jagunlabi:

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?

What are you trying to convey here?

mazaje:

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?. . . . .

this "question" does not make sense . . . because in the very next sentence you say - claim that those codes came from their various gods

Since you already admit that different groups believe in various (disimilar) gods then why are you surprised that the moral codes will be different?

mazaje:

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.

That is no concrete proof that my father paid my school fees, you could argue that someone else forged his signature.

mazaje:

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. . . . .

No one is providing any evidence to you . . . you have your own set of moral codes, you're not forced to live by those of others. Last i checked you're the one who started the thread . . . no one was particularly bothered with whether you live by moral codes or not.

davidylan:

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

Lets cut the chase, humans wrote the koran, hadith and all that is in it. . . . . .

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

That is why morality is not objective. . . .There are people of middle eastern origins living in the west that still believe in honour killing despite the fact that it is unacceptable in such societies. To those living in the west such acts will be considered immoral but does that make it immoral to those that have been convinced its right?. . . . .

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

The Chilean police went at the looters because they govenment must have provided relief material and other means of help to the victims else, it will not be considred an immoral act if the people were left without any kind of help at all. . . .

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.

And why is the USA NOT taking spoils of war in afganistan? Why are the present day IDF not taking spoils of war in palestine and lebanon?. . . . .

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

Looters are arrested ONLY when the govenment makes arrangement for people, if the people were left on their own with no support from the government it will not be considered as looting, it will be considered as trying to survive in harsh condtions. . . . .

mazaje:

Lets cut the chase, humans wrote the koran, hadith and all that is in it. . . . . .

Your opinion.

mazaje:

That is why morality is not objective. . . .There are people of middle eastern origins living in the west that still believe in honour killing despite the fact that it is unacceptable in such societies. To those living in the west such acts will be considered immoral but does that make it immoral to those that have been convinced its right?. . . . .

Murder is against the law in western societies . . . that cannot be considered "moral" law. Murder is ALSO considered a crime in middle eastern countries . . . you cant wake up, kill your neighbour and hide under "honor killing".

Similar to ME law, i can kill and claim self defence . . .

mazaje:

The Chilean police went at the looters because they govenment must have provided relief material and other means of help to the victims else, it  will not be considred an immoral act if the people were left without any kind of help at all. . . .

This is basically bogus. Its your opinion not backed up by any facts.

mazaje:

And why is the USA NOT taking spoils of war in afganistan? Why are the present day IDF not taking spoils of war in palestine and lebanon?. . . . .

Absolutely absurd. When you referenced spoils of war as stealing you used the biblical accounts of Jewish wars as reference . . . that took place over 3000 yrs ago . . .

1. Its silly to compare what happened 3000 yrs ago to what obtains today.

2. The USA and its allies basically looted Germany's nuclear program after WWII and it was ok considering Germany had just surrendered in battle. It was NOT and has NEVER been considered stealing.

mazaje:

Looters are arrested ONLY when the govenment makes arrangement for people, if the people were left on their own with no support from the government it will not be considered as looting, it will be considered as trying to survive in harsh condtions. . . . .

again more baseless opinionating.

davidylan:

What are you trying to convey here?

Davidylan, what i have been trying to point out to you all this time is that the matter of morality is not a matter of black and white, but a lot more complex because of the grey areas that are obviously involved.You own approach to morality is based on supernatural subjectivity.Whatever god's will is is what is moral.This is absolutely fallacious in every possible way.

And you have continued to dodge my questions which does not surprise me because i know you have no convincing ansers to them.

jagunlabi:

Davidylan, what i have been trying to point out to you all this time is that the matter of morality is not a matter of black and white, but a lot more complex because of the grey areas that is obviously involved.You own approach to morality is based on supernatural subjectivity.Whatever god's will is is what is moral.This is absolutely fallacious in every possible way.

1. I never said it was any color.

2. I have NEVER stated my personal approach to morality, i have only taken up Mazaje's arguments. How you know that my approach is based on "supernatural subjectivity" beats me. If you see where i stated that pls let me know.

davidylan:

this "question" does not make sense . . . because in the very next sentence you say - claim that those codes came from their various gods

Since you already admit that different groups believe in various (disimilar) gods then why are you surprised that the moral codes will be different?

This is my point exactly, since moral codes originates from humans and what they choose to accept or convince themselves to be moral or immoral, it is only normal that you you have different moral codes in different human societies. . . . . .

That is no concrete proof that my father paid my school fees, you could argue that someone else forged his signature.

No one is providing any evidence to you . . . you have your own set of moral codes, you're not forced to live by those of others. Last i checked you're the one who started the thread . . . no one was particularly bothered with whether you live by moral codes or not.

All these flawed reasoning is tiring. . . . .My point is, Morality is originates from humans, It is NOT objective and varies from places to place. . . . .All moral code of conducts evolved and are still evolving. . . . .Example, I doubt if there is anything like war crime 100 years ago, But now there is such a thing as war crime geneva convention and what not. . . . .There is now a thing called conventional ways of engagement even when wars are fought, 100 years ago no such thing existed, people kill and keep killing in wars, They take spoils of war and live comfortably with their actions. . . . .

mazaje:

This is my point exactly, since moral codes originates from humans and what they choose to accept or convince themselves to be moral or immoral, it is only normal that you you have different moral codes in different human societies. . . . . .

You seem to be confused . . .

if moral codes originate from humans = you will get different moral codes for different human societies.

HOWEVER if moral codes originate from a divine source = you will get different moral codes for different human societies because (as you acknowledged) everyone else believes in a separate disimilar divine source.

For instance, the moral codes for arabs in Africa, middle east and asia are virtually the same . . . where they all a homogenous people from whom their moral codes originated or is this a direct result of having a common religion?

