₦airaland Forum

wiegraf: For those without our sort of consciousness, it's unavoidable. Trying to stamp it out will have no effect, as they would not be capable of reflecting on it. And also, carnivores.

So, a necessary evil.



Sentient animals. The only ones we are certain of.



Well


Regarding some of what you've said, if we all go around warring and killing each other, revenge ensues, standards of morality are lowered, etc, where does it stop? How does that ensure safety? You're still making the environment a more dangerous place to operate. It's against your (and our) interests.

All sides think god is on their side. A lot of foolishness may be involved (see Hanlon's razor), all sides probably have honest intentions, but they'd still all be wrong warring. There's always a better solution to violence (do note again that I can be a hypocrite, short-sighted and impatient).

Again, sapience separates us from the rest, hence we should use it to our advantage. We should be evolving past strife, petty or otherwise. So in general, god might be on every side, but as he's wont to; he's wrong morally.

You could take a practical approach, but you're still wrong ultimately. Necessary evil does not mean morally good. I wouldn't persecute some 'necessary evils', in fact I'd very loudly support them, but I wouldn't call them morally 'good' either.

These are your thoughts, and you are entitled to them, but they certainly do not detract one bit from the strict logic of the premises laid out and the inevitable conclusion that follows.

The premises do not talk about what is in anyone's interest, what is efficient, vengeance, strife etc. The premises are limited to morality.

mazaje: I can see myself in the mirrow, I can see most parts of my body without the help of a mirror. . .I am visible to myself and others. . .

- - - >

Deep Sight: please do not give a knee jerk reaction or respond with just the first obvious thing that comes to your mind. Think very deeply on it please.

- - - >

Can you see yourself? Are you visible to yourself? Are you visible to other people also?

- - - >

mazaje: i can see most parts of my body

Think on the above. You haven't even started at all, old chap.

mazaje1: Why is satan invisible?. . . Theist tell us that god fails to show up because of the free-will thing. Why has Satan stayed as invisible as god? He does not appear any where or to any body, he is also invisible.Theist say that their god stays hidden for some very strange reason I can't understand, if theists know he is there already and he is real and they really know and believe he is watching there is NO reason to stay invisible. Again why does satan stay as hidden as god? When every theist believes he is there and is watching? If satan wanted to disrupt god's plan as theist's tell us why is he not in the middle of every where bidding for souls? How exactly could satan make anyone do anything? By hiding he's showing his impotence. Some claim he has weird telepathic powers, but if satan could "get in our heads," that takes away our free will and makes a mockery of the whole "judgment of god thing.". Why is satan invisibe when theist he exist?. . .I just can't understand this whole tale. . .

Mazaje, I am going to ask you a very simple question, but it is also a profound and deep question, I think, so please do not give a knee jerk reaction or respond with just the first obvious thing that comes to your mind. Think very deeply on it please. Right - now here is the question -

Can you see yourself? Are you visible to yourself? Are you visible to other people also?

thehomer: I didn't. Can you tell me what the flaw was?

What is the meaning of the word "necessary". I cannot do your homework for you, I know you are knowledgeable enough. That argument in the OP is as disastrously nonsensical as any i have ever seen, and you can see it clearly.

Reduced deductive arguments

First Argument

Premise 1. It is not wrong or evil when animals kill other animals or seize their food.

Premise 2. Humans are animals.

Conclusion: It is not wrong or evil when humans kill other humans or seize their food.

Beat that, please.

@ Plaetton and all others arguing in terms of group survival and efficiency, etc, you still have not got the point at all.

I have to be brief right now, and so I will give you another spin of the matter to consider. Later in the day I shall respond more elaborately.

Now, if we say that group survival is the basis for morality, it eludes you that there are many groups in the world with differing wants, needs, cultures and the like. As such, the survival of one group may depend on acts of war with another group. Throughout history, this has been the case in terms of warfare and resources. People, nations and groups rise against one another in acts of war for the purpose of acquiring territory and resources for survival.

Now, this fits in perfectly with the survival needs of such groups! And more importantly, it is observed throughout history, and in every part of the world - thus evincing it as most natural.

The question therefore, would be if these acts of war targeted at achieving resources, are immoral or evil?

Was colonization evil? Was the expansion into the new world with its attendant acts of war on the native populations evil? Were the expansionist wars of the great generals, Alexander the Great, Darius, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, evil or immoral acts? Were these acts not acts of group survival and acquisition? Does this not fit in snugly and nicely with survival of the fittest?

