I have been chanced to skim the works of Sartre where he emphasized that man was the one who creates his own morality. On a personal note, i side with atheists, when they say that one doesn't need religion to be moral, for the simple reason that; at a young age i observed my parents weren't particularly religious (they were pagans), yet they had strong mora fibre.

This brings me to a puzzle which I seek to make clear with questions i ask. They are as follows

[list]
[li]Isn't morality imbibed from religio-cultural elements of a society ?[/li]
[li]could it not be possible that the atheist get some of their moral fibre from the foresaid elements ?[/li]
[li]Religious or Irreligious, do you believe in the factuality of a conscience ?[/li]
[li]Is it justifable to do good for a future reward ?[/li]
[li]Is there any such thing as altruism ? (I think that altruism is still selfish precisely because of its empathy)[/li]
[li]Could there be morality independent of religion ?[/li]
[li]Do you allow that atheism/deism allows for sexual permissiveness ?[/li]
[/list]

in the 1st and 2nd question >>> i consider the fact that religion, culture and society are so enmeshed >>> an irreligious person will still have some 'religious traits'  e.g some people may not be religious but believe in a transcedental reality.Sagamite seems to fall into this class

in the 3rd question >>> i consider the still, small voice in my head >>> is it (just that) a conscience ? or the voice of the Holy Spirit ? or jargonspeak it is some kind of brain signal in the cerebral cortex (recently watched an old BBC documentary titled "Everything You Need To Know ABout The Brain" ? >>> or am i just hearing voices 

in the 4th & 5th >>> i wasn't just considering the fact that Christians apply themselves to their religion with the hope of heaven >>> i was musing on how common it is to hear something like "let me help you.maybe tommorow youl be a big man and help me when i'm in need'  >>> Dawkins says be altruistic , i suppose this, altruism is a somewhat reversed self-interest >>> more like "oh ! this is what this thing is suffering. let me help it because it makes me feel better to see that its sufferng ends."

in the 6th >>> my own answer is in the negative >>> because I do not know if there has been a time society existed without a form of religion >>> quite the opposite >>> thehomer (who seems well informed on evolution) should know that recent evolutionary theories surmise that the moment the brain evolved to accomodate man's establishment of society, religion appeared.

in the 7th >>> just curious >>> cuz on more than one occassion i've chanced unbelievers who are complacent about sex outside of marriage >>> DeepSight opinions here was the height

this one ain't going nowhere >>> till i get the answers i seek

Morality (or Immorality) has little to do with religion.

Morality is motivation based on ideas of right and wrong. In the process, the person evaluates the scenario and attempts to make it seem right relative to a set principle or his/her own personal persuasion at the moment.

The end game of trying to be Moral (upright) is being Ethical (honorable). Morality revolves around Ethical decision-making and thus undermines the entire purpose. In morality, the person looks for a way to shine a favorable/honorable (ethical) light on an act in order to maintain a clear conscience.

Morality will thus involve a lot of pretense and favour the cunning. People are good at analysis, strategy, manipulation and other means of justifying questionable actions (and even worse, if they have no beliefs in a superior power or being - they are excellent at justifying actions to themselves). This is the only place where I think atheism and morality will clash. The idea of moral justification is bad enough without the belief that you need to answer to no one. In a bid to present morality ~ especially for atheists whose hearts are not answerable to anyone except maybe some fellow humans who definitely cant see all sides of the scenario ~ people spend time looking for loopholes and ways to whitewash or to sweep under the rug that which their conscience tells them is not quite right.

The idea of morality seems to be a ploy to silence all ethical qualms.