Moral codes for christians in Niger, Congo, Sweden and China are very similar . . . are we all the same people too?

mazaje:

All these flawed reasoning is tiring. . . . .My point is, Morality is originates from humans, It is NOT objective and varies from places to place. . . . .All moral code of conducts evolved and are still evolving. . . . .Example, I doubt if there is anything like war crime 100 years ago, But now there is such a thing as war crime geneva convention and what not. . . . .There is now a thing called conventional ways of engagement even when wars are fought, 100 years ago no such thing existed, people kill and keep killing in wars, They take spoils of war and live comfortably with their actions. . . . .

you havent proven that point. All you've done is restate it like a broken record.

What has war crimes to do with this by the way? Is that also a "moral" code or a secular convention based on shared principles?

davidylan:


2. I have NEVER stated my personal approach to morality, i have only taken up Mazaje's arguments. How you know that my approach is based on "supernatural subjectivity" beats me. If you see where i stated that pls let me know.

Oh, please.Are you not a christian?A fundermentalist one at that?It does not take a degree to know from which angle you approach morality.You fundies are all alike in your thinking.

jagunlabi:

Oh, please.Are you not a christian?A fundermentalist one at that?It does not take a degree to know from which angle you approach morality.You fundies are all alike in your thinking.

Baseless opinionating at its best.

davidylan:

Your opinion.

Its not just my opinion, It is a FACT, humans wrote the koran, hadith and all that is in it. . . . . . .There is MORE than enough evidence that points to that FACT. . . . .

Murder is against the law in western societies . . . that cannot be considered "moral" law. Murder is ALSO considered a crime in middle eastern countries . . . you cant wake up, kill your neighbour and hide under "honor killing".

Murder false under morality. Honor killing is NOT immoral to those that accept and believe in it. . . . .That it is wrong to you does NOT mean it is wrong to them and those that have convinced themselves and others that it is right. . . . .

This is basically bogus. Its your opinion not backed up by any facts.

OK, What ever. . . . .

Absolutely absurd. When you referenced spoils of war as stealing you used the biblical accounts of Jewish wars as reference . . . that took place over 3000 yrs ago . . .

1. Its silly to compare what happened 3000 yrs ago to what obtains today.

Human morality on how they engage in wars have evolved since then . . . . .

2. The USA and its allies basically looted Germany's nuclear program after WWII and it was ok considering Germany had just surrendered in battle. It was NOT and has NEVER been considered stealing.

Nuclear program is different from people means of lively hood. . . . .

mazaje:

Its not just my opinion, It is a FACT, humans wrote the koran, hadith and all that is in it. . . . . . .There is MORE than enough evidence that points to that FACT. . . . .

humans wrote down words dictated to them by a deity. Take that up with the muslims.

mazaje:

Murder false under morality. Honor killing is NOT immoral to those that accept and believe in it. . . . .That it is wrong to you does NOT mean it is wrong to them and those that have convinced themselves and others that it is right. . . . .

Neither is killing in self defence. Next.

mazaje:

Human morality on how they engage in wars have evolved since then . . . . .

so what was the relevance in bringing both analogies up and asking us to compare them?

mazaje:

Nuclear program is different from people means of lively hood. . . . .

So it is only stealing when it comes to means of livelihood?

So if i come in and take your biro it isnt stealing right?

This argument is devolving into the realms of absurdity in the desperation to maintain a flawed point of view.

What exactly is this man saying?. . . . . .

davidylan:

You seem to be confused . . .

if moral codes originate from humans = you will get different moral codes for different human societies.

YES. . . . . . .

HOWEVER if moral codes originate from a divine source = you will get different moral codes for different human societies because (as you acknowledged) everyone else believes in a separate disimilar divine source.

If moral codes originate from a divine source you will get the same moral codes of conducts everywhere. . . . .

For instance, the moral codes for arabs in Africa, middle east and asia are virtually the same . . . where they all a homogenous people from whom their moral codes originated or is this a direct result of having a common religion?

The moral codes for the muslims amongst the arabs will be the same because they share the same religion but that it self might vary from place to place. . . . . Arab moslems who were raised and are living in a secular african country will not have the same moral codes like say an arab moslem who was raised and is living in saudi arabia. . . . .

Moral codes for christians in Niger, Congo, Sweden and China are very similar . . . are we all the same people too?

They moral codes might be similar but they are not the same amongst the christians living in those countries. . . .Due to the economic hardship that is obtainable in african countries like nigeria child labour might not be considered an immoral thing to the christians living there, because some send their little children as young as 7 to hawk goods on the streets to make ends meet and they do not consider than an immoral act, but a christian living in sweden will consider that action to be highly immoral. . . . . .

you havent proven that point. All you've done is restate it like a broken record.

I have and went on to show that is the reason why morality is not objective and varies from place to place. . . .

What has war crimes to do with this by the way? Is that also a "moral" code or a secular convention based on shared principles?

Everything, I was just illustrating how human moral code of conduct are evolving. . . .

mazaje:

If moral codes originate from a divine source you will get the same moral codes of conducts everywhere. . . . .

Baseless. This will only happen if everyone has EXACTLY the same divine source. You acknowledged that was not so in an earlier post. Revisit it.

mazaje:

The moral codes for the muslims amongst the arabs will be the same because they share the same religion but that it self might vary from place to place. . . . . Arab moslems who were raised and are living in a secular african country will not have the same moral codes like say an arab moslem was raised and is living in saudi arabia. . . . .

you're confusing "moral code" with secular laws of the country. For instance the hausa man in Kano wont be ruled by the same laws that apply to an arab in Saudi Arabia. while Saudi is a muslim country, Nigeria regards itself as a multi-religious society. Honor killings is against the law here.

mazaje:

They moral codes might be similar but they are not the same amongst the christians living in those countries. . . .Due to the economic hardship that is obtainable in african countries like nigeria child labour might not be considered an immoral thing to the christians living there, because some send their little children as young as 7 to hawk good on the streets and they do not consider than an immoral act, but a christian living in sweden will consider that action to be highly immoral. . . . . .

