budaatum:

Or a retrograde! Homosexuality is not new in India.

The British Raj criminalised anal sex and MouthAction (for both heterosexuals and homosexuals) under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which entered into force in 1861. This made it an offence for a person to voluntarily have "carnal intercourse against the order of nature." Wik

Also see LGBT themes in Hindu Epics

[So it seems morality is taught so that reasoning can upgrade. That's what religion and the Law is designed to do, to teach and guide people into the desired morality by those who have upgraded already, the teachers and guides.

When your thinking is well upgraded, religious garbages no longer influences your reasoning and one now sees that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and homosexual sex as long as it happens between two consenting adults. As I have said, reasoning and empathy/compassion govern morality. Empathy/compassion is innate and can't be taught while critical reasoning can be taught and influenced. Religious and cultural norms are not innate and have to be taught and since they influence reasoning, they influence an individual's moral compass.

Apt reasoning shows that religion is not a worthy moral guide.

@bold
No. Upgrading reasoning inevitably leads to an upgrade in morality but upgrading morality doesn't necessarily lead to an upgrade in reasoning because while reasoning (alongside empathy/compassion) governs morality, morality does not govern reasoning.

Martinez19:
When your thinking is well upgraded, religious garbages no longer influences your reasoning and one now sees that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and homosexual sex as long as it happens between two consenting adults. As I have said, reasoning and empathy/compassion govern morality. Empathy/compassion is innate and can't be taught while critical reasoning can be taught and influenced. Religious and cultural norms are not innate and have to be taught and since they influence reasoning, they influence an individual's moral compass.

Apt reasoning shows that religion is not a worthy moral guide.

@bold
No. Upgrading reasoning inevitably leads to an upgrade in morality but upgrading morality doesn't necessarily lead to an upgrade in reasoning because while reasoning (alongside empathy/compassion) governs morality, morality does not govern reasoning.

There has been no upgrade in the human brain for the last 200,000 years.

When you make remarks as the above, you imply morality as an innate universal objective quality we discover rather than fabricate.

johnydon22:
There has been no upgrade in the human brain for the last 200,000 years.

There has been a significant upgrade in human thought however.

johnydon22:
When you make remarks as the above, you imply morality as an innate universal objective quality we discover rather than fabricate.

I share your view. Even empathy and compassion is not innate as Martinez19 says it is, and has evolved over time from having it for ones family or tribe, to now having empathy and compassion for animals, the ocean and the planet, all which we had no compassion for heretofore.

budaatum:

There has been a significant upgrade in human thought however.


I share your view. Even empathy and compassion is not innate as Martinez19 says it is, and has evolved over time from having it for ones family or tribe, to now having empathy and compassion for animals, the ocean and the planet, all which we had no compassion for heretofore.

What if compassion or empathy is innate, what makes it good? why is it good? This is the question Martinez is not asking. Why is something good?

His ideas implies "good" as something we discover and not simply a fabrication of ours given effect because we believe it.

It's an emotional idea, nice but quite naive.

Martinez19 oya come here and defend ya seff

johnydon22:
Nope. ideological shift.

No. it is not ignorance. The Hammurabi code, probably the oldest moral codec written begins with a declaration of divine right to the King to lead the people fairly and justly.

He spelled out the classes of people; Elites, common people and slaves. This hierarchy comes with its weight on the civil treatment of individuals and the limits of their rights or the weight of their worth.

Slavery was legal and moral in the past because everyone believed in that myth. it is illegal and immoral now because everyone believes it is now.

The morality of the past is no less superior to the morality of today because if you argue that slavery in the past is wrong you are only using a benchmark of the present and if you argue that slavery intoto is wrong you are making an objective argument, i am sorry but there is no universal or natural inclination that supports your argument. Nature doesn't come with a prescription of good or bad.

Human rights is a modern social myth influenced by Christian philosophy (by proxy)

When we say "equality" what exactly do we mean? Naturally, there is no such thing.

These are concepts we derived to apply a form of brake to our social interactions and the belief in these similar myths holds the fabrics of human society together.

