malvisguy212:
it's is either you support or you are against it.

You seem to not be understanding the problem here, the premise here is the basis of morality.

Of course neither rekinomtla nor I think pedophilia is ok, we are simply saying that for someone who thinks morality is relative across societies and time, you can't apply your moral conclusions on a different time/society unless it is not relative after all.

johnydon22:
Then your argument isn't on the moral position of the action but the physical implications?.

Actions don't exist in a vacuum, their consequences play a big part in determining their morality. As a matter of fact, cause-and-effect is the reason why morality evolved in the first place.

johnydon22:

You have to first of all assume these things are wrong - moral relativity again comes into place.

LOL. Again you are assuming they are wrong based on your moral relativistic standpoint.

This is a cheap cop-out. There's no society that thrives in lawlessness and anarchy. Can you compare the quality of life in Honduras to that of Norway? There's no need for all philosophy when the facts are starting you in the face. Or are you going to ask me what is wrong with the decline of society? Or a high crime rate? Or a low quality of life?

hahn:


A non-arbitrary value like?
Got it

Like; a value system that transcends human determinism.

CoolUsername:


Actions don't exist vacuum, their consequences play a big part in determining their morality. As a matter of fact, cause-and-effect is the reason why morality evolved in the first place.

Oh i agree, but then relativity comes in when determining which consequence is wrong or right. This society can conclude this consequence means wrong another conclude the exact opposite.

That is moral relativity.

So my question remains, on what ground do you as a moral relativists make moral judgement on a different moral framework/society/time as yours? Unless of course you are saying morality isn't relative.

This is a cheap cop-out. There's no society that thrives in lawlessness and anarchy.

LOL. Again, morality and legality aren't exactly the same thing.

Can you compare the quality of life in Honduras to that of Norway? There's no need for all philosophy when the facts are starting you in the face. Or are you going to ask me what is wrong with the decline of society? Or a high crime rate? Or a low quality of life?

Actually yes i am going to ask you that. What is wrong with a society declining?

What facts? There are in fact no moral facts because morality is an abstract concept.

You still aren't even grasping the implications of your own arguments on moral relativity.

Make up your mind bro; is morality relative or objective? You don't seem to understand what both implies.

johnydon22:


Like; a value system that transcends human determinism.

Do you have any example?

hahn:


Do you have any example?

The belief that humans are created and owned by an external authority.

(note: belief)

Such belief or assumption appeals to a transcendent determinism

johnydon22:
You seem to not be understanding the problem here, the premise here is the basis of morality.

Of course neither rekinomtla nor I think pedophilia is ok, we are simply saying that for someone who thinks morality is relative across societies and time, you can't apply your moral conclusions on a different time/society unless it is not relative after all.

True.

johnydon22:


The belief that humans are created and owned by an external authority.

(note: belief)

Such belief or assumption appeals to a transcendent determinism

O
K

johnydon22:
You seem to not be understanding the problem here, the premise here is the basis of morality.

Of course neither rekinomtla nor I think pedophilia is ok, we are simply saying that for someone who thinks morality is relative across societies and time, you can't apply your moral conclusions on a different time/society unless it is not relative after all.

I would've love the Muslim guy to reply me, he is a Muslim and there are lot of question I would love to ask.

hahn:


True.

That is exactly the argument coolusername and frank aren't understanding.

You can't say morality is subjective and make moral judgements that implies morality is objective.

malvisguy212:
I would've love the Muslim guy to reply me, he is a Muslim and there are lot of question I would love to ask.

Alright brother

johnydon22:
That is exactly the argument coolusername and frank aren't understanding.

You can't say morality is subjective and make moral judgements that implies morality is objective.

Yeah. That's true

malvisguy212:
I would've love the Muslim guy to reply me, he is a Muslim and there are lot of question I would love to ask.

How old was Mary when Jehovah impregnated her?

hahn:

How old was Mary when Jehovah impregnated her?

Bible passage

malvisguy212:
Bible passage

What Bible passage?

johnydon22:
So?.

So, actions that have been proven to be bad for society are in fact, bad for society. Its not an opinion.

johnydon22:

Does this preclude the sovereignty of each country?