There is no christian moral code that outlaws "child labour".

mazaje:

I have and went on to show that is the reason why morality is not objective and varies from place to place. . . .

show? really? quite funny.

mazaje:

Everything, I was just illustrating how human moral code of conduct are evolving. . . .

We know already. next

davidylan:
There is no christian moral code that outlaws "child labour".

King David:

you make a very good point here.

A related one: there's no Christian moral code that outlaws slavery.

Very moral, this moral code.
.

davidylan:

Baseless. This will only happen if everyone has EXACTLY the same divine source. You acknowledged that was not so in an earlier post. Revisit it.

The problem is that there is no "divine" source for morality, Humans create or make moral systems. . . . .

you're confusing "moral code" with secular laws of the country. For instance the hausa man in Kano wont be ruled by the same laws that apply to an arab in Saudi Arabia. while Saudi is a muslim country, Nigeria regards itself as a multi-religious society. Honor killings is against the law here.

Moral code of conduct is simply whatever your society accepts as proper or not proper . . . . . . There is no objective morality. I can imagine a society where people have become accustomed to the idea of having sacrificial ceremonies for the elderly or incapacitated. I can even see it getting to the point that the elderly or incapacitated believe wholeheartedly that it is the "Good" thing to do for the health of the economy and society in general. That doesn't seem good to me, but there have been many beliefs about good which have caused horrific things to be accepted as necessary and "good". Do you think that the majority of Germans who escorted Jews to the gas chamber only did so because they were ordered too? Many of them actually believed wholeheartedly that it was the "good" thing to do for their nation. "Good" can be anything as long as it is perceived and accepted as proper.

There is no christian moral code that outlaws "child labour".

It doesn't have to be christian. . . .societal moral code of conducts supercedes religions moral code of conducts sometimes. . . . .

show? really? quite funny.

Humans choose to accept what is good or bad to them based on their reasoning abilities and ability to convince themselves and others. . . . . .All moral code of conducts were created by humans. . . . .

Morality is always subjective and varies from culture to culture. it could be based on practical necessity like incest, or dogmatic assertions, nevertheless, its foolish to conclude that morality originates from a divine source, when they are all inconsistent in content. behaviour considered as moral in the past is sometimes unacceptable today. e.g child marriage.
an atheist's moral code would centre on what is beneficial or harmful to him or her.

davidylan:

You seem to be confused . . .

if moral codes originate from humans = you will get different moral codes for different human societies.

HOWEVER if moral codes originate from a divine source = you will get different moral codes for different human societies because (as you acknowledged) everyone else believes in a separate disimilar divine source.

For instance, the moral codes for arabs in Africa, middle east and asia are virtually the same . . . where they all a homogenous people from whom their moral codes originated or is this a direct result of having a common religion?

Moral codes for christians in Niger, Congo, Sweden and China are very similar . . . are we all the same people too?

you havent proven that point. All you've done is restate it like a broken record.

What has war crimes to do with this by the way?  Is that also a "moral" code or a secular convention based on shared principles?

unlike in the past, warfare is thought to be subjected to certain reasonable rules,despite its violent nature. the fact that it is enshrined in a statute or international resolution, does not imply that it was not born of morality. it need not be unwritten.
if morals are from different divine sources, doesn't it back the presumption that it is man-made.

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!

Morality isn't set in stone. If you have any evidence to show that it is then you can go ahead and do so.

it is not a question of function, but origin and it is inconceivable to think an entity in the sky imposes moral rules which in no practical manner does it affect him. morality is a necessity in every society.

Kay 17:

it is not a question of function, but origin and it is inconceivable to think an entity in the sky imposes moral rules which in no practical manner does it affect him. morality is a necessity in every society.

I just don't get it when some Christians like davidylan ridiculously claim that their god is the source of all moral or some objective moral code of conduct. That argument is AWFUL. If objective morality exits(which it doesn't) then the god of the bible does not exists. When we appeal to our moral intuitions nowadays we all intuitively "know" and agree that things like rape, slavery, child abuse etc are wrong. But this is exactly what makes davidlylan's case so absurd! Because davidylan's candidate for the source of morality is a character described in the bible. And yet the bible is FILLED with the God of the bible producing acts and injunctions that strike many of us and a great many christians included as being against our moral intuitions.

It's like saying we all agree that math is valid and objective so there must be a great mathematician from which math flows. And then saying "Hey, I've got the best candidate for who that mathematician might be, here he is described in this old book!" But the character in the book is found espousing all manner of wrong mathematics, like 2 +2 = 5. If you are appealing to the objectivity of mathematical formulations like 2 + 2 = 5 as a starting point for the existence of a great mathematician, it sure invalidates any candidate who isn't getting math right.