Uyi Iredia:


in the 7th >>> just curious >>> cuz on more than one occassion i've chanced unbelievers who are complacent about sex outside of marriage >>> DeepSight opinions here was the height

Bros, the link you gave contained no posts from me. Infact I was not on NL in 2007. Besides why do you call me an unbeliever? Who is an unbeliever?

okay lemme get what u are saying >>> the ffg is my understanding of what u have said  

* morality is not right and wrong >>> it is the idea of right and wrong
* ethics is about what is right and wrong
* to be moral >>> we try to behave ethically to keep a clear conscience
* you imply that the base of one's morality is his/her conscience which u, apparently, believe in.

you do that here

people spend time looking for loopholes and ways to whitewash or to sweep under the rug that which their conscience tells them is not quite right.

and here

In morality, the person looks for a way to shine a favorable/honorable (ethical) light on an act in order to maintain a clear conscience.

i agree that morality, in a sense, has little to do with religion >>> but not your reason >>> t'is so because i suppose that such motivation is based on religion

Uyi Iredia:

I have been chanced to skim the works of Sartre where he emphasized that man was the one who creates his own morality. On a personal note, i side with atheists, when they say that one doesn't need religion to be moral, for the simple reason that; at a young age i observed my parents weren't particularly religious (they were pagans), yet they had strong mora fibre.

This brings me to a puzzle which I seek to make clear with questions i ask. They are as follows

[list]
[li]Isn't morality imbibed from religio-cultural elements of a society ?[/li]

Which is it? Religion or culture? They are quite different.

Uyi Iredia:

[li]could it not be possible that the atheist get some of their moral fibre from the foresaid elements ?[/li]

It could be possible. It could also be possible that we have evolved a high level of morality due to the necessity of living in large groups.

Uyi Iredia:

[li]Religious or Irreligious, do you believe in the factuality of a conscience ?[/li]

What is a conscience? Is it a desire to do something that one feels others would like?

Uyi Iredia:

[li]Is it justifable to do good for a future reward ?[/li]

Yes it is. I think it's even better do do so without expecting a future reward (heaven, money, fame etc.)

Uyi Iredia:

[li]Is there any such thing as altruism ? (I think that altruism is still selfish precisely because of its empathy)[/li]

I think a person can be altruistic without empathy.

Uyi Iredia:

[li]Could there be morality independent of religion ?[/li]

Definitely. I'll even say we are moral in spite of religion.

Uyi Iredia:

[li]Do you allow that atheism/deism allows for sexual permissiveness ?[/li]
[/list]

Yes it does. But it really depends on the individual.

Uyi Iredia:

in the 1st and 2nd question >>> i consider the fact that religion, culture and society are so enmeshed >>> an irreligious person will still have some 'religious traits'  e.g some people may not be religious but believe in a transcedental reality.Sagamite seems to fall into this class

in the 3rd question >>> i consider the still, small voice in my head >>> is it (just that) a conscience ? or the voice of the Holy Spirit ? or jargonspeak it is some kind of brain signal in the cerebral cortex (recently watched an old BBC documentary titled "Everything You Need To Know ABout The Brain" ? >>> or am i just hearing voices 

What does the voice sound like? Does it tell you to do things or do you think along the lines of "X would like it if I did this".

Uyi Iredia:

in the 4th & 5th >>> i wasn't just considering the fact that Christians apply themselves to their religion with the hope of heaven >>> i was musing on how common it is to hear something like "let me help you.maybe tommorow youl be a big man and help me when i'm in need'  >>> Dawkins says be altruistic , i suppose this, altruism is a somewhat reversed self-interest >>> more like "oh ! this is what this thing is suffering. let me help it because it makes me feel better to see that its sufferng ends."

in the 6th >>> my own answer is in the negative >>> because I do not know if there has been a time society existed without a form of religion >>> quite the opposite >>> thehomer (who seems well informed on evolution) should know that recent evolutionary theories surmise that the moment the brain evolved to accomodate man's establishment of society, religion appeared.

Does this mean that you think morality depends on religion? I of course disagree with this.