You could start by asking What makes owning another human wrong?

At the end you will realize that right or wrong is just a matter of collective belief (intersubjective)

The question is, what influence the change from what was believed to be good and later became bad?.

There must be a collective knowledge, experience, feelings that prompt the changes.

Abraham Lincoln as a case study, he believed slavery is bad while the majority Americans believed it's good, why is his morality different from the rest of his people?

tintingz:
The question is, what influence the change from what was believed to be good and later became bad?.

There must be a collective knowledge, experience, feelings that prompt the changes.

Abraham Lincoln as a case study, he believed slavery is bad while the majority Americans believed it's good, why is his morality different from the rest of his people?

Abraham Lincoln simply upgraded his reasoning unlike the Americans who were stuck in their religious and cultural upbringing that slavery is good.

tintingz:
The question is, what influence the change from what was believed to be good and later became bad?.

There must be a collective knowledge, experience, feelings that prompt the changes.

It is like a ripple, it starts at a point and spreads to every other part.

Christianity started with few people, so did Islam but through ripple-effect social interactions, more people are convinced.
For Instance, the rise in Atheism is consistent with the development of the internet, information could go far distances unhinged. That is how opinions propagate to the point of collective social acceptance.

Abraham Lincoln as a case study, he believed slavery is bad while the majority Americans believed it's good, why is his morality different from the rest of his people?

There is always a second option, many people through history has always contradicted the prevailing belief of their time. Lincoln wasn't the only person that believed that slavery was wrong, it was not as simplistic as that. Slaves were beginning to revolt, there was a cascade of ideological conflicts and the Northern part of America fought to abolish slavery.

But unlike Copernican realization, there is no objective basis for slavery either way it goes, so it falls into a matter of what we believe.

The idea of Biafra began with Ojukwu, how many people believe it today? Millions.

So, its about ideological propagation and acceptance.

The formation of this ideas can be influenced by many things, pity, sympathy, ego, pride, greed, empathy, bias or even love.

budaatum:

There has been a significant upgrade in human thought however.


I share your view. Even empathy and compassion is not innate as Martinez19 says it is, and has evolved over time from having it for ones family or tribe, to now having empathy and compassion for animals, the ocean and the planet, all which we had no compassion for heretofore.

I believe empathy is innate, people just use it differently.

Martinez19:
Abraham Lincoln simply upgraded his reasoning unlike the Americans who were stuck in their religious and cultural upbringing that slavery is good.

Upgraded? again?

tintingz:
I believe empathy is innate, people just use it differently.

Is empathy good or bad?

Martinez19:
Abraham Lincoln simply upgraded his reasoning unlike the Americans who were stuck in their religious and cultural upbringing that slavery is good.

Exactly, Abraham Lincoln get to relate with slaves and from there he developed some feelings, call it emotion, compassion, empathy.

He shared it with the parliament and they later reason with him.

tintingz:
I believe empathy is innate, people just use it differently.

So, tell. Why do you think empathy is innate?

And as a side, how would you explain the new and current empathy to animals and the earth?

johnydon22:


What if compassion or empathy is innate, what makes it good? why is it good? This is the question Martinez is not asking. Why is something good?

His ideas implies "good" as something we discover and not simply a fabrication of ours given effect because we believe it.

It's an emotional idea, nice but quite naive.

Martinez19 oya come here and defend ya seff

The objective moral compass varies from organism to organism and centres around that organism except by the virtue of reasoning. All things being equal, It is expected that a human will save a drowning human rather than a drowning dog except if the human happened to be a serial killer and rapist and the dog is his loyal pet dog. There is no universal moral compass that all organism must be subjected to. It's understandable that a cow would want to kill a human being for eating suya where as it's outrageous for a human being to want another human dead for eating suya despite the fact that suffering was dealt on the cow.

What's good is for the most part intuitive. However what is to be regarded as good or bad depends on and is a combination of two factors:
1) the degree of torturous or pleasurable impact on the human psychology, emotion and body.
2) the degree of it's lasting consequences in the event of things.

