

That i copy a book does not mean i am the original author.

mazaje:

Sure, If you could convince your family that stealing is morally right then YES to you and your family it will be morally right, Just like those cannibals or those that used to kill their twin babies were able to convince themselves and others around them that those actions were morally right. . People have convinced themselves and others that stoning to death people that commit adultery is right but does that make it right in the eyes of those that do not see things that way?. . . The ability to justify or convice people is what makes actions morally acceptable or unacceptable. A simple case is that of pork.

makes no sense. No matter how much you "convince" your family, the police will still put you behind bars.

mazaje:

In times of natural disasters.

Again false . . . wonder why the Chilean police was busy arresting looters last week. They had the largest earthquake ever recorded.

mazaje:

You don't even know what you are talking about. That action is nothing but STEALING no matter how you try to sugar coat it. Why don't we see the present IDF taking the spoils of war when engaging with the palestinians or the hamas militants?. . . .Why is the USA not taking spoils of war in afganistan or iraq?. . . .You see, you have just supported my argument. Here you are justfying a clear act of theft by saying that it is not theft but taking the spoils of war. . . .The only thing you have done here is convince yourself that their action it is not theft, but in reality IT IS. . . . .  

This is not a case of "sugar-coating", it is simply common sense. If you vanquish your enemy . . . you cant be "stealing" from him since he's not even alive anymore or is probably now your prisoner.

mazaje:

What applies to Chile might not apply to all societies, If the govenrment of Chile fails to provide relief materials for the people and leaves them off to die of hunger or diseases, then it has no right to prescute them for looting. The govenment will only have such a right after it must have made arrangements of provided adequte measures to take care of those affected. If the government leaves its people without helping them, then looting to survice will be justified and will not be considered immoral.

looters are arrested everywhere. Katrina and the last tsunami of 2005 was a good example. Continue digging . . .