Common men, international relations have always been there - obviously the world is different today in terms of application and tech.

Neither precludes the sovereignty of each society and neither eliminates the practice of moral relativity.

What is wrong in Nigeria isn't necessarily regarded same in America..

A country is only as sovereign as more powerful countries allow it to be. Lets see what would happen if Nigeria starts trying to go nuclear.

Morality wrong the world is slowly but surely converging, I'm not sure if the convergence would ever be complete, but over time each new generation is more westernized than the last. This will continue as long as we consume their media.

Their ideas have led to their prosperity which is why they can now display their ideas to us. Isn't it rational to adopt ideas that stood make your society prosperous?

johnydon22:

You are simply making moral assumptions on the consequence of an action. It is funny when people do this but most people do.

See, empiricism is never the determinant of abstract concepts like morality, never works like that because such concepts take derivative basis from a fundamental belief that transcends empirical application.

See, my argument with you isn't on morality, my argument here remains on the position that morality is subjective hence relative.
if morality is relative then your moral basis is just as relative
therefore you cannot using the moral framework applicable within your own intersubjective clime, condemn an action with coincides with a different moral framework within an unrelated intersubjective clime.

By all means say that muslims today are wrong if they practice pedophilia, that is correct.

Say that people 1,500 are wrong?

There are no more wrong than you are on actions we deem moral today that would be considered immoral 1000 years from now.

Only an objective moral basis can make the argument that something is wrong across time and society not a moral relativistic argument.

So, you have to make up your mind; if you think morality is subjective (relative) then you can't say Muhammed was wrong.

if you however think morality is objective (not-arbitrary) then you can say Muhammed was wrong.

You're argument is lacking in that it tries to divorce empiricism from morality when morality was developed in us through the empirical consequences of natural selection.

That is why your analogy is flawed. Asking why hurting people is wrong is such a vague question that it is almost useless in this discussion. The answer is to simply bring up the ill effects of child molestation and the trickle-down effects of the aforementioned effects and so on.

Your logic is inadequate in this matter because it treats all actions as fundamentally equal before we attach moral significance to them. But the truth is that all actions have different consequences to them, and it is the evaluation of those consequences that gives them moral significance.

So it is false for you to say that I'm attaching moral significance to empirical facts when all I'm saying is this act that has been proven to have net negative effects on society is indeed, negative".

hahn:

What Bible passage?

OK

CoolUsername:

So, actions that have been proven to be bad for society are in fact, bad for society. Its not an opinion.

So, morality is objective then?

Good!!!

johnydon22:
Oh i agree, but then relativity comes in when determining which consequence is wrong or right. This society can conclude this consequence means wrong another conclude the exact opposite.

That is moral relativity.

So my question remains, on what ground do you as a moral relativists make moral judgement on a different moral framework/society/time as yours? Unless of course you are saying morality isn't relative.

On the best available information of the consequences of a given action.

johnydon22:

LOL. Again, morality and legality aren't exactly the same thing.

What is the point of this statement? Morality and legality are inextricably linked. Legality is government sanctioned morality based on the principles and values of society.

johnydon22:

Actually yes i am going to ask you that. What is wrong with a society declining?

What facts? There are in fact no moral facts because morality is an abstract concept.

You still aren't even grasping the implications of your own arguments on moral relativity.

Make up your mind bro; is morality relative or objective? You don't seem to understand what both implies.

And I can go on and on telling you that morality evolved to sustain society, the failure of a society is the failure of its morals. Morality is the combination of evolutionary traits, if your society fails then your morality was wrong or at the very least, ill-suited for that space and time.

One more thing, there's nothing wrong with making judgements based on your own morality. It's just that your opinions cannot trump reality.

johnydon22:
So, morality is objective then?

Good!!!

That's just your subjective opinion, bro.

johnydon22:
I don't know. So?

VVF is caused by childbirth and intercourse mostly with underage girls who are mostly below 12.

Marrying little girls is very wrong because they are at risk of VVF.

In the northern part of Nigeria where Sharia is widely practiced, they have alot of young girls suffering from VVF.

johnydon22:
This reduces moral judgements to opinions, you may say Muhammed was wrong, another may say he is right - since we are all making subjective moral judgements, neither opinion out weights the other.