Now the further step in the thought development is to scale down to smaller groups. If a larger group such as a nation can legitimately initiate acts of warfare over resources, what then makes it immoral for smaller groups to initiate similar acts? Pirates? Highway Bandits? Armed Robbers? Bullies at school? Powerful citizens in society? Unless one is hypocritical, one will see that the exact same principle per force applies! You must note that there is a difference between illegality and immorality, no?

Further, you cannot argue that this is bad because it leads to anarchy: for what is warfare if not anarchy? Indeed, is anarchy not the default state of nature?

Further still, I find Plaettons argument about human advancement and the development of better methods really poor! For this argument insinuates that things that were morally okay when man was less developed now become immoral in a more developed world! Does morality change based on available resources? Are there not still millions of people going hungry in the world today, in many backward and uncivilized nations? Would it be immoral for such people to steal food? If they need your resources, would it be immoral to seize your resources for their survival?

If we are merely highly developed animals, you can never argue that acts of warfare or seizing resources from one another are wrong or evil. NEVER.

Please start by addressing the question in red above.

Can any one quess why I find this picture telling and interesting?

Again to Plaetton - looking at the question of group survival. Do you realize that as populations increase and you have cases of over population and limited resources - do you realize that a time comes when a decreased population would in fact be better for the health and survival of the group. In such a situation, would we then say that it becomes moral for a small portion of the population to eliminate and murder the rest. Such as 2 million people in Nigeria murdering the rest - 158 million, and thereby living bountifully, peacefully and in great health and wealth in the land.

You must therefore realize that that which is more efficient which is what you are advocating, has many sides and does not equate with that which is moral or immoral.

kwangi: What happens when everybody starts using their high intelligence to STEAL food from each other?

But this is what happens in reality: such is, for example, official corruption on a massive scale. It has been the case throughout history. What makes it evil or immoral, if we are merely highly intelligent competitive apes?

plaetton: This unique event buttresses my point in a way.
First, where the survivors eating the dead corpses of others , or were they killing each other for the purpose of sustenance?

It is unlikely that they fought amongst themselves to see who would eat each other, as this would have been counter-productive and would have drastically reduced their chances of survival.

And that is the point we are trying to make why cannibalism would be wrong, immoral and evil. It would ,in no way, enhance anyone survivability even in the short run.

Imagine what would happen if rather than plant food, hunt animals, build shelter, learn, sing and dance, humans spent their time hunting other humans or trying to evade capture by other humans.
Though a great deal of humanity, Africans especially, have undergone similar trends in their history, we have the mental ability, which other animals do not have ,to look back, rationalize and conclude that those acts were irrational and detrimental the broad spectrum of the human psyche.

That is why we label such acts immoral, evil-mutally detrimental.

The question is about morality: and not efficiency. Morality goes to the individual and what is right and wrong. Why should an individual even be concerned about the group? Why would it be wrong or immoral to be only concerned about himself? Indeed, talking about group survival, why would it be wrong for an individual to be actively interested in decimating the entire group for his own selfish interest and pleasure. What makes that immoral for him to do - if indeed he is merely a smarter ape? Would you consider a very smart ape to be acting immorally if in his smartness he decided to eliminate other apes to conserve resources for himself? Why would that be bad or immoral?

9jadelta: from my own atheistic point of view
it is not wrong to kill animal for food. its natural since humans are omnivores we cant fight nature.. though some can stay away from meats but it doesn't mean its wrong to eat one
2. is still somehow the same. it's natural for animals to kill other animals for food especially carnivorous animals


3.
it is wrong for cannibals to kill fellow humans, even animals don't kill the same specie for food. its absolutely wrong. lion don't kill lion, tigers don't kill tigers. they kill other animals

Why do you make a special exemption for humans. We are merely smarter animals no? What's wrong with using our smarts to go about our grisly business?

wiegraf: If he isn't necessary that would mean he (very) likely doesn't exist, not that he necessarily doesn't exist, no? That he's surplus to requirements (by quite some way imo, so much so it's illogical to assume he exists), but not definitely so. Unless I'm missing something, of course.

What you are missing is the entire meaning of the word "necessary" as per philosophy.

thehomer: Did you spot a flaw?

You didn't?

plaetton: C'mon man.
Use your brain.
There are a lot of things that our ancestors did yesterday, that we completely abhor and would not do today.
That is called advancement.
Over the past 10,000yrs of recorded human history, we undergone many many advancements: from cave to open land, from eating raw meat to cooking them, from gathering wild fruits to agriculture, from hunting to animal husbandry, from wooden tools to advanced metallurgy.
I can bet that in your village , in the not too distant past, people engaged in some form of cannibalism because they did not know better.