Uyi Iredia:

in the 7th >>> just curious >>> cuz on more than one occassion i've chanced unbelievers who are complacent about sex outside of marriage >>> DeepSight opinions here was the height

I say as long as they are consenting adults.

by unbelievers >>> i was reffering to people who do not adhere to any religion (especially the 'Big 3') >>> i did not intend to use it in an abusive manner >>> the only scapegoat of my abuse has been Mudley  

Dulcet7:

Morality (or Immorality) has little to do with religion.

Accepted.

Morality will thus involve a lot of pretense and favour the cunning.

This is a hilarious statement. I presume on your behalf that you mean this as a joke: for it has no other intelligible or even vaguely rational justification. Moraility favour the cunning? Perhaps your moraility is that espoused by Niccolo Machiavelli.

Hogwash.

This is the only place where I think atheism and morality will clash. The idea of moral justification is bad enough without the belief that you need to answer to no one.

I hope you are aware that a country like Finland which is almost entirely atheist sets a moral standard that an almost entirely theist nation like Nigeria can probably never acheive.

Finland ranks amongs the countries with the lowest levels of crime, corruption etc. So quit the chit chat.

Besides, this statement contradicts your excellent opening line.

In a bid to present morality ~ especially for atheists whose hearts are not answerable to anyone except maybe some fellow humans who definitely cant see all sides of the scenario ~ people spend time looking for loopholes and ways to whitewash or to sweep under the rug that which their conscience tells them is not quite right.

Most atheists i know of answer to themselves in terms of conscience and not to other human beings. If anything it is the theist in most cases that seems to answer to other human beings. The bit about sweeping stuff under the carpet applies to everybody generally: atheists, theists, pagans, etc.

The idea of morality seems to be a ploy to silence all ethical qualms.

How is it a ploy?

What is the differenec between morals and ethics.

Your conception of morality is disastrous.

Uyi Iredia:

by unbelievers >>> i was reffering to people who do not adhere to any religion (especially the 'Big 3') >>> i did not intend to use it in an abusive manner >>> the only scapegoat of my abuse has been Mudley

Well the fact still remains that the link you provided contains no post from me.

Deep Sight:

Accepted.

This is a hilarious statement. I presume on your behalf that you mean this as a joke: for it has no other intelligible or even vaguely rational justification. Moraility favour the cunning? Perhaps your moraility is that espoused by Niccolo Machiavelli.

Hogwash.

I hope you are aware that a country like Finland which is almost entirely atheist sets a moral standard that an almost entirely theist nation like Nigeria can probably never acheive.

Finland ranks amongs the countries with the lowest levels of crime, corruption etc. So quit the chit chat.

Besides, this statement contradicts your excellent opening line.

Most atheists i know of answer to themselves in terms of conscience and not to other human beings. If anything it is the theist in most cases that seems to answer to other human beings. The bit about sweeping stuff under the carpet applies to everybody generally: atheists, theists, pagans, etc.

How is it a ploy?

Hello Deep Sight,

I appreciate your response, sir. However this is only my own persuasion and might even be absolutely wrong ~ I will be ready to have new persuasions when I can be convinced otherwise.

Deep Sight: What is the differenec between morals and ethics.

Your conception of morality is disastrous.

I think it is right, actually. Morals are the description of ethics.

Here is an academic article
http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/types.html

I wish you well.

Mr DeepSight, I was referring to this comment

sex is a natural instinct.

Calling it a sin is like saying eating food is a sin. That's a natural instinct too!

Please jare, my regular is on her way here, let me dust my bed,  Gonna be hot tonight

People can be so incredibly silly.

Lets say i never get married. No sex till i die? The thing is program,med into our DNA, we cant live without it

i disagree with this >>> as humans we have the capacity to disobey our instincts >>> what is wrong with sexual abnegation >>> or are u saying that records of people reputed never to have 'done it' are lies!

Deep Sight, you were on that thread, sir; at least I found two posts.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-35449.800.html#msg4447849

sex is a natural instinct.