Cocaine is pleasurable but is the pleasure worth the lasting consequences on the brain and body?
Child birth is pain but is the pain worth the survival of our specie?

budaatum:

So, tell. Why do you think empathy is innate?

And as a side, how would you explain the new and current empathy to animals and the earth?

Are you for real? did you expect people of old to empathic to animals when the bible constantly made them an object of sacrifice to appease yahweh? For a man who is convinced of yahweh's existence and whose reasoning is influenced by that, do you expect him to care for animals and forgo making animal sacrifices that would clean his sins?

The recent care about animals is due to the new testament which declares animal sacrifices redundant and the upgrade of reasoning that bring about the realization that animals have feelings and the are deserving of empathy.

Martinez19:
The objective moral compass varies from organism to organism and centres around that organism except by the virtue of reasoning. All things being equal, It is expected that a human will save a drowning human rather than a drowning dog except if the human happened to be a serial killer and rapist and the dog is his loyal pet dog. There is no universal moral compass that all organism must be subjected to. It's understandable that a cow would want to kill a human being for eating suya where as it's outrageous for a human being to want another human dead for eating suya despite the fact that suffering was dealt on the cow.

What's good is for the most part intuitive. However what is to be regarded as good or bad depends on and is a combination of two factors:
1) the degree of torturous or pleasurable impact on the human psychology, emotion and body.
2) the degree of it's lasting consequences in the event of things.

Cocaine is pleasurable but is the pleasure worth the lasting consequences on the brain and body?
Child birth is pain but is the pain worth the survival of our specie?

Ok. wait. you think morality is objective?

johnydon22:


Ok. wait. you think morality is objective?

For humans, yes. For all organisms, it's different as I explained earlier.

Martinez19:
For humans, yes. For all organisms, it's different.

Meaning it is not objective then. Objectivity do not vary. Anyway forget that, lets proceed.

Why is morality objective?

johnydon22:


Upgraded? again?

Well, when I say upgrade reasoning, I am mean reasoning and it's judgement influenced by more facts and insights than it had before. As reasoning upgrades, it becomes independent and doesn't lean entirely on religious and cultural upbringing. With our innate compassion and empathy, as reasoning upgrades continously, the range of things on which we agree is moral proportionally increases.

johnydon22:
It is like a ripple, it starts at a point and spreads to every other part.

Christianity started with few people, so did Islam but through ripple-effect social interactions, more people are convinced.
For Instance, the rise in Atheism is consistent with the development of the internet, information could go far distances unhinged. That is how opinions propagate to the point of collective social acceptance.

The rise of Athiesm started as skepticism which is questioning and reasoning.

Social interaction play a role, that was the reason I said Slavery is kinda moral in the past because of lack of proper interaction with other race, tribes.

Now we have UN, world summit where world leaders sit and discuss.

There is always a second option, many people through history has always contradicted the prevailing belief of their time. Lincoln wasn't the only person that believed that slavery was wrong, it was not as simplistic as that. Slaves were beginning to revolt, there was a cascade of ideological conflicts and the Northern part of America fought to abolish slavery.

But unlike Copernican realization, there is no objective basis for slavery either way it goes, so it falls into a matter of what we believe.

I used "majority Americans" because I know some Americans apart from Lincoln believe slavery is bad.

They where raised to believe slavery is good but due to some influence they started changing in reasoning and ideology.

The idea of Biafra began with Ojukwu, how many people believe it today? Millions.

So, its about ideological propagation and acceptance.

The formation of this ideas can be influenced by many things, pity, sympathy, ego, pride, greed, empathy, bias or even love.

Agreed.

johnydon22:
Is empathy good or bad?

Good.

johnydon22:
Meaning it is not objective then. Objectivity do not vary. Anyway forget that, lets proceed.

Why is morality objective?

Wait o. I hope you understood my point. If it's subjective FOR HUMANS then different people will disagree on what's moral and their opinions are valid for each of them but if it's objective FOR HUMANS, then only a particular standard can be shown be actually moral using reasoning and empathy/compassion.

