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.

Good point.

Even Thanos(villain in Marvel comic) knew what he was doing is wrong but he went ahead to do it(because of greed), when he killed Gamora.

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

If it is innate, as in "already programmed in", why ignore the evidence that shows it is learnt?

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

tintingz:
Another research point to genetic.

I doubt morals can be genetic. I've seen mass murderer children be saints.

tintingz:
upgrade in reasoning.

Through learning.

tintingz:
When people started interacting, engaging in logical argument.

I think we're kinda saying same thing.

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

consensus

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.

Why is depriving people freedom bad?

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

Actually, nobody is UN. Point out one UN you know. UN only exist because we believe it does, that is how social myths work, Nigeria exist because we believe it does, toyota (company) exist because we believe it does. A car is not toyota, the ceo is not toyota (they are two different entities) there is nothing you can point out to now to be toyota because cooperations are social myths.

In the past almost every leaders are tyrant.

Politics is a social myth, its not objective reality. You need to understand that. it only exist in the human mind.

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

why is bad that i do something i can't take the pain to another person?

You have said what makes it bad.

Yes. You said hurting people is bad. but why? What is the objective pointer to this?

tintingz:
Good point.

Even Thanos(villain in Marvel comic) knew what he was doing is wrong but he went ahead to do it(because of greed), when he killed Gamora.

I think Johny the Don is questioning the basis of everything whether intuitive or not. I think he got things wrong when he, for the most part, equated the intersubjective mountains we've made out of a moth hole with morality eg. money. A diamond is expensive and valuable but no one in our society can argue that there is objectively anything of value inherent in diamond other than it being an allotrope of carbon. Majority might choose to take slavery as okay and put it in effect but that mean that it's okay. Majority might choose to place so much value on a dog and make it the Queen of England but that doesn't give it the capacity to rule. Our imagination enables us build mountains out of a moth hole but that doesn't mean that the mountain is real. People's intersubjective stance on what's moral has no bearing on what's indeed moral otherwise we wouldn't fault yahweh and the jews for condoning slavery at that point in time. I dare say the condemnation of yahweh on the issue of slavery is always based on empathy/compassion and reasoning.

If there is anything that comes close to the learned social myths, then it is religion and culture. Are there many things that exist in the human mind? Yes! but even with abstractions, there are objective judgement eg. there are objective answers relating to a particular abstract mathematical model. Besides, one can only go as far with questioning and proving human intuition. If we are sincere, there are certain things we just know without proof, explanation and evidence. It will be cumbersome to ask how I know Nairaland and Seun exist and how I define reality and how I know I am not in a dream state compare to others.

johnydon22:
consensus

Yes, consensus which was never a thing in the past between races, tribes.

Why is depriving people freedom bad?

Because you can't do anything of your choice, now imagine someone doing that to you?

Actually, nobody is UN. Point out one UN you know. UN only exist because we believe it does, that is how social myths work, Nigeria exist because we believe it does, toyota (company) exist because we believe it does. A car is not toyota, the ceo is not toyota (they are two different entities) there is nothing you can point out to now to be toyota because cooperations are social myths.

People are the UN, they just name the organization UN which is the social myth.

The point here is, in the past there's nothing like leaders coming together to discuss and reach consensual agreement, reason we have wars flying around in the past.

In the discussion, they all reason how slavery, taking people's lands and wars is not a good thing.

Politics is a social myth, its not objective reality. You need to understand that. it only exist in the human mind.

I'm not arguing about social myth, my argument here is did almost all leaders just wake up and said tyranny is bad?

There must have been some influence in thier thought, was it after WW2 they now see the cruelty in being a tyrant?

tintingz:
Yes, consensus which was never a thing in the past between races, tribes.

Because you can't do anything of your choice, now imagine someone doing that to you?

People are the UN, they just name the organization UN which is the social myth.

The point here is, there's nothing like leaders coming together to discuss and reach consensual agreement, reason we have wars flying around in the past.

In the discussion, they all reason how slavery and wars is not a good thing.

I'm not arguing about social myth, my argument here is did almost all leaders just wake up and said tyranny is bad.

There must have been some influence in thier thought, was it after WW2 they now see the cruelty in being a tyrant?

Would it be okay to tell Johny the Don that, all things being equal, the knowledge that oppressing your fellow man against his will is bad is intuitive? I guess not.

budaatum:

If it is innate, as in "already programmed in", why ignore the evidence that shows it is learnt?

I've pointed out that experience also play a role but without the influence of empathy, such person can be anti-social. Why are some people call psychopath, sociopath?

Empathy is innate, people just use it differently or lack the use of it.

I doubt morals can be genetic. I've seen mass murderer children be saints.

I didn't say morality is genetic, a research found empathy is genetic. It's a theory tho.