Calling it a sin is like saying eating food is a sin. That's a natural instinct too!

Please jare, my regular is on her way here, let me dust my bed, Gonna be hot tonight

People can be so incredibly silly.

Lets say i never get married. No sex till i die? The thing is program,med into our DNA, we cant live without it

and

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-35449.832.html#msg4447880

be there saying its a sin, when jesus himself probably had the hots with mary magdalene

Take time o!

Oh dear, i better go off and prepare she will soon be here,

Sin ko, sin ni.

From the Lander University link http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/types.html , it seems I may have been right or at least close.

A. Descriptive Ethics or Morals: a study of human behavior as a consequence of beliefs about what is right or wrong, or good or bad, insofar as that behavior is useful or effective. In a sense, morals is the study of what is thought [/b]to be right and [b]what is generally done by a group, society, or a culture. In general, morals correspond to what actually is done in a society.

Everything is wrong with sexual abnegation. Sexual abnegation eventually leads to acts of violence like. . .  making wars, or inquisition killings, or riots like the ones in Jos.

Uyi Iredia:

Mr DeepSight, I was referring to this comment


i disagree with this >>> as humans we have the capacity to disobey our instincts >>> what is wrong with sexual abnegation >>> or are u saying that records of people reputed never to have 'done it' are lies!

"morals are a description of ethics"

@ Dulcet >>> please break this down

leave the Islamic fundies out of this ! >>> i was thinking of classic men/women of old (e.g St Augustine, St Hildegard and their likes) reputed not to have married or abstained from 'it' for long periods

besides u are aware that rape cases abound in the North >>> at the least i read of such stories monthly

Hello again Uyi Iredia.

In every society or atmosphere there are concrete values called ethics. Morals signify the evident reaction of each individual to those ethics. In other words, morals show how well (or not) you [i]describe [/i]those ethics. Unfortunately, the heart of a human being is hidden so it is very possible to mask your actions and seem to conform to the ethics while inside your heart, you stay immoral. This is what I meant by cunningness and pretense ~ which may deteriorate and be worse if you have no belief that anyone can see through the mask.

I hope it's clear now.

Dulcet7:

Deep Sight, you were on that thread, sir; at least I found two posts.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-35449.800.html#msg4447849
and

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-35449.832.html#msg4447880

Okay, but certainly not on the page he cited. Anyway i stand by my views regarding se.x as expressed in teh quotes you sourced. What is immoral about s.ex? Is it not a natural instinct programmed into our hormones? Let's say i never get married all my life. Do you expect that the proper thing is that i will battle the natural instinct of my hormones all my life? That is just beyong absurd.

Deep Sight:

Okay, but certainly not on the page he cited. Anyway i stand by my views regarding se.x as expressed in teh quotes you sourced. What is immoral about s.ex? Is it not a natural instinct programmed into our hormones? Let's say i never get married all my life. Do you expect that the proper thing is that i will battle the natural instinct of my hormones all my life? That is just beyong absurd.

But I never discussed anything about sex with you, Deep Sight. I was only showing that you seemed to have forgotten your posts on that thread.

thehomer:

Which is it? Religion or culture? They are quite different*1


It could be possible. It could also be possible that we have evolved a high level of morality due to the necessity of living in large groups.*2


What is a conscience? Is it a desire to do something that one feels others would like?*3


Yes it is. I think it's even better do do so without expecting a future reward (heaven, money, fame etc.)*4


I think a person can be altruistic without empathy.*5


Definitely. I'll even say we are moral in spite of religion.*6


Yes it does. But it really depends on the individual.*7


What does the voice sound like? Does it tell you to do things or do you think along the lines of "X would like it if I did this".*8


Does this mean that you think morality depends on religion? I of course disagree with this.*9


I say as long as they are consenting adults.*10

*1 >>> i'm the one asking >>> what is it? religion ? or culture ? >>> or do i misunderstand morality ? >>> note that i assume morality to equate to right and wrong

*2 >>> okay >>> but this point u made is one of the reasons I have repeatedly advanced as basis of my brandishing atheism a religion >>> religions evolve in like manner

*3 >>> u don't hear voices in your head >>> like something that says do this ? do that ?   *never mind the cheesy smile I'm serious*

*4 >>> an enviable position indeed

*5 >>> how ?!