It's also ironic that people can go right to the bible and find God making commands of exactly the type we living in the west will all understand to be "moral abominations" for instance child abuse and slavery are obvious moral wrongs in most western societies. We would call any parent who beat to death or stone to death his children for talking back to him a child abuser or a parent that sells his child into slavery a crazy person. Yet this is what God asks Jews to do in the old testament, directly violating our modern moral intuitions. This character is getting the "moral math" wrong and therefore can't be a candidate for the source of our modern day "objective" moral intuitions if anything like that were to exists.

toneyb:

I just don't get it when some Christians like davidylan ridiculously claim that their god is the source of all moral or some objective moral code of conduct. That argument is AWFUL. If objective morality exits(which it doesn't) then the god of the bible does not exists. When we appeal to our moral intuitions nowadays we all intuitively "know" and agree that things like despoil, slavery, child abuse etc are wrong. But this is exactly what makes davidlylan's case so absurd! Because davidylan's candidate for the source of morality is a character described in the bible. And yet the bible is FILLED with  the God of the bible producing acts and injunctions that strike many of us  and a great many christians included as being against our moral intuitions.

It's like saying we all agree that math is valid and objective so there must be a great mathematician from which math flows. And then saying "Hey, I've got the best candidate for who that mathematician might be, here he is described in this old book!" But the character in the book is found espousing all manner of wrong mathematics, like 2 +2 = 5. If you are appealing to the objectivity of mathematical formulations like 2 + 2 = 5 as a starting point for the existence of a great mathematician, it sure invalidates any candidate who isn't getting math right.

It's also ironic that people can go right to the bible and find God making commands of exactly the type we living in the west will all understand to be "moral abominations"  for instance child abuse and slavery are obvious moral wrongs in most western societies. We would call any parent who beat to death or stone to death his children for talking back to him a child abuser or a parent that sells his child into slavery a crazy person. Yet this is what God asks Jews to do in the old testament, directly violating our modern moral intuitions. This character is getting the "moral math" wrong and therefore can't be a candidate for the source of our modern day "objective" moral intuitions if anything like that were to exists.

1. your argument is fundamentally FLAWED simply because u choose to mix up morality and laws together.
morals differ greatly from laws. . .but laws are deduced from moral values. take for instance we all believe that it is morally wrong to kill/execute any man under any circumstance. . . . but the laws of the land states that prisoners of war or persons guilty of murder must be executed by firing squad.
does this execution violate moral codes and standards?. . .YES it does cos we all subconsciously adhere to "thou shall not kill".
would society be a better place if there are no laws? . . nope.
would society be a better place if the laws of the land are not implemented. . .nope.
Laws and moral values are different. . . .they differ and cannot be weighed on the same pedestal. This is to highlight the flaws in your notion that the bible God was morally debauched.

The (moral) values of God as depicted in the bible are very very universal and applicable to several generations. that explains the relevance of these values (depicted as holiness, faith, uprightness et all) in an age like ours. . . .an age that has outlived the antideluvian races around which the biblical years were formed.

The 613 laws of moses are NOT the moral values of God. they CANNOT be used as a measuring standard for God's moral inscription to man. The laws were deduced from the moral values of God. these moral values preceded the laws.
we saw God condemn the killing of Abel. . .was there any law forbidding such killings as of then?
we saw the likes of Abraham and Enoch called "upright" by God . . . . .was there any law by which their righteousness was measured?. . Nope.

Righteousness (moral values) of God preceded the laws of moses. . .u cannot call those laws the morality of God.

2. perhaps u need to clearly define what u mean by objective morality?
u must bear in my mind that "objectivity" itself is subject to some elements of sentiments. take for instance. . how would anyone decide that a moral value is objective?. .  . .especially when u consider the diversity of human beliefs and cultures which naturally influences norms (which are mistaken for human values).

3. the likes of slavery et all were proceeds of war. ,  just as oil fields and gold deposits are the proceeds of war in  this age.
with regards to slavery. . . God's acclaimed morality can be measured. God asks that (hebrew) slaves be released after 6 years (exodus 21). while there was also several laws given by God to protect slaves . . . . .prominent commandments/laws calls for peaceful co-existence amongst the people of God.

noetic16:

1. your argument is fundamentally FLAWED simply because u choose to mix up morality and laws together.

Let me give you a definition of morality as defined on Wikipedia. "Morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society." It goes on to say that "For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because they are thought to cause benefit or harm, but it is possible that many moral beliefs are based on prejudice, ignorance or even hatred.". Morality is simply that which distinguishes between right and wrong. Laws are also a form of moral code of conduct.

morals differ greatly from laws. . .but laws are deduced from moral values

.

No they don't. Ever heard of moral laws?

take for instance we all believe that it is morally wrong to kill/execute any man under any circumstance

FALSE because it's NOT every body that shares this belief.

. . . . but the laws of the land states that prisoners of war or persons guilty of murder must be executed by firing squad.

Its not every land that has this law.

does this execution violate moral codes and standards?. . .YES it does cos we all subconsciously adhere to "thou shall not kill".

Killing as a means of self defense is allowed in some places. A lot of people believe that killing their enemies is the right thing to do.

would society be a better place if there are no laws? . . nope.
would society be a better place if the laws of the land are not implemented. . .nope.
Laws and moral values are different. . . .they differ and cannot be weighed on the same pedestal. This is to highlight the flaws in your notion that the bible God was morally debauched.

Laws and moral values are the same. Stealing is a law and a moral value, Child abuse is also a law and a moral value same with despoil, extortion, drunk driving etc, But these moral values differ from place to place. Laws and moral values are the same. They can not be separated.

The (moral) values of God as depicted in the bible are very very universal and applicable to several generations.

VERY FALSE. Calling the name of Yahweh in vain is of no importance or meaning to a Hindu.

that explains the relevance of these values (depicted as holiness, faith, uprightness et all) in an age like ours. . . .an age that has outlived the antideluvian races around which the biblical years were formed.

Holiness and faith are of no use to a buddist or some other person whose religion does not share those attributes.

The 613 laws of moses are NOT the moral values of God. they CANNOT be used as a measuring standard for God's moral inscription to man. The laws were deduced from the moral values of God. these moral values preceded the laws.