Today, man does not sit idly(except for Nigerian religious slaves) to await the benevolance of imaginary gods. No, man is a god, a designer and fashioner of his future and destiny, for good or for bad.
So what exactly is your problem?
It seems that common scientific sense tend to irritate you.

This does not address the question, it evades the questions.

That we are highly developed animals and have found more efficient ways of surviving does not address the morality or otherwise of our primitive ways (which, by the way, are evidently still in existence given the state of the world).

The question is if any of the acts cited can be objectively described as immoral from the Atheistic world-view.

If I am simply a more intelligent animal than other animals, why is it wrong for me to use that intelligence to kill, oppress, seize and generally garner advantages for myself within the competitive and predatory environment in which we live.

Why would it be wrong for me to use my high intelligence to steal food and resources from others? Is this not survival? An animal surviving through its skills and abilities, no? Is this not what occurs in nature and indeed in human society continuously?

If Lions evolved further to a stage where they could farm meat from the soil, would it then become immoral for Lions to kill and eat other creatures for meat? You need to think carefully on this; for you suggest that the bigger brain and better methods suddenly mean that there is a moral wrong in applying more primitive methods of survival.

I am a Lion. Lions kill and take over other Lion Families. Now, as human, I am a more intelligent form. What's wrong with using that greater intelligence to selfishly advance my personal desires? What makes that morally wrong?

If anything, since I am a highly intelligent animal, you, my fellow man, had better wise up and become smarter than me, otherwise, it is legitimate for me to use my smarts to conquer you, seize your goods, family, wife and all - since this is what obtains in the natural world, no? What makes such an approach morally wrong for a highly developed animal?

In nature, might is indeed right! From the atheistic PoV, how is man excluded from nature?

If you will ponder carefully, you will see that in fact, this is what has been going on throughout human history - Might, and not right!

What is morally wrong with that, when this is the obvious way of nature?

ooman: This is a very wrong view of evolution and survival of the fittest. Evolution does not occur in individuals but in the whole population. A whole population become extinct or become built by natural selection of survival traits.
So survival of the fittest does not mean intra-species war.

You miss the point, kind sir. No one has said that survival of the fittest means intra-species war (although in human history it often has, and still does). What is asked, rather, is simply if the act or acts of taking lives are thereby morally wrong?

Animals kill their own kind only in time of severe lack. This behavior is also recorded in human history. Stories of parents eating their children, or giving them up for sacrifice spread through many culture. Its also found in the bible. So this behavior remains in all animals including human as a last resort.

. . . And therefore is not morally wrong? No?

You dont kill a member of your kind to survive, it doesn't favour survival of your species since evolution does not occur in individual but in the whole population.

Why should I be concerned about the survival of my species, and not simply about the survival of myself and my family and those I choose to be concerned about. If anything, I could argue that my species have been very bad for the health of the earth (extinctions, global warming, the threat of nuclear warfare, etc) and seek to decimate them and live in primitiveness with myself and my family. Why is that morally wrong?

Survival of the fittest is always misunderstood by creationists so no surprise here.

Death in itself is not bad or wrong.

You need to address yourself to the question: why is it morally wrong to kill your fellow man? If we live in a competitive world, and are merely highly developed animals, there surely is no moral wrong in conquering your fellow man to survive, and in fact this happens everyday through wars, conquests, colonization, corruption, oppression, stealing, and the like.

plaetton: ^^^
I beg to disagree. The monotheistic faiths carry the most contradictions in their worldview. These are the most slavish of the custodial religions, are were usually constructed by an elite class for the purposes of s social and political control.

Also, the so-called moral codes are usually self-serving rules that were made to cement and protect the social hierarchy.

You did not address the first fundamental he pointed out.

Are the monotheistic religions not right about -

- - - Eternal pre existent cause of the universe and the world

- - - Man being a spirit being

- - - Life after death?

Hi Plaetton;

Here is the post on the other thread: i reacted to a comment of yours, and that is the basis for this thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/1289717/atheists-arrogant-confess-it-true#15772694

No: Not being strict materialist does not disqualify you; I will very much like to hear your views although I still await strict materialists.

@ Wiegraf, i see you, and will revert. The other thread we had a long discussion on a while back, which you created; I did not forget it; i simply had too much to say and was too lazy to type. I will revert to it sometime soon. I have been known to make my responses sometimes after months or even years.