Permit me to use certain unofficial words here
Humanocentric morality(moral codes for humans) is objective despite what humans what to believe. Felinocentric (moral codes for cats) is objective despite what any cat might want to think. The same for all specie-centered morality.
However, when you combine all species together and try to look for a universal all encompassing objective moral code, you would be disappointed as such can not exist. For every new organism, there is a specie-central objective moral code for that new organism. Is my point clear before I move on?

tintingz:
The rise of Athiesm started as skepticism which is questioning and reasoning.

There is a difference between start and rise. I'm talking about the propagation of atheism, why people are becoming more and more atheistic.

Social interaction play a role, that was the reason I said Slavery is kinda moral in the past because of lack of proper interaction with other race, tribes.

You are first basing this under the belief that slavery is bad which begs the question "why is slavery bad?' Is there any objective basis?

Now we have UN, world summit where world leaders sit and discuss.

Organizations which are also a form of social myth, the UN only has power because you believe it does. Buildings is not UN, persons are not UN, so what is UN? it is an idea? a myth that your belief in makes effective.

I used "majority Americans" because I know some Americans apart from Lincoln believe slavery is bad.

ok

They where raised to believe slavery is good but due to some influence they started changing in reasoning and ideology.

Agreed.

ok

johnydon22:
It is like a ripple, it starts at a point and spreads to every other part.

Christianity started with few people, so did Islam but through ripple-effect social interactions, more people are convinced.
For Instance, the rise in Atheism is consistent with the development of the internet, information could go far distances unhinged. That is how opinions propagate to the point of collective social acceptance.



There is always a second option, many people through history has always contradicted the prevailing belief of their time. Lincoln wasn't the only person that believed that slavery was wrong, it was not as simplistic as that. Slaves were beginning to revolt, there was a cascade of ideological conflicts and the Northern part of America fought to abolish slavery.

But unlike Copernican realization, there is no objective basis for slavery either way it goes, so it falls into a matter of what we believe.

The idea of Biafra began with Ojukwu, how many people believe it today? Millions.

So, its about ideological propagation and acceptance.

The formation of this ideas can be influenced by many things, pity, sympathy, ego, pride, greed, empathy, bias or even love.

lol. You haven't contradicted me and tintingz point. It doesn't matter how something that influences reasoning spreads, once it has convinced the mind, it will influence it's reasoning and judgement as hence morality. I might be a christian now but if Islam convinces me, I will start thinking that women should start wearing the hijab, sharia law is okay and that it's okay to cut off a boy's hand for stealing.
Since reasoning(alongside empathy/compassion) govern morality, anything that influences reasoning will influence morality regardless of how it is spread. Mind you, it is one thing to know what's right and it is another thing to choose to do what's right. The tobacco company in the past knew that tobacco was harmful but they kept on lying and selling to people because they wanted money. Pastorpreneurs know that it is bad to do what they do but they decide to go ahead.

tintingz:
Good.

Why is it good?

Martinez19:
Wait o. I hope you understood my point. If it's subjective FOR HUMANS then different people will disagree on what's moral and their opinions are valid for each of them but if it's objective FOR HUMANS, then only a particular standard can be shown be actually moral using reasoning and empathy/compassion.

I never said it is subjective, intersubjectivity is different from subjectivity.

Let me play with you here to show you that objectivity and morality argument is a slippery slope: What makes this particular standard moral?

Is that these standards are universally discovered to be inherently moral or that there is a consensus in belief that they are?

Permit me to use certain unofficial words here
Humanocentric morality(moral codes for humans) is objective despite what humans what to believe. Felinocentric (moral codes for cats) is objective despite what any cat might want to think. The same for all specie-centered morality.
However, when you combine all species together and try to look for a universal all encompassing objective moral code, you would be disappointed as such can not exist. For every new organism, there is a specie-central objective moral code for that new organism. Is my point clear before I move on?

You have said human morality is objective many times but many times have not demonstrably proved this.

These are the pertinent questions.

What makes something moral?

Is morality an objective state?