The laws of moses ARE the moral laws of God of the bible. Its funny that you are now trying to throw what the bible says under the bus. If the laws of moses are not the moral laws of Yahweh then what are they?

we saw God condemn the killing of Abel. . .was there any law forbidding such killings as of then?
we saw the likes of Abraham and Enoch called "upright" by God . . . . .was there any law by which their righteousness was measured?. . Nope.

The same God that condemned the killing of Abel also urged his chosen men to kill others no? I don't really understand the point you are trying to make here.

Righteousness (moral values) of God preceded the laws of moses. . .u cannot call those laws the morality of God.

Yahweh's moral values ARE the laws of moses.

2. perhaps u need to clearly define what u mean by objective morality?
u must bear in my mind that "objectivity" itself is subject to some elements of sentiments. take for instance. . how would anyone decide that a moral value is objective?. .  . .especially when u consider the diversity of human beliefs and cultures which naturally influences norms (which are mistaken for human values).

I was careful to state that I was talking hypothetically and that morality is not objective, It varies from place to place as explained by mazaje.

3. the likes of slavery et all were proceeds of war. ,  just as oil fields and gold deposits are the proceeds of war in  this age.
with regards to slavery. . . God's acclaimed morality can be measured. God asks that (hebrew) slaves be released after 6 years (exodus 21). while there was also several laws given by God to protect slaves . . . . .prominent commandments/laws calls for peaceful co-existence amongst the people of God.

Isn't it the same god that gave laws(moral values) on how people are to go about when selling their daughters into slavery?

To answer the question of morality these are some of the things we need to have in our minds.

1)Morality is not absolute rather it is relative because it is arrived at by way of trial and error over period of whole human existence by various human groups. Some moral values have changed with time that is what was moral between a group of people once upon a time in a place may not be moral at another time in a different place or amongst a different people.

2)Absolute morality was never a tribal concept rather it is a religious concept based upon belief in all knowing gods who revealed to people how they should conduct themselves. However, even religious people are not able to agree as to what is moral and what is not. Different religious people have different beliefs and laws etc.

3)Morals that survive the test of the time may well become wide spread and one day may become universal when all groups of people find them equally useful.

4)Just as we humans learned through exploring what we should eat or drink etc etc so we learned what rules were better for us to live than having no rules at all. Rules came about because people as individuals could not exist on their own and being interdependent creature we became organized in to groups and rules just came about all by themselves. That is because earlier humans were not that self conscious or self aware as we are today. For example, leave some kids on their own in a place where they have means to survive and watch them how they form into a group and each of them becomes aware of ones strengths and weaknesses relative to others and so they fall in to place.

Or this very forum is an example of how we became organized into a discussion group and see how the rules of this forum came about. Need is mother of invention. For example, a person ate something and died because it was poisonous so others became aware that they should not do this seeing what happened to the person who did that. Like a baby he puts his hand in the fire and when learns it burns he does not do that again because it hurts him. This baby then warns others not to do what he did.

5)Some time when there is a debate between atheists and theists, theist always bring in question of morality that is how do atheists get their morals.

The simple answer is where do the religious get their morality from ie make it up as we go along through trial and error. No theist as yet managed to prove existence of his/her god. Moreover they too have laws of abrogation ie their gods changed laws with time just like us atheists.

6)We humans define all things objectively for our own use. Things that are irrelevant for us we pay no attention to them because we have no use for them. Morality only matters for a group or groups. In a group individuals have to live by a code of conduct or custom that helps the group to be at peace within so that it survives and prospers. Likewise morality could become relevant between groups if their interaction becomes inevitable ie there has to be a basis for their successful interaction.

toneyb:

Let me give you a definition of morality as defined on Wikipedia. "Morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society." It goes on to say that "For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because they are thought to cause benefit or harm, but it is possible that many moral beliefs are based on prejudice, ignorance or even hatred.". Morality is simply that which distinguishes between right and wrong. Laws are also a form of moral code of conduct.
.

No they don't. Ever heard of moral laws?

here we go again. . . toneyb running round in circles.

Are morals not legally distinguished from laws?. . . . . . .
is it morally right to . . ,  . a. disqualify a person from running from president because he aint 40 years old in nigeria?
b. tell an employer the barest minimum he can pay a person?
c. limit competition in certain areas of the economy, thus creating monopolies?
d. refuse to give students free education?
e. practise communism?

which of the above a-e has any link to moral codes of right or wrong?. . .they are neither right or wrong, but are LAWS of certain countries. morality my dear DIFFERS on a large scale to LAWS.

FALSE because it's NOT every body that shares this belief.

Its not every land that has this law.

Killing as a means of self defense is allowed in some places. A lot of people believe that killing their enemies is the right thing to do.

u miss the point there. the point is that while the law of the land prescribes a punishment for an offence. . the punishment in itself is immoral by the standards of the land. would the land be better off enforcing its laws, or ignoring them for the sake of morality?. . .that was my simple poser to u.

Laws and moral values are the same. Stealing is a law and a moral value, Child abuse is also a law and a moral value same with despoil, extortion, drunk driving etc, But these moral values differ from place to place. Laws and moral values are the same. They can not be separated.

this is OUTRAGEOUSLY FALSE.

The laws of a country are reflected from the history of that country. the 25th amendment was as a result of Wilson's terminal illness. Nigeria's national assembly is debating a similar law as a result of the present scenarios in the country. this shows that laws are a product of necessity, they have a starting point and are repealable. This is quite unlike morals.
morals are universal codes of conduct embedded in the human conscience. morals date as far back as the first family on earth.
when abel was killed. . . .Cain knew he did wrong, yet there was no law prohibiting him from doing so. why then did cain feel guilty?

