₦airaland Forum

MuttleyLaff:
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
- Aristotle

Touche

CAPSLOCKED:
GOOD ONE BROTHER.
WE SAVE THE SOULS THAT TRY TO SAVE US.

hahaha underrated comment

sanmtiago:
Sorry my write up may be lengthy but I'll try as much as possible to be concise

I don't usually see myself as a ladies man cause i'm just a simple person who likes it low key but ladies keep coming around. Of course I like women but I'm not the type who has that excessive impulse to have a woman around me for sex and all that romantic ish. I do have sex when I want to cause I have a girlfriend and I'm loyal to her also. I'm not loyal to her because I love her so much i think I'm loyal because I technically have this inherent self discipline so I hardly chase women. I've dated my girl friend for 2yrs and I've never cheated on her even when I've a deluge of girls flocking around me.

I'm a final year student in my mid twenties and my girl in her early twenties. I don't cohabit cause it doesn't appeal to me so all she does is visit and spend the weekend at my house at times.

Now down to the subject matter [b]I make friends irrespective of their sex but the thing is most of the females I make friends with always want to take the friendship further, they visit me at late hours at times 8pm, 9pm and they stay beyond 10pm and once it's after 10 they begin to give frivolous excuses like, I don't think it'd be safe going home alone by this time of the night or they say they've locked my hostel gate so I literally have no choice than to let them pass the night.

The shocking thing is they begin to make romantic demands like 'can you pls cuddle me I'm cold' I find it so disrespectful cause they know full well I have a girlfriend and I'm not that kind of guy they think I'm.

It happens too often and I'm no longer comfortable with it at this same time I don't want to lose friends as they're nice people. Even as much as my girl knows my level of honesty and discipline she still nervous breakdown because of the inordinate amount of calls from this so called Jezebels.

Please how do I curb this without losing friends cause like I said earlier they're nice and to some extent they've been helpful.[/b]

this post literally couldn't have been long if you went straight to the point. This post could have started and ended at the bolded words and would make far more sense.

You spent 60% of your written post given out personal background appraisal that turned out to be totally useless to the matter you are raising.

Didn't really answer the question on whether suicide was moral. Just danced around and said people had rights but didn't at all touch the main point of the question.

Technically, the bible supports reincarnation.

bloodofthelamb:
Is it necessary that I must have a need to express who I am?

Yes, a need to express who you are.

Zither:
If I tended a rose garden for the love of rose flowers would I be pursuing self-validation?

Nope, you are tending to a need to express that love.

tintingz:
Because humans WANTS to live, it's part of our nature, this is a universal thing.

So, why is wanting to live good?

Because it favors us.

Why is something that favors humans good?

When something is harmful then it's wrong not by mouth but in practical. No one wants something harmful for themselves even Jesus cried to his daddy to take the cup away from him even on the cross he cried to his daddy.

there goes the moral assumption. something is harmful isn't same thing as something is morally wrong.

If you feel stabbing you is not wrong, maybe we should do some test on you.

why is stabbing me wrong?

When something can be practicalize and find to be true, why do you think it's not objective?

finding something is harmful isn't same as it is not moral.

empiricism has no moral weight. empiricism makes no moral claim.

"Stabbing may kill you" empirically correct

"Stabbing is wrong" is now all you, that is your moral projection not what empiricism implies.

it is you as the observer that can decide to assume moral weight on these.

UyiIredia:
Mechonu there.

Hahahaha guy calm down.

NnennaG6 is a very brilliant person and she stays in Enugu too, i am dying to discuss with her in person.

NnennaG6:
You people haven't demonstrated that a perfect being can only act from need. We can easily imagine a person who is perfectly content, yet still acts out of love to help someone else who is not content. Gifts given out of love would still possible for a perfect being.

LOL. Acting out of love is also an expression of need. Need to express love.

primarily all actions falls down to a need.

For something to create anything, there must be at least a need to create, a desire to create. that is the point.

A creator who doesn't have a desire to create, won't.

a creator who does have a desire to create therefore has a need to satisfy this desire.