Martinez19:
lol. You haven't contradicted me and tintingz point. It doesn't matter how something that influences reasoning spreads, once it has convinced the mind, it will influence it's reasoning and judgement as hence morality. I might be a christian now but if Islam convinces me, I will start thinking that women should start wearing the hijab, sharia law is okay and that it's okay to cut off a boy's hand for stealing.
Since reasoning(alongside empathy/compassion) govern morality, anything that influences reasoning will influence morality regardless of how it is spread. Mind you it is one thing to know what's right and it is another thing to choose to do what's right. The tobacco company in the past knew that tobacco was harmful but they kept on lying and selling to people because they wanted money. Pastorpreneurs know that it is bad to do what they do but they decide to go ahead.

I contradict your point in every way maybe you don't realize it.

Your argument is based on the assumption that "good" is an objective quality without understanding that as an abstract concept "good" is a matter of belief (intersubjective).

Why is something good?
What makes it good?
And what makes this quality that makes it good to be good?


Example: the company Toyota, does it exist?
why is slavery wrong?
On what grounds are humans equal? (remember that social structures like government and nations are social myths)
On what grounds are they unequal?

budaatum:

So, tell. Why do you think empathy is innate?

It's innate because a villain can know what he's doing is bad through empathy and experience.

A research in Neurology has shown that observing another person emotions can activate part of the neuronal network.

Another research point to genetic.

And as a side, how would you explain the new and current empathy to animals and the earth?

upgrade in reasoning.

johnydon22:
Why is it good?

Because you won't want to hurt your fellow human.

tintingz:
Because you won't want to hurt your fellow human.

So, why is not hurting other humans good?

johnydon22:
I never said it is subjective, intersubjectivity is different from subjectivity.

Let me play with you here to show you that objectivity and morality argument is a slippery slope: What makes this particular standard moral?

Is that these standards are universally discovered to be inherently moral or that there is a consensus in belief that they are?




You have said human morality is objective many times but many times have not demonstrably proved this.

These are the pertinent questions.

What makes something moral?

Is morality an objective state?

I never said you implied subjective. I was simply defining what people see as subjective and objective morality before driving home my point.

As I have said, what is moral/good depends and is a combination of two factors:
A) the degree of pleasurable or torturous impact on the human psychology, emotion and body.
B) the degree and nature of its resultant long term consequences in the events of things.

Here is the maths (I didn't include intensity/degree of impact which would give us a better perspective to answer the question "is it worth it?", where we consider different combinations A and B :
1) torturous + bad long term consequence in the long run = bad
2) torturous + positive long term consequences in the long run = good
3) torturous + neither negative nor positive consequences in the long run = bad
4) pleasurable + positive consequences in the long run = good
5) pleasurable + negative consequences in the long run = bad.
6) pleasurable + neither negative nor positive consequences in the long run = good.
7) neither pleasurable nor torturous + neither positive nor negative consequences in the long run = okay.
neither pleasurable nor torturous + positive consequences in the long run = good
9) neither pleasurable nor torturous + negative consequences in the long run = bad

This is how the human body is wired. One can only go as far with questioning human intuition Or do you want to ask why we are wired so and what makes the biological wiring good?

johnydon22:
There is a difference between start and rise. I'm talking about the propagation of atheism, why people are becoming more and more atheistic.

When people started interacting, engaging in logical argument.

I think we're kinda saying same thing.

You are first basing this under the belief that slavery is bad which begs the question "why is slavery bad?' Is there any objective basis?

I didn't talk about slavery being bad, my premise was what influenced Slavery from being moral to Immoral.

To answer your question, slavery is bad because it deprive people from freedom. If a large group can be empathetic towards slavery it will be abolished which actually happened.

Organizations which are also a form of social myth, the UN only has power because you believe it does. Buildings is not UN, persons are not UN, so what is UN? it is an idea? a myth that your belief in makes effective.

People are the UN, it's a consensus body.

In the past almost every leaders are tyrant.

johnydon22:
So, why is not hurting other humans good?

Because you can't take the pain when someone hurt you, so why do that to your fellow human.