Morals are as old as man. Laws are man-made. They are therefore not the same.

VERY FALSE. Calling the name of Yahweh in vain is of no importance or meaning to a Hindu.

God's name does not have to be called. . .the question is. . .does the hindu have a conscience? who gave it to him/her?

Holiness and faith are of no use to a buddist or some other person whose religion does not share those attributes.

The laws of moses ARE the moral laws of God of the bible. Its funny that you are now trying to throw what the bible says under the bus. If the laws of moses are not the moral laws of Yahweh then what are they?

The same God that condemned the killing of Abel also urged his chosen men to kill others no? I don't really understand the point you are trying to make here.

Yahweh's moral values ARE the laws of moses.

I was careful to state that I was talking hypothetically and that morality is not objective, It varies from place to place as explained by mazaje.

Isn't it the same god that gave laws(moral values) on how people are to go about when selling their daughters into slavery?

1. my reference to holiness and faith is a justification of my point that laws do have a beginning.  otherwise by what standard was the pre-moses generation judged? by what laws?

2. The laws of moses are NOT the moral standard of God. The bible talks about the descendants of Esau (the edomites) as a people of God, who the children of Israel were forbidden to war against. how did these people become a people of God? since moses was not their prophet, did they have another intermediary to God? did this intermediary receive laws from God as moses did? how? when? why? if he did not recieve laws, how then were the edomites able to live by God's words to be called a people of God.

my dear your assertion in referring the laws of moses to the moral values of God is without any factual basis.

3. if u followed my primordial post, I did state clearly that laws are deduced from moral values. God telling the children of Israel how to deal with their slaves was God giving laws by virtue of His morality.

toneyb:

To answer the question of morality these are some of the things we need to have in our minds.

1)Morality is not absolute rather it is relative because it is arrived at by way of trial and error over period of whole human existence by various human groups. Some moral values have changed with time that is what was moral between a group of people once upon a time in a place may not be moral at another time in a different place or amongst a different people.

The above is FALSE.
u are mixing norms with morals. that a particular act was the trend 500 years ago and the opposite is now the case, does not refer to evolving morality but norms. many years ago igbos abandoned twins in the forest cos they assumed they were evil. The act then was immoral (which prompted mary and others to change that trend) and it is still immoral today in 2010.

the act of throwing babies into an evil forest was a NORM and nor a reflection of moral values. morals are universal, norms and laws are subject to change.

2)Absolute morality was never a tribal concept rather it is a religious concept based upon belief in all knowing gods who revealed to people how they should conduct themselves. However, even religious people are not able to agree as to what is moral and what is not. Different religious people have different beliefs and laws etc.

how do u explain the universal nature of the human conscience and moral values? why do non-religious people also think it is bad to steal?

3)Morals that survive the test of the time may well become wide spread and one day may become universal when all groups of people find them equally useful.

and whats the basis of the above? can u establish the very beginning and demise of any moral value?

4)Just as we humans learned through exploring what we should eat or drink etc etc so we learned what rules were better for us to live than having no rules at all. Rules came about because people as individuals could not exist on their own and being interdependent creature we became organized in to groups and rules just came about all by themselves. That is because earlier humans were not that self conscious or self aware as we are today. For example, leave some kids on their own in a place where they have means to survive and watch them how they form into a group and each of them becomes aware of ones strengths and weaknesses relative to others and so they fall in to place.

Or this very forum is an example of how we became organized into a discussion group and see how the rules of this forum came about. Need is mother of invention. For example, a person ate something and died because it was poisonous so others became aware that they should not do this seeing what happened to the person who did that. Like a baby he puts his hand in the fire and when learns it burns he does not do that again because it hurts him. This baby then warns others not to do what he did.

while the above explains the existence of laws. . ot does not explain the existence of morality. how do u explain morality in a state of anarchy?

5)Some time when there is a debate between atheists and theists, theist always bring in question of morality that is how do atheists get their morals.

The simple answer is where do the religious get their morality from ie make it up as we go along through trial and error. No theist as yet managed to prove existence of his/her god. Moreover they too have laws of abrogation ie their gods changed laws with time just like us atheists.

atheists CANNOT explain the source of their morals simply because they have a conscience.

noetic16:

The above is FALSE.
u are mixing norms with morals. that a particular act was the trend 500 years ago and the opposite is now the case, does not refer to evolving morality but norms. many years ago igbos abandoned twins in the forest cos they assumed they were evil. The act then was immoral (which prompted mary and others to change that trend) and it is still immoral today in 2010.

I thought before an act can be passed off as the "NORM" in a society, it has to have been pushed through some sort of moral scrutiny and passed with flying colors.If a society does not see an act as moral, i don't see how it can become a norm.

jagunlabi:

I thought before an act can be passed off as the "NORM" in a society, it has to have been pushed through some sort of moral scrutiny and passed with flying colors.If a society does not see an act as moral, i don't see how it can become a norm.

why is "yahoo yahoo" a norm amongst nigerian youths? is fraud morally justifiable?

noetic16:

here we go again. . . toneyb running round in circles.

What is noetic arguing about?

Are morals not legally distinguished from laws?. . . . . . .

NO, NO and NO. They are the same. Here is what morality means. "Morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society." Laws are made to uphold societal moral values.

is it morally right to . . ,  . a. disqualify a person from running from president because he aint 40 years old in nigeria?

If the law of the land stipulates that the required age for contesting presidential office is 40, then any body under 40 that seeks the office of the president has commited a moral offence.

b. tell an employer the barest minimum he can pay a person?