Through learning.

Yes, Our upgrade in intellects also upgrade our empathy.

johnydon22:


why is bad that i do something i can't take the pain to another person?

You have said what makes it bad.

Yes. You said hurting people is bad. but why? What is the objective pointer to this?

Because someone who's hurt sees his offender as bad person, so when you put yourself in that shoe you reason same.

What's the objective pointer? I can simply steal your phone and ask how you felt.

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?

We've all heard of parents who have starved the housegirl and even their kids to death, so we can't exactly say 'empathy and compassion is innate in everyone'. And not everyone who has empathy and compassion jumps in to save petrol tyre thief fire Lagos streets, so we can't even say, it's innately equal in those who have it. Saying "compassion or empathy is innate", is no different to saying the reason I dislike dodo is because it's innate in me not to like it. Come to think of it, the reason I don't like dodo is innate, as in, it is for reasons inside me, being that I am programmed to get jedijedi if I eat too much sweet thing, but programmed in me from birth? I wouldn't say so since I was "sweet! sweet" kid, according to ma.

Like a skill, it is learnt, would be my position just like we all learn what good is, as in what I, assume to be good, at least to me is good. It is what most of us do, or show me a person who would consider the hitting of their own thumb with hammer, good, even though it might be good at a point in time for some reason like yesterday and was some bastard's thumb or one was convinced it was good even though it definitely isn't.

So is 'good' an emotional thing? I'd say, somewhat. My child is good, my family is good, my country could be good, the fact that I am an atheist is good, a person wanting to have same sex is just as good as those with three opposites sex, according to me. While to others these good to me things might not all seem quite so good, like it's in the eye of the beholder. Those who tell us to accept Jesus into our lives are offering a good thing, for instance, and according to them, but to the atheist, it might as well be hemlock. But that's not because our atheism is "simply a fabrication of ours given effect", considering how 'show me' we atheists can be.

I wrote the above before going in to see Spike's “BlacKkKlansman”. Go see it. The morals of some people in those days was not innate.

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.

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?

Anthropocentrism interprets or regards the world in terms of human values and experiences. The term can be used interchangeably with humanocentrism, and some refer to the concept as human supremacy or human exceptionalism.

Do you see that your "centrics" imply subjectivity?

Martinez19:
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?

Yes, I would "expect people of old to be empathic to animals" if the Bible had not taught they were "an object of sacrifice to appease yahweh", but only if empathy were innate. If empathy was innate they would have ignored yahweh for the love of the animal.

"The recent care about animals is due to the new testament (teaching, education, law), which declares animal sacrifices redundant and the upgrade of reasoning that bring about the realization (learning, awareness, consciousness), that animals have feelings and the are deserving of empathy."

budaatum:

Yes, I would "expect people of old to be empathic to animals" if the Bible had not taught they were "an object of sacrifice to appease yahweh", but only if empathy were innate. If empathy was innate they would have ignored yahweh for the love of the animal.

"The recent care about animals is due to the new testament (teaching, education, law), which declares animal sacrifices redundant and the upgrade of reasoning that bring about the realization (learning, awareness, consciousness), that animals have feelings and the are deserving of empathy."

due to the fact that you want to subtly make a case for christianity, you misrepresent me, ignore certain parts of my posts and introduce your distortion.

In the first paragraph, you didn't include the role of reasoning in morality instead you treated the case as if empathy alone determines a man's moral compass. You also forgot where I said people's moral compasses are influenced by religious and cultural upbringings and will different due to different religious and cultural upbringings from place to place. You ignored that because your narrative that christianity is true is more important.

I will reply your posts tomorrow.

Martinez19:
due to the fact that you want to subtly make a case for christianity, you misrepresent me, ignore certain parts of my posts and introduce your distortion.

In the first paragraph, you didn't include the role of reasoning in morality instead you treated the case as if empathy alone determines a man's moral compass. You also forgot where I said people's moral compasses are influenced by religious and cultural upbringings and will different due to different religious and cultural upbringings from place to place. You ignored that because your narrative that christianity is true is more important.

I will reply your posts tomorrow.

Don't annoy me! You've been here long enough to know me by now so please why would buda make a case for Christianity? This wonderful thread specifically says "Atheists Only" and anyone who breaks that rule will burn in hell. buda never said Christianity is 'true' so stop with the projecting!

I understand your position to be that empathy, and morality, and compassion, and the ability to reason, are innate. Yet you yourself present evidence that opposes your position! If a thing is innate, it is prewired in. What is it that would be doing this prewiring? God, perhaps?

If "moral compasses are influenced by religious and cultural upbringings", which are all education, then it is not innate, since it is taught, and nor is empathy in my opinion, since they both have to be learnt. If a person is not taught empathy they very likely would not be empathic.