Moral judgement has always been and will always be based on opinion. That's why there is conflict in the world we live in... Saying God is the basis for morality has not solves this problem either... So humans make judgment on what is right based on a whole lit of factors.
@bold, isn't it why this thread was set up? Poster saying Mohammed's act is wrong and Muslims saying its right... The question u should ask is, why is anyone saying its wrong? Or right? Then weight it and make ur own judgement.

A subjective moral basis is meaningless. Morality at best is intersubjective and require fundamental beliefs about the moral subjects that translates into the moral weight of a given action.

Subjective morality is controversial. Its confusing and has many problems... But unfortunately that's what we have and humans are trying to work with it... I think we are frying our best so far.

Since Muhammed was clearly acting based an accepted moral structure of his time - he is far from being wrong.

Do u think Mohammed was right or wrong? Why?
Yes Mohammed has the right to think he was right? But ask urself does it bother him and other Muslims what other think?
Let me put it to u... If u decide that Mohammed was right or wrong, u have already displayed the same subjective morality u call meaningless. Or is it God that told u that Mohammed was right or wrong?

Judging something that happened 1500 years ago with the moral or even legal framework of today, doesn't follow. Unless you are saying that morality is objective and remains unchanged and binding - which i am sure you are not saying.

It was right then... But why is it wrong now?
The decision that it wrong now is based on subjective reasoning. If morality was objective, it couldn't have been right then.

CoolUsername:

On the best available information of the consequences of a given action.

Again, you are assuming consequences have an inherent moral nature which is another way of saying morality is objective.

What is the point of this statement? Morality and legality are inextricably linked. Legality is government sanctioned morality based on the principles and values of society.

No, they are not necessarily the same thing.

E:G - The holocaust was legal in Germany
Slavery was once legal

Were these actions moral even though they were legal?

And I can go on and on telling you that morality evolved to sustain society, the failure of a society is the failure of its morals. Morality is the combination of evolutionary traits, if your society fails then your morality was wrong or at the very least, ill-suited for that space and time.

Quality of moral positions remains a subjective conclusion.

The point remains; Is morality an inherent quality (objective) which you seem to be leaning towards now to the detriment of your initial position that it is subjective (relative)

One more thing, there's nothing wrong with making judgements based on your own morality. It's just that your opinions cannot trump reality.

Simply means it is arbitrary and doesn't follow for everyone else.

rekinomtla:


I don't know, I'm not a doctor. How does it demonstrate that a marriage conducted in 7th century Arabia was morally wrong?

Girls mostly below 12 years are at risk of VVF, it's caused by childbirth and intercourse mostly with underaged girls.

So when we look at the damage it caused, marrying young girls is very wrong and I'm very sure there are cases of VVF in the 7th century.

frank317:

Moral judgement has always been and will always be based on opinion. That's why there is conflict in the world we live in... Saying God is the basis for morality has not solves this problem either... So humans make judgment on what is right based on a whole lit of factors.
@bold, isn't it why this thread was set up? Poster saying Mohammed's act is wrong and Muslims saying its right... The question u should ask is, why is anyone saying its wrong? Or right? Then weight it and make ur own judgement.

Then good, since morality is simply based on individual opinion, this implies there is no inherent right or wrong - which is the point.

Mr A says Muhammed was wrong
Mr B said he isn't.

Whose opinion outweighs the other? Either of the two you choose boils down to opinion once again.

See? No basis for an encompassing moral judgement.

However on this particular subject, the bone of contention is the relativity within societies and time. It is agreed that morality isn't an inherent part of the universe, it is also agreed that it is subject to subjective localities and times.

Therefore, someone from time A cannot judge an individual from time B who acted based on the subjective established moral framework of time B using the moral framework of time A.

Subjective morality is controversial. Its confusing and has many problems... But unfortunately that's what we have and humans are trying to work with it... I think we are frying our best so far.

Exactly the point, the problem arises when;

1. One makes a moral conclusion without first establishing a basis
2. Uses objective principle to apply a concept such a person agrees to be subjective.