Any employer that pays his/her employee below what the minimum wage that is stipulated by the law of the land is has commited a moral offnce according to the law of the land.

c. limit competition in certain areas of the economy, thus creating monopolies?

If monopoly is an objection or a violation of the law, any body that violates such a law as commited a moral offence.

d. refuse to give students free education?

The failue of the govenment to provide free education in countries where the govenment has made it mandatory that they provide free education to its citizens is morally wrong and thus can be said to be a moral offence on the part of the govenment.

e. practise communism?

There is nothing morally wrong with communism as long as the people agree to liove by it and accept its principles. It might be considered morally wrong by those who do not accept that system of govenment.

which of the above a-e has any link to moral codes of right or wrong?. . .they are neither right or wrong, but are LAWS of certain countries. morality my dear DIFFERS on a large scale to LAWS.

They are ALL right or wrong depending on weather a group of people choose to accept them as their moral code of conduct. Lets take the minimum wage issue, Once it has been determined by the govenment and made law it becomes morally reprehensible for any employer to violate it and pay less than what has been stipulated as the minimum wage.

u miss the point there. the point is that while the law of the land prescribes a punishment for an offence. . the punishment in itself is immoral by the standards of the land. would the land be better off enforcing its laws, or ignoring them for the sake of morality?. . .that was my simple poser to u.

Laws only enforce the moral views of people. Moral rules come about after a goal has been formed
It is the behavior that will have the best chance of allowing the people to reach the goal.That also shows why when there is no goal morality breaks down.

e.this is OUTRAGEOUSLY FALSE.

The laws of a country are reflected from the history of that country. the 25th amendment was as a result of Wilson's terminal illness. Nigeria's national assembly is debating a similar law as a result of the present scenarios in the country. this shows that laws are a product of necessity, they have a starting point and are repealable. This is quite unlike morals.

I am sorry to say but you don't know what you are saying. Laws are ways which a society upholds its moral standards.

morals are universal codes of conduct embedded in the human conscience. morals date as far back as the first family on earth.

This is VERY FALSE. There is nothing that is embedded in human conscience. People learn what to accept as morally right or wrong through trail and error. Tell me, Do the cannibals who mazaje allude to that ate the flesh of their enemies think they were doing something morally wrong? What about the Nigerian tribe who killed their twins? Do they believe they were doing something that was morally wrong? If morality is embedded in human conscience then why will a group of people decide to eat the flesh of another group of people? Why will some people choose to stone to death their disobedient children?

when abel was killed. . . .Cain knew he did wrong, yet there was no law prohibiting him from doing so. why then did cain feel guilty?

Humans have the ability to self reflect on their actions.

Morals are as old as man. Laws are man-made. They are therefore not the same.

Laws and morals are the same thing. Laws uphold what people choose as their moral values. People create their moral values and use their laws to uphold them.

God's name does not have to be called. . .the question is. . .does the hindu have a conscience? who gave it to him/her?

Their conscience like that of every human evolved. Why do parents spend a lot of time teaching their children the difference between right and wrong if their conscience is enough? Why not leave the conscience of their children to teach them all they need to know about morals? Morality must be learnt as mazaje said.

1. my reference to holiness and faith is a justification of my point that laws do have a beginning.  otherwise by what standard was the pre-moses generation judged? by what laws?

There are countless socities that lived in places like China, Indai, Egypt, North and South America thousand of years before Moses. They like every body learnt about their own morals. The pre moses generation set of moral code of conduct for themselves and used their own laws to uphold them.

2. The laws of moses are NOT the moral standard of God. The bible talks about the descendants of Esau (the edomites) as a people of God, who the children of Israel were forbidden to war against. how did these people become a people of God? since moses was not their prophet, did they have another intermediary to God? did this intermediary receive laws from God as moses did? how? when? why? if he did not recieve laws, how then were the edomites able to live by God's words to be called a people of God.

I do not accept anything the bible says as true. I thought the bible said that Yaheh created everybody? Why then do you find it difficult to accept that he called the people of Edom his people?

my dear your assertion in referring the laws of moses to the moral values of God is without any factual basis.

The laws of Moses were there to uphold the moral values of Yaweh according to the bible.

3. if u followed my primordial post, I did state clearly that laws are deduced from moral values. God telling the children of Israel how to deal with their slaves was God giving laws by virtue of His morality.

Laws are NOT deduced from moral values. Laws uphold the moral values of people.

noetic16:

atheists CANNOT explain the source of their morals simply because they have a conscience.

Consience it self had to be developed. Its wasn't set in stone at all. Our ability to self reflect as humans leads to what we call conscience. First comes self awareness then awareness of others with whom one finds oneself interacting. We only began making conscious rules when we got enough sense to do so. It was like we created an organization first and then wrote its constitution but as we got better and better in knowing things we became aware that we must decide objective or goal first before we do things to bring it about. In the beginning we were just aimless and wondering about just like babies till we found something that catched our eyes instinctively. If we found something interesting we remembered it otherwise we just moved on and so forth.

Babies are free of any sense of morality but they learn as they grow what is rewarding for them and what lands them into trouble, pain and suffering etc so from that they decide in which direction they should move next. All this goes to show that there was never any such thing as an absolute code of morals as religious people will have us believe. This is more obvious from the fact that individuals have different tastes and likes and dislikes and the same is true about groups. The conflict of interests leads to fights and whoever survives learns from that as to what they should or should not do next time. This is how rules and laws or constitutions come about and objectives or goals are decided.

In other words every time we accomplish something or wreck somethings we learn what we should or should not do next time ie we modify our behaviours as individuals or as a group or as groups.

ha haha,
abeg if I say I am an atheist does is mean I am morally deprived than the believers of
ancient books of myths?

toneyb:

What is noetic arguing about?