So, for the fact that this universe exists is incompatible with the idea that we are created by a creator who doesn't have a desire to create.

UyiIredia:
How does the need factor invalidate the idea of God?

It doesn't, it just simply implies that a God that by definition doesn't need is incompatible with that realization therefore cannot exist because such a God wouldn't create.

a God however who at least has a need to create can exist under the considered premise.

NnennaG6:
What need does a CEO have to paint a picture? Yet one might do so.

The need to paint a picture. Self satisfaction, self appraisal, demonstration of ability - many of them.

I fail to see how "for expression" could not be tied to an omni-x being as a reason for its creating. You can try to couch it in "the need for expression," but we're not going to agree that this counts as a real need and thus won't get very far.

Actually it is a need.

Who said He made these beings to worship Him? Maybe He made them because, knowing them prior to their creation, He loved them (the same way an author might love his novel characters), and, knowing it is better to be than not to be, made them to be, since He loves them.

1. Omni-factor and love? lol

2. He made them before he loved them or loved them before making them - which is it?

Your number 1 premise here is not fully supported. He has no need to create, sure. No reason? I disagree. Find out the explanation of love.

LOL

UyiIredia:
Yes. One need.

That is the whole point. There must be a need factor.

Zither:
TheArranger, you did not factor the will of such being into your premises? If God had a need He wouldn't be self-sufficient now, would He?

As a being, He has a will which He manifests in creation. It is easy to confuse the manifestation of will with the satisfaction of need. The manifestation of His will is an expression of His sovereignty, greatness and individuality evidenced by His creation.

The satisfaction of a need would imply His dependence on external factors, and as such that would be in contrast with His nature as a God who is before all.

In other words, His omni-x nature is not tied to need; it is tied to His will as a sovereign Being.

Whom exactly is such demonstration meant for?

Aren't you implying a need for self validation here?

ThothHermes:
Whoever said God has to be omni-x

The omni qualities are basically a fundamental definition of God, at least on a cosmological scale.

UyiIredia:
A Creator without needs I can compute with one exception. He has a need to create. Otherwise, what is He a Creator for?

He has a need to create then he literally has a need then.

TheArranger:
The creative process seems inexorably tied to needs. This process surges as a result of the need to survive, compete or for expression. (It can also happen by accident...)

An omni-x being, or God, by definition has no needs. One might argue that creating would go against his nature. From the Abrahamic standpoint, why would said beings create inferior beings to worship him?

One could attempt an argument as follows:

1. An omni-x being has no needs or reason to create anything

2. An omni-x being would simply be.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, if the universe was created, the author was an entity with a need. (Or created it by accident...)

This conclusion would point to a being quite different from the omni-x God theists describe.

In fact, this omni-x God seems like a classic post hoc explanation for a reality we find difficult to explain.

What do you think?

I like your argument and it is very logical. However it does not negate the existence of a creator, its conclusion is simply that a creator who doesn't have need cannot exist.

the concept of God who doesn't have a need yet creates something do not exist.

Good argument.

tintingz:
Lol, finding your questions interesting.

They sure are. lol

For humanity not to go extinct.

why is it good for humans not to go extinct?

It's not an assumption, it's part of human instinct to see survival as good.

LOL. it is a fact that organisms aspire towards survival, the question here is; why do you think this aspiration is good?

I never made mention of science giving the moral basis, I gave a fact why pedophile is harmful to young girls/human race.

Then you agree that saying "This is harmful" is not same as saying "this is wrong"?

It's a fact that can be practicalize and find to be horrible.

That is the moral assumption! A fact is morally neutral. there are simply no moral facts because morality isn't an absolute/objective quality.

CoolUsername:
Then that society will fail (i.e., be absorbed or obliterated by others) in a couple of generations. That is why most societies in existence try to preserve themselves.

Islam doesn't seem to be getting the memo then

Not to me, not to most people.

Exactly

I never said my judgment was an undeniable fact, that was never my argument. I said that paedophilia is immoral and that there is overwhelming consensus against it. All true.