Reyginus: You're elevating emotions above reason here.
To answer your question, irrespective of whether I decide to accept the child or reject it based on my emotions, the principal thing is that it is utterly wrong to terminate the life.
Don't you think it doesn't matter how I take it so long as their is a proper definition between what is wrong and good?

Please be courageous enough to answer my questions one by one and specifically.

Emusan: Religion of evolutionism

WTF?

9jadelta: from my own atheistic point of view
it is not wrong to kill animal for food. its natural since humans are omnivores we cant fight nature.. though some can stay away from meats but it doesn't mean its wrong to eat one

Therefore you will agree that the taking of life in itself is not intrinsically wrong.

Especially as, as an atheist, you of course regard humans and animals as merely different creatures with different degrees of intelligence all trying to survive and preying on one another.

2. is still somehow the same. it's natural for animals to kill other animals for food especially carnivorous animals

And, if the theory of evolution holds correct; then we are merely advanced animals and surely it remains natural for us to kill for food just as animals do.

3.
it is wrong for cannibals to kill fellow humans, even animals don't kill the same specie for food. its absolutely wrong. lion don't kill lion, tigers don't kill tigers. they kill other animals

Well if survival of the fittest holds true, then why is this wrong? If anything, it will help weed out the weak amongst us, and facilitate the generation of the stronger genes. Remember that Lions do this: when they take over a pride, they kill off all the cubs to ensure the generation of their own genes. That is nature. If humans are only higher animals as espoused by evolution, why is it wrong for humans to do the same?

If I desire your wife, why is it wrong for me to kill you, kill your children, and take over her by force - - - > as Lions do, within their natural culture?

Kay 17: 1. God is a necessary being

2. If God exists, he necessarily exists

3. God is a Supernatural Cause.

4. Causes can be Natural.

5. A cause is either supernatural or natural.

6. A cause is not necessarily Supernatural.

7. Therefore God is not necessary and hence can not exist.

Are you drunk or something?

Enigma: A woman and her ex husband had tried unsuccessfully for a child for years and the doctors told her that her chances of conceiving are very low. In fact the husband has now left her due to childnessnes. One day she is raped and a few weeks later she is told that she is pregnant.

To abort or not to abort.

OL boy, i know you hate to hear from me, but I must say something to the house on this important point. I say this because again, I have personally interacted with women who feel this way: namely that after a long period of not being able to conceive, if such a thing were to happen, they would happily keep the child. Indeed, I have a very close female friend who was married for 14 years and had no child: and shortly after, a "mistake" with another man left her with Child. . . a beautiful young boy who she of course did not abort.

Now the distinction I wish to make to all and sundry is this: the woman is free to keep the child if she (and her partner) so wish, but particularly in the circumstances I outlined, no one can hold them morally indebted if they choose not to keep a child conceived in such scenarios.

Humans have been on the Earth for thousands of years and, being intelligent beings, have sought to rationalize their existence on this planet: to understand and contextualize it; and this has in most cases resulted over generations into one form of religious thought or the other.

Are there any key aspects of religious thinking that you would consider to hold true as per human reality and existence?

Reyginus: How does this answer my question? I'd like you to be sincere here.

Sincerity?

Ok, let us see how SINCERE YOU CAN BE - - ->

1. Your wife is ra.ped by armed robbers in your presence and they shoot two people dead right there during the act (this is not imagination, i witnessed this happen to a young lady live last year during my ordeal with armed robbers). Your wife becomes pregnant from the incident. Will you keep the baby?

2. Your wife is ra.ped by your father, son, or brother and becomes pregnant thereby. Will you keep the baby?

3. Your wife has medical issues and will die as a result of keeping the baby. Will you keep the baby?

4. You are so poor that you cannot even afford to feed yourself each day and are starving. You have no house, you are homeless, you cannot eat, you have no job and no means of income but you have a wife and you both live under a bridge. One night, you seek comfort in each other's arms. You have se.x with your wife and she gets pregnant. Will you keep the baby?

Sincerity please.

i addressed these questions to Plaetton on another thread, but I now think this merits a thread of its own. These questions are for strict materialist atheists. To avoid all mystery, the questions are intended to contest the basis of morality of the strict materialist atheist.

1. Is it wrong or evil to kill animals and please state the reason for your answer.

2. Is it wrong or evil when animals kill other animals and please state the reason for your answer.

3. Is it wrong or evil for a cannibal to kill you for the purpose of consuming your meat as food for his sustenance.

Your answers please.