I should be the one asking u this question.

NO, NO and NO. They are the same. Here is what morality means. "Morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society." Laws are made to uphold societal moral values.

GBAM GBAM GBAM

from the above statement it is quite obvious that u understand the issue at discourse. Laws and morals are two completely different things. morals are independent of laws. . .but laws are derived from morals.

If the law of the land stipulates that the required age for contesting presidential office is 40, then any body under 40 that seeks the office of the president has commited a moral offence.

Any employer that pays his/her employee below what the minimum wage that is stipulated by the law of the land is has commited a moral offnce according to the law of the land.

If monopoly is an objection or a violation of the law, any body that violates such a law as commited a moral offence.

The failue of the govenment to provide free education in countries where the govenment has made it mandatory that they provide free education to its citizens is morally wrong and thus can be said to be a moral offence on the part of the govenment.

There is nothing morally wrong with communism as long as the people agree to liove by it and accept its principles. It might be considered morally wrong by those who do not accept that system of govenment.

They are ALL right or wrong depending on weather a group of people choose to accept them as their moral code of conduct. Lets take the minimum wage issue, Once it has been determined by the govenment and made law it becomes morally reprehensible for any employer to violate it and pay less than what has been stipulated as the minimum wage.

u have chosen to ignore the context in which the posers were raised. . thats misleading.

what is the moral crime commited if a 35 year old chooses to serve his nation in the capacity as president?
what is the moral crime commited by an entrepreneur who chooses to invest in a monopolitic sector?

The 35 year old and the entrepreneur have committed no moral crime . . . , their individual vision and ambitions are however limited by the laws of the land. This implies that morals and laws are NOT the same. That a case is morally right does not make it legally right. . .that a case is legally right does not make it morally right.

Laws only enforce the moral views of people. Moral rules come about after a goal has been formed
It is the behavior that will have the best chance of allowing the people to reach the goal.That also shows why when there is no goal morality breaks down.

I am sorry to say but you don't know what you are saying. Laws are ways which a society upholds its moral standards.

what is this?

do the police arrest people for lying to a friend or their spouse? . . it is morally wrong to lie to anyone. . .but the police do not arrest anyone for lying to a friend.
but the police arrests anyone who lies under oath. . .why? . . . .cos the laws says no one should lie to the judge or under oath.
this my dear, infers that the law does not enforce moral values. . the law is indifferent to moral values. the law (police) only enforces stipulated laws.

This is VERY FALSE. There is nothing that is embedded in human conscience. People learn what to accept as morally right or wrong through trail and error. Tell me, Do the cannibals who mazaje allude to that ate the flesh of their enemies think they were doing something morally wrong? What about the Nigerian tribe who killed their twins? Do they believe they were doing something that was morally wrong? If morality is embedded in human conscience then why will a group of people decide to eat the flesh of another group of people? Why will some people choose to stone to death their disobedient children?

and where is ur proof?

noetic16:

I should be the one asking u this question.

.

GBAM GBAM GBAM

from the above statement it is quite obvious that u understand the issue at discourse. Laws and morals are two completely different things. morals are independent of laws. . .but laws are derived from morals.

Laws are a reflection of moral values and code of conduct. You can not separate the two.

u have chosen to ignore the context in which the posers were raised. . thats misleading.

NO, I haven't and it is not misleading.

what is the moral crime commited if a 35 year old chooses to serve his nation in the capacity as president?

The moral crime is that the person is NOT eligible and as such has violated the established law.

what is the moral crime commited by an entrepreneur who chooses to invest in a monopolitic sector?

If the law is against monopoly and an entrepreneur decides to run into the monopoly venture then that entrepreneur has committed a moral offense.

The 35 year old and the entrepreneur have committed no moral crime

They have as long as they have broken the law(which is just a reflection of societal moral values)

do the police arrest people for lying to a friend or their spouse?

Yes, if your friends reports you to the authorities for lying or leading him astray you will be prosecuted.

. . it is morally wrong to lie to anyone. . .

but the police do not arrest anyone for lying to a friend.

It depends on the type of lie. If your friend reports you for telling lies in a business or some other venture you will be arrested.

but the police arrests anyone who lies under oath. . .why? . . . .cos the laws says no one should lie to the judge or under oath.

Sure.

this my dear, infers that the law does not enforce moral values. . the law is indifferent to moral values. the law (police) only enforces stipulated laws.

The law is a reflection of societal moral values.

and where is your proof?

Why do parents spend a lot of time teaching their children the difference between right and wrong and trying to enforce moral discipline in their wards? Why do they parents not just allow this conscience to guide their children and teach them all the moral values automatically? I will say it again that there is nothing that is embedded in human conscience. People learn what to accept as morally right or wrong through trail and error.


Here is what Ancient Greek philosopher called Democritus (ca. 460 BC – ca. 370 BC) had to say about the early man.

"Democritus thought that the first humans lived an anarchic and animal sort of life, going out to forage individually and living off the most palatable herbs and the fruit which grew wild on the trees. They were driven together into societies for fear of wild animals, he said. He believed that these early people had no language, but that they gradually began to articulate their expressions, establishing symbols for every sort of object, and in this manner came to understand each other. He says that the earliest men lived laboriously, having none of the utilities of life; clothing, houses, fire, domestication, and farming were unknown to them. Democritus presents the early period of mankind as one of learning by trial and error, [/b]and says that each step slowly lead to more discoveries; they took refuge in the caves in winter, stored fruits that could be preserved, [b]and through reason and keenness of mind came to build upon each new idea."

Human conscience came about as a result of trial and error. The ability for humans to self reflect or their actions was and still is the guiding principle of human morality and conscience.