You could be saying that the 'ability' to be empathic is what is innate. In which case I say no different to the 'ability' of an ape or a dog or a cat to be empathic, and different to a stone, which I assume is incapable of giving a fuq. That still doesn't explain all the unempathic fuqers out there who don't give a fuq unless we want to call them 'stones'.

If morals are "different from place to place", then it most definitely can't be innate, unless you are claiming innateness is location dependent, like living in Nigeria, say, makes one a crook, and on moving to China one fears for ones head. All the same, that just makes it subjective to location, and definitely not innate.

As to "reasoning", which you say I ignore, please explain to me why you would say the "ability to reason is innate"? Do you mean everyone is capable of reasoning perhaps? If so I agree. However, in order to reason competently, one must have undergone some sort of training, or learning at least, or one would blindly strawman others with "you want to subtly make a case for christianity, you misrepresent me, ignore certain parts of my posts and introduce your distortion". You definitely would not say everyone on here is capable of reasoning, I think. Where they in the wrong location when 'reasoning' was being dished out perhaps?

My position is that those who have not learnt to be emphatic, and morally upright, and how to reason, and be compassionate would not be emphatic, or morally upright or reason properly and be compassionate. I don't believe those abilities are innate.

Martinez19:
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.

Lol! Though, I wonder.

budaatum:

Don't annoy me! You've been here long enough to know me by now so please why would buda make a case for Christianity? This wonderful thread specifically says "Atheists Only" and anyone who breaks that rule will burn in hell. buda never said Christianity is 'true' so stop with the projecting!

I understand your position to be that empathy, and morality, and compassion, and the ability to reason, are innate. Yet you yourself present evidence that opposes your position! If a thing is innate, it is prewired in. What is it that would be doing this prewiring? God, perhaps?

If "moral compasses are influenced by religious and cultural upbringings", which are all education, then it is not innate, since it is taught, and nor is empathy in my opinion, since they both have to be learnt. If a person is not taught empathy they very likely would not be empathic.

You could be saying that the 'ability' to be empathic is what is innate. In which case I say no different to the 'ability' of an ape or a dog or a cat to be empathic, and different to a stone, which I assume is incapable of giving a fuq. That still doesn't explain all the unempathic fuqers out there who don't give a fuq unless we want to call them 'stones'.

If morals are "different from place to place", then it most definitely can't be innate, unless you are claiming innateness is location dependent, like living in Nigeria, say, makes one a crook, and on moving to China one fears for ones head. All the same, that just makes it subjective to location, and definitely not innate.

As to "reasoning", which you say I ignore, please explain to me why you would say the "ability to reason is innate"? Do you mean everyone is capable of reasoning perhaps? If so I agree. However, in order to reason competently, one must have undergone some sort of training, or learning at least, or one would blindly strawman others with "you want to subtly make a case for christianity, you misrepresent me, ignore certain parts of my posts and introduce your distortion". You definitely would not say everyone on here is capable of reasoning, I think. Where they in the wrong location when 'reasoning' was being dished out perhaps?

My position is that those who have not learnt to be emphatic, and morally upright, and how to reason, and be compassionate would not be emphatic, or morally upright or reason properly and be compassionate. I don't believe those abilities are innate.

Do animals have empathy?

tintingz:
Do animals have empathy?

Yes they do , some even feel for others species.

vaxx:
Yes they do

Is it innate or learned?

tintingz:
Is it innate or learned?

emphaty can be learned....so it is both inate and learned .

vaxx:
emphaty can be learned....so it is both inate and learned .

Good.

Daniel Goleman identified five key elements of empathy as

Understanding Others
Developing Others
Having a Service Orientation
Leveraging Diversity
Political Awareness

To which extent could we say these skills are innate? Does one find them in the untutored human (or ape or cat or dog?)

budaatum:
Daniel Goleman identified five key elements of empathy as

Understanding Others
Developing Others
Having a Service Orientation
Leveraging Diversity
Political Awareness

To which extent could we say these skills are innate? Does one find them in the untutored human (or ape or cat or dog?)

I hypothesis that empathy can both be genetic and eveniromental and it is the environmental part of it that is learned. Your five key element speaks volume of the environmental part living the genetic one which is the instinct to survive, most animal has this tendency of protecting thier own race and likewise similar spicies . for example, lions have been seen defending other animals from other lions or other predators and in some cases from people. There are documentary on this.

Therefore it is a two part process. The enviormental process is developed from childhood to aduilthood which is basically modify thru experience.

Genetic empathy is not an all at once understanding. ""According to neurologist"", It takes until you are twenty-five for the brain to finish developing. Until then, a person can appear to be very unempathetic. The first showing of empathy is when you are a child..