Oh, and for those whose answers do not address the questions, kindly don't bother with hand-waving and other such dismissive tactics, thanks.

Deep Sight: This too is illogical. If death is the inevitable fate of all living things, how is bringing about death an interruption? You are only effecting that which must anyhow happen, no?

Secondly answer me these three -

1. Is it wrong or evil to kill animals and please state the reason for your answer.

2. Is it wrong or evil when animals kill other animals and please state the reason for your answer.

3. Is it wrong or evil for a cannibal to kill you for the purpose of consuming your meat as food for his sustenance.

Many thanks.

[size=24pt]PLAETTON, ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS PLEASE.[/size]

[quote author=Soul_caine]When we you say God is one with us, he is us ! Working on that premise, why do we hurt people intentionally ?

A boy goes out with a lady (God's likeness) and leaves her because he feels...whatever.

The question is if we agree in the existence of God as us why do we hurt us/ourselves ?[/quote]Why do you eat animals?

Mr anony: Nah nah nah, it is not sad at all. According to you, it is not an individual baby.

It is only a part of the woman's body she decided to leave in the bathroom. Nobody's your business

I think he is referring to the unprofessional and quack methods obvious in the scenario.

By the way, you made me transcribe a long telephone conversation and email it to you for nothing?

Logicboy03: Agreed but there is a problem......there cant be a limit on when to abort....

Anony and I went to a debate in London about whether there should be a limited time for abortion. Most people there were for abortion but they were ready to leave the decision to the mother or to the state for a limited abortion. The woman or women should decide.

The major reason was that...no one can truly decide when a baby in the womb is "truly human" or "truly conscious"......a slippery slope


-A point which I raised in the debate;
If a woman was kidnapped for 7 months and raped.....then, shew was rescued later with a 7 month plus pregnancy, shouldnt she have the right to get an abortion?

This is a very good point, and I agree with you. However note that my principle on only very early abortion is simply my personal take, my personal principle: I force it on no one.

The reason I have this principle is because I have seen the remains of an advanced foetus ejected via abortion in a dingy bathroom in the University of Lagos years ago. The sight was enough to convince me that aborting such an advanced foetus is, for me, repugnant.

However you still make a good point with the 7 months example. None of us can claim to have been conscious in the earliest days after our birth: not to speak of whilst we were yet in the womb: in all truth it is virtually a time when we did not exist yet, as known in this world.

Logicboy03: I attacked both......I showed him that he was not thinking about the mother when complaining about aborting the child.


You people hardly respond to reason....some abuse jars sense into you guys once in a while.........this is a life and death issue....Anony or one of you could be pastors or hold high position in churches and would have to advice women one day.......your christian "opinions" have already led to the depression of many women......


As for the abuse, I only told him what is necessary- put yourself in the molested woman's shoe- would you want your daughter to keep such a child?

Honestly, I find it particularly depressing that anyone could suggest that a pregnancy which is the result of an incident of ra.pe should be kept. It is the height of barbarism, inhumanity and complete lack of empathy with fellow man. It is the most unchristian and most uncharitable suggestion I have ever come across in my life.

I say this as I vividly recall my armed-robbery experience last year, during which a newly engaged young lady was ra.ped by the armed robbers. If such were to result in pregnancy, I am appalled to think that some here would suggest or even insist that such a pregnancy should be kept by the traumatized couple. These same robbers murdered 4 people in cold blood that night, including two at the scene of the ra.pe.

Think again, Anony, think again.

May it never happen to you or one close to you before you are forced to understanding of other people's trauma.

Here are all tenable reasons for proper and justifiable abortion. (Please note that I only believe in abortion in the very earliest stages of pregnancy when all that exists is a fertilized egg. Regardless of what Anony may say: such a thing is not yet a human being. In no way, shape or form whatsoever.)

1. A pregnancy arising from an incident of Ra.pe

2. Extreme Poverty

3. Medical danger to either mother or child

4. Affinity & Consanguinity (E.g; Father impregnates daughter)

5. Non-desire for a child.

These are sane, perfectly logical reasons to accept an abortion.

Any person who argues against abortion on point of principle in the instances of Examples No 1, 3 & 4 above, is being inhumane and extremely thoughtless.

@ Anony,

Do you consider the embryo as formed shortly after conception (within 2 - 4 weeks after conception) to be a human being?

Take a look at this image. It is an image of what the embryo looks like at that stage.

Is this a human being?