Do u think Mohammed was right or wrong? Why?

Here is my position:
Back in the 1500, Muhammed isn't wrong and we can't judge a man using the moral framework of today if he isn't part of today.

Are muslims today practicing this wrong? - Absolutely.

See? two different times, two different moral frameworks.

However since you and i agree morality isn't objective - does this position of mine apply or is binding to everyone else? Nope.

that is the dilemma of secular morality.

Yes Mohammed has the right to think he was right? But ask urself does it bother him and other Muslims what other think?

In that given society and time, everyone believed it was right which is the operative basis of a subjective moral derivation.

You agree that humans determine what is right or wrong.

Let me put it to u... If u decide that Mohammed was right or wrong, u have already displayed the same subjective morality u call meaningless. Or is it God that told u that Mohammed was right or wrong?

Actually, i think morality is intersubjective and i also agree that this moral basis is arbitrary.

The only difference between you and i here is that, you also agree morality isn't objective but you make moral judgements with an objective principle application which is a contradiction.

It was right then... But why is it wrong now?

As you said, it falls to human determinism - subjective.

if everyone human tomorrow decides it is right, then according to the principle of subjective moral derivation it becomes right.

the only way you can argue that something is wrong whether everyone believes otherwise is if you think morality is beyond human determinism hence objective.

The decision that it wrong now is based on subjective reasoning. If morality was objective, it couldn't have been right then.

Exactly.

Of course neither rekinomtla nor I think pedophilia is ok, we are simply saying that for someone who thinks morality is relative across societies and time, you can't apply your moral conclusions on a different time/society unless it is not relative after all.

See Frank? The problem here isn't whether pedophilia is right or wrong nor whether Muhammed is right or wrong. The problem here which is my argument is the logicality of a moral relativist making moral judgements on moral frameworks different from his. Notice how Coolusername is beginning to shift towards morality being an inherent quality even though he initially argued morality was relative?

tintingz:
VVF is caused by childbirth and intercourse mostly with underage girls who are mostly below 12.

Marrying little girls is very wrong because they are at risk of VVF.

In the northern part of Nigeria where Sharia is widely practiced, they have alot of young girls suffering from VVF.

So, why do you believe that young girls suffering from VVF is a bad thing?

(i.e: This is not a moral position on my part, i am probing the logical path to your moral conclusion, so i wouldn't want you to assume i have made a moral position)

This is like saying, something is wrong because it makes human suffering.

Why do you think human suffering is wrong?

johnydon22:
Absolutely nothing - I am beginning to find that most of you do not realize the implications of the arguments we make.

there are three principles of arguments;

Logos - logic
pathos - emotions
ethos - ethics

For the subject of morality, the arguments here are mostly based on pathos not logic

Not logic? And what is logic is to say morality that has changed over time in ur very eyes is objective?

Therefore moral relativity doesn't give you the basis to condemn a different moral approach because the point here is the argument that morality is relative.

If we have agreed the society decides what's right or wrong, why will moral relativity of give people the basis to condemn different moral approach? If humans cannot condemn what they think is wrong, then humans cannot say what they think is right? Humans decide what is right based on how an action affects them and others around them. And so in the bid to better our lives we have been coming up with new ways of doing things hence the change in what's moral over time.
If we have decided that what Mohammed did a long time ago and think it shouldn't be done now, it means we have condemned it... And this because a lot of things have been put into consideration. That's what humans do. That's what we have to do.

The only way 1 moral basis would stand for everyone at every time is if morality is objective.

True, but unfortunately its not. Look around u. Saying morality is objective is just a mere wish.

Again, this is the dilemma of secular morality, you can argue that morality is subjective at the same time make general moral judgements with an objective principle.

Yes it is the dilemma of morality... It has to do this for us to have a sane society, recall, general moral judgements have to be made after considering a whole lot of factors. All these have to be done and decided by humans.

if you insist that morality is socially defined - this simply means that any action that is socially defined as moral at any given time is in fact moral to that time and society.

No that not what it means, it means the society at that time has not matured enough to consider those factors that made the modern society condemn it.

You can only judge this same action as it applies to the moral framework of today on today's human.