*6 >>> this vaguely reminds me of one of Hitchens quotes >>> post a link backing up this claim

*7 >>> i thought as much

*8 >>> for one, the voice is similar to my real-life voice >>> and yes ! it is something like "X will like this e.t.c"

*9 >>> no. i didn't construct the question well >>> it's more like this >>> is it possible to have morality entirely, absolutely, without religion >>> like if there was no religion would there have been: this is good, this is bad. I think even those uninclined to religion will allow that they find similarity of their thoughts in a multitude of religions

*10 >>> deja vu   >>> i think u have said this b4

Dulcet7:

From the Lander University link http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/types.html , it seems I may have been right or at least close.

Please stop obsfucating issues. For heavens sake even the quote your yourself sourced said - "Descriptive Ethics or morals - a study of human behaviour. . ." thus showing the terms to be essentially dealing with the exact same thing. So there.

Anyhow I don't want you to side-step the comical statements contained in your first post on this thread. I am not interested in a pedantic debate about the distinction between morals and ethics. That is of no use to anyone.

What you should defend are these ridiculous statements of yours -

Dulcet7:


Morality will thus involve a lot of pretense and favour the cunning.

Dulcet7:


The idea of morality seems to be a ploy to silence all ethical qualms.

These are ludicruous statements. I ask you again how morality is "a ploy"? ? ?

I ask you again how morality "involves alot of pretense and favours the cunning"? ? ?

You are subscribing to machiavellian ideas of expedience and translating that into some pseudo understanding of morality.

I am not talking only about them, but about all those who practice this unnatural act of abstinence from sex.

Uyi Iredia:

leave the Islamic fundies out of this ! >>> i was thinking of classic men/women of old (e.g St Augustine, St Hildegard  and their likes) reputed not to have married or abstained from 'it' for long periods  

How can you tell whether those people really "abstained" from sex during their days? There is no way of telling. We could easily have believed that catholic priests in modern times also abstained if not for all the cases of these very same catholic priests performing paedophilic acts on poor alter boys. Abstinence from normal sex is the cause of such awful acts.

Uyi Iredia:
besides u are aware that violation cases abound in the North >>> at the least i read of such stories monthly

Dulcet7:

Hello again Uyi Iredia.

In every society or atmosphere there are concrete values called ethics. Morals signify the evident reaction of each individual to those ethics. In other words, morals show how well (or not) you [i]describe [/i]those ethics. Unfortunately, the heart of a human being is hidden so it is very possible to mask your actions and seem to conform to the ethics while inside your heart, you stay immoral. This is what I meant by cunningness and pretense ~ which may deteriorate and be worse if you have no belief that anyone can see through the mask.

I hope it's clear now.

Brilliant post ! >>> touching as well b'cos your comment on pretense and cunningness hit home (i'm guilty of this) >>> but still i beg more clarification >>> is not this evident reaction open to change ? >>> i ask because when debating homer (and another time kay 17) >>> i said that morals change in accordance to zeitgeist >>> i also said that morality is not a basis for man's existence >>> please evaluate my claims

[center]
[/center]

Hello again Deep Sight.

Descriptive Ethics or morals - a study of human behaviour. . ." thus showing the terms to be essentially dealing with the exact same thing. So there.

It is Descriptive Ethics that is the same as Morals; and not Ethics same as Morals.

As for the other points in your post, I don't have anything else to say here about my allegedly ludicruous statements. Maybe you are right after all ~ but have only failed to convince me.