They have been many research to validate children as little as three years old has empathy(even younger ), while there are many indication to also prove child born psychopath due to parental influence can learn empathy too if environment change.

vaxx:

Genetic empathy is not an all at once understanding. ""According to neurologist"", It takes until you are twenty-five for the brain to finish developing. Until then, a person can appear to be very unempathetic. The first showing of empathy is when you are a child.

So, one can start learning from age child and finish developing until twenty-five?

That sounds nothing like it being 'innate' to me. Nor genetic, for that matter. My genetic eyes never waited that long to turn purple!

Perhaps as seun said, we should define our terms, and if not for everyone else, for ourselves, so we know what we mean.

Innate
1 : existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth : NATIVE, INBORN

And see Empathic accuracy.

vaxx:
emphaty can be learned....so it is both inate and learned .

VAXX!

"emphaty can be inate....so it is both learned and inate" (sic)

budaatum:

So, one can start learning from age child and finish developing until twenty-five?

when I said developing, it does not automatically translate to learning.. It means the brain passes thru stages to become fully matured just likes our bones

budaatum:

VAXX!

"emphaty can be inate....so it is both learned and inate" (sic)

Yes it is of both process.

Do you know babies have the ability to swim and hold their breath. But Unfortunately they lose it fairly quickly and have to relearn later. Research on this phenomenon before you respond....

vaxx:
when I said developing, it does not automatically translate to learning.. It means the brain passes thru stages to become fully matured just likes our bones

I understand. The definition of innate states "determined by factors present in an individual from birth". I carefully referred to this "ability", when I wrote that it is "no different to the 'ability' of an ape or a dog or a cat to be empathic, and different to a stone, which I assume is incapable".

There's a difference between having the ability to do a thing and actually being able to do the thing. Many people can list abilities they have had that seem to have been present in them from birth but which they have no more because they failed to develop them. If the factors are not there for the development of the ability the ability remains undeveloped and eventually nonexistent.

vaxx:

Do you know babies have the ability to swim and hold their breath. But Unfortunately they lose it fairly quickly and have to relearn later. Research on this phenomenon before you respond....

Did you "Research on this phenomenon" before you posted about it?

Infant swimming is the phenomenon of human babies and toddlers reflexively moving themselves through water and changing their rate of respiration and heart rate in response to being submerged. The slowing of heart rate and breathing is called the bradycardic response. It is not true that babies are born with the ability to swim, though they have reflexes that make it look like they are. Babies are not old enough to hold their breath intentionally or strong enough to keep their head above water.

budaatum:

Did you "Research on this phenomenon" before you posted about it?

Infant swimming is the phenomenon of human babies and toddlers reflexively moving themselves through water and changing their rate of respiration and heart rate in response to beisubmerged. The slowing of heart rate and breathing is called the bradycardic response. It is not true that babies are born with the ability to swim, though they have reflexes that make it look like they are. Babies are not old enough to hold their breath intentionally or strong enough to keep their head above water.

i am aware of this phenomenon and that is why I ask you to make a little research before coming up with evidence .

Of course they need our help to make them perfect the swimming but naturally baby does have a natural ability to swim, the natural ability comes from a pair of reflexes she has when she's in the water. And that is what i am trying to show or prove .

The swimming reflex. If you support a baby in water tummy-side down she will move her arms and legs in a swimming motion.

Dive reflex. A baby will hold her breath and open her eyes when she's under water.

vaxx:
i am aware of this phenomenon and that is why I ask you to make a little research before coming up with evidence .

Of course they need our help to make them perfect the swimming but naturally baby does have a natural ability to swim, the natural ability comes from a pair of reflexes she has when she's in the water. And that is what is am trying to show or prove .

The swimming reflex. If you support a baby in water tummy-side down she will move her arms and legs in a swimming motion.

Dive reflex. A baby will hold her breath and open her eyes when she's under water.

But what you are trying to "show or prove" is not true, at least going by the evidence as posted! Or please provide evidence for the claim that babies swim.

budaatum:

I understand. The definition of innate states "determined by factors present in an individual from birth". I carefully referred to this "ability", when I wrote that it is "no different to the 'ability' of an ape or a dog or a cat to be empathic, and different to a stone, which I assume is incapable".

There's a difference between having the ability to do a thing and actually being able to do the thing. Many people can list abilities they have had that seem to have been present in them from birth but which they have no more because they failed to develop them. If the factors are not there for the development of the ability the ability remains undeveloped and eventually nonexistent.

innate ability cannot be lost as it is part Of you ...

Yes it thus evolve but is does not disappear

budaatum:

But what you are trying to "show or prove" is not true, at least going by the evidence as posted! Or please provide evidence for the claim that babies swim.

read again Buddha....nothing i posted here disagree with Wikipedia references you forward.