Moral relativity

U can't, why? Because we are learning and advancing... That's what we must Dona's humans. Change.

frank317:

Not logic? And what is logic is to say morality that has changed over time in ur very eyes is objective?

Nope.

If we have agreed the society decides what's right or wrong, why will moral relativity of give people the basis to condemn different moral approach? If humans cannot condemn what they think is wrong, then humans cannot say what they think is right? Humans decide what is right based on how an action affects them and others around them. And so in the bid to better our lives we have been coming up with new ways of doing things hence the change in what's moral over time.
If we have decided that what Mohammed did a long time ago and think it shouldn't be done now, it means we have condemned it... And this because a lot of things have been put into consideration. That's what humans do. That's what we have to do.

By all means, you and i agree, humans decide what is right or wrong.

So for today, we have changed the fundamental belief regarding sexuality and this is the basis on which our condemnation of sex with minors are derived.

My whole argument here is; a moral relativist cannot make a moral judgement implying an objective moral application.

It is just like someone in Nigeria insisting that 1:00pm for him is 1;00pm for everyone else.

True, but unfortunately its not. Look around u. Saying morality is objective is just a mere wish.

And that is the whole point, why then would someone make moral judgements that imply an objective moral framework?

My whole point here is;

If one agrees morality is subjective, then such a person must also agree it is relative and hence not binding across time and societies. hence such a person should know that judging A with the moral framework of B is like pouring coke into a fanta bottle.

Yes it is the dilemma of morality... It has to do this for us to have a sane society, recall, general moral judgements have to be made after considering a whole lot of factors. All these have to be done and decided by humans.

We agree then

No that not what it means, it means the society at that time has not matured enough to consider those factors that made the modern society condemn it.

Mature enough? LOL what do you mean by that? What is the benchmark for social maturity for moral positions? or are you saying that pedophilia is objectively wrong? So whether humans or a certain society says it is not wrong it doesn't matter it is wrong?

See? this is one of those instance where you invoke an objective principle for something you agree to be subjective.

U can't, why? Because we are learning and advancing... That's what we must Dona's humans. Change.

The application of change is local to time.

johnydon22:
So, why do you believe that young girls suffering from VVF is a bad thing?

(i.e: This is not a moral position on my part, i am probing the logical path to your moral conclusion, so i wouldn't want you to assume i have made a moral position)

This is like saying, something is wrong because it makes human suffering.

Why do you think human suffering is wrong?

- Humans don't want suffering for themselves, it's not a continuity convenience.

- Most young girls during childbirth are operated(CS) to avoid VVF, this is a death risk for both the baby and young mother.

When this can be demonstrated to be fact then it's objectively true therefore marrying little girls is Immoral.

johnydon22:
That is exactly the argument coolusername and frank aren't understanding.

You can't say morality is subjective and make moral judgements that implies morality is objective.

Many people accepting that killing is wrong does not make 'not killing' objective. It just implies that a lot of humans are in agreement with this moral decision because of how sensible it is.

frank317:


Many people accepting that killing is wrong does not make 'not killing' objective. It just implies that a lot of humans are in agreement with this moral decision because of how sensible it is.

Oh true. Human condemnation of killing is based on an intersubjective belief that 'human life is sacred' therefore taking it is a violation of that sacredness.

Morality is an imagined order. Other imagined orders are; money, government, country, corporations etc. (We imagine it, we believe it)

Let me demonstrate this better with another example of imagined order.

Take for instance; Nigeria used to use the Nigerian pounds and shillings.

today, we no longer, we use naira now.

Was the Nigerian pounds and shilling money then? - Yes
Is the Nigerian pounds and shilling money today? - No

Imagined orders thrive on the prevailing belief of that given locality. I think this simplifies it for everyone right?

tintingz:
- Humans don't want suffering for themselves, it's not a continuity convenience.

Why is continuity good?

- Most young girls during childbirth are operated(CS) to avoid VVF, this is a death risk for both the baby and young mother.

What bearing does this have on your moral conclusion?

When this can be demonstrated to be fact then it's objectively true therefore marrying little girls is Immoral.

Aren't you still assuming that these things first of all are wrong?