^^^^nigga, quit derailing the thread with your unfunny pics. internet nerds are discussing

Jenwitemi:

I am not talking only about them, but about all those who practice this unnatural act of abstinence from sex. *1

How can you tell whether those people really "abstained" from sex during their days? There is no way of telling. We could easily have believed that catholic priests in modern times also abstained if not for all the cases of these very same catholic priests performing paedophilic acts on poor alter boys. Abstinence from normal sex is the cause of such awful acts.*2

*1 >>> okay

*2 >>> no ! no ! no ! >>> for example, i am a virgin (though heavy on jerking off, a habit i try to curb)  and i do not commit violent acts >>> and i personally know people (one is presently my roomate) and have friends who abstain from sex for religious reasons >>> who divert their passions to other stuff e.g prayers, reading e.t.c >>> yes ! body no be wood but no be say make pesin open door wide na !

Dulcet7:

Hello again Deep Sight.
It is Descriptive Ethics that is the same as Morals; and not Ethics same as Morals.

Whatever.

As for the other points in your post, I don't have anything else to say here about my allegedly ludicruous statements. Maybe you are right after all ~ but have only failed to convince me.

Lol, this chap strolls in here and says morality involves "pretense, cunning" etc and sits back to say he cannot defend such a preposterous definition of morality. No problem. Maybe YOUR morality involves "pretense, cunning," and is "a ploy". . .my morality certainly involves no such things.

I just hope you are not allowed to teach little children anything. Good, grief, what an odious perception of morality you would bequeath.

Dulcet7:

Hello again Uyi Iredia.

In every society or atmosphere there are concrete values called ethics. Morals signify the evident reaction of each individual to those ethics. In other words, morals show how well (or not) you [i]describe [/i]those ethics. Unfortunately, the heart of a human being is hidden so it is very possible to mask your actions and seem to conform to the ethics while inside your heart, you stay immoral. This is what I meant by cunningness and pretense ~ which may deteriorate and be worse if you have no belief that anyone can see through the mask.

I hope it's clear now.

I will say that Blindness and atheism are[b] ideologically s[/b]ynonymous

To Uyi Iredia:
I believe morals change with personal experience, so I thus also agree that personal morals are influenced by the zeitgeist ~ spirit of the times and current seasons.

i also said that morality is not a basis for man's existence >>> please evaluate my claims

I am not certain how to reply this because my opinions about the basis of man's existence are only a product of my own thoughts, and I do not consider them absolute in any regard. . .

Deep Sight:

Whatever.

Lol, this chap strolls in here and says morality involves "pretense, cunning" etc and sits back to say he cannot defend such a preposterous definition of morality. No problem. Maybe YOUR morality involves "pretense, cunning," and is "a ploy". . .my morality certainly involves no such things.

I just hope you are not allowed to teach little children anything. Good, grief, what an odious perception of morality you would bequeath.

To Deep Sight: In case you misunderstood me, I meant human beings always look for shortcuts ~ so when there is a rigid ethical code and personal morals attempt to catch up, it is certain that pretense, cunning and falsehood will get many of them there. There are criminals walking the street who only manage to stay out of the long arms of the law because they are cunning. Either way ~ if you understood me or not ~ no problems. I wish you well.

@ Dulcet >>>  thanks >>> i am satisfied

Dulcet7:

To Deep Sight: In case you misunderstood me, I meant human beings always look for shortcuts ~ so when there is a rigid ethical code and personal morals attempt to catch up, it is certain that pretense, cunning and falsehood will get many of them there. There are criminals walking the street who only manage to stay out of the long arms of the law because they are cunning. Either way ~ if you understood me or not ~ no problems. I wish you well.

In that case your words were a severe and tragic misapplication of your meaning.

"Morality will thus involve a lot of pretense and favour the cunning." - this is just dead on wrong. What you should have said is that the attempt to show morality may involve pretense and cunning.