Oh i agree, i am saying however that you as a moral relativist cannot assert Muhammed was morally wrong because that would mean applying the moral consensus or framework of today to someone who conformed to a different moral framework.

The only way for that to work is that morality is an absolute quality that remains unchanging across time and social circle.

You said I shouldn't be making such judgments as a moral relativity which is nonsensical because we all make judgments based on our beliefs. If you don't, then morality doesn't even exist.

I didn't say you shouldn't be making such judgements as a relativist, i am saying your moral framework only applies within the purview of your intersubjective clime which can be defined by time or social distinctions.

Therefore a moral relativist cannot conclusively say A is wrong from a moral framework of B.

tintingz:
Because if human activities. Suffering deprived human activities and these can be a threat to human survival.

Why is human survival good?

For human race to continue, we need to avoid chaotic and harmful things.

Why do you assume human survival can be good or bad?

Nope, I just demonstrated why child marriage is wrong with fact.

Actually No, you just gave me scientific findings then make logical conclusions on them.

There are no empirical moral basis.

Science saying pedophilia causes VVF is not same as science saying "Pedophilia is wrong"

The assertion of science doesn't possess any inherent moral quality, the moral conclusions you arrive at however is as a result of you making moral assumptions about these.

UyiIredia:
Think about it. Can you be morally absolute or morally relative about EVERYTHING?

You are either morally absolute or relativistic about everything.

People are mostly relativists anyway.

That is why the only way for moral absolutism to be possible, moral determinism must be taken away from humans. It appeals to a transcendent moral authority - hence God in theism.

GeneralShepherd:
Intresting arguments but now you are appealing to science for moral guidance?

You do realise that in universities that there is a reason science students study philosophy ?

Science in its raw form does not posit any moral framework. Science is just science, you then interprete scientific findings through a moral framework which outside the realms of science . Hence why philosophy is part of most science degrees

Coolusername does not really grasp the argument. He is arguing for an empirical moral framework which is just as good as saying morality is an objectice intrinsic universal value. Lol.

Science saying, smoking may kill you, is not science saying "smoking is wrong"

The findings of science are not moral positions, Coolusername seems to think it is. Lol.

That is what i have been arguing since here.

GeneralShepherd:
Pedophilia is wrong today and I agree with everyone on that but to say morality is relative and absolute at the same time is a contradictory as saying you found a desert under water.

If is either morality is absolute or relative . If it is absolute then Muhammad was wrong and will always be wrong, if it is not then Muhammad was not wrong but his followers now are wrong.

Thank you, finally!!!

Someone gets it.

I'm gonna cry

UyiIredia:
The thing I am realizing is that when it come to context that is not the case. Morality could be absolute or relative when it comes to context.

Morality can't be both relative and absolute.

That's the problem and the reason i am arguing on this thread

It is illogical for a moral relativist to make morally absolute judgements. That is a blatant contradiction that can never work.

You either agree morality is absolute or you don't. Not both

CoolUsername:
No, it isn't. it is just very generally accepted for members of a society to try to preserve it.

and if they generally accept the opposite?

They were moral to the Nazis and the Germans who felt that the Jews were the cause of all their problems.

Is it moral?

You are a relativist innit?

Stop trying to railroad this argument into two options. Morality is, as you put "intersubjective". So is empiricism, because it relies on the subjective judgement of the observer. For morality to be objective, it would be have to be unchanging through time, which is observably untrue. Judging by what we know today regarding paedophilia, I can say that it is a negative action. Mohammed and co probably didn't have the APA performing such studies and collecting such data, so they came to different conclusions, which is normal for a man living in his time but unacceptable for a character we're supposed to model our behaviour after.

Epericism doesn't make any moral suggestion. And as you rightly put, the observer makes the conclusions.

Which is where again relativism creeps in again, conclusions defer.

There are no moral facts, morality is an imagined order, no matter how you try, it is never empirical.

If morality is emperical then it is purely objective.

But that is the problem, the moral conclusions you make are relative, there are no empirical moral facts.

It's a belief

CoolUsername:
How can a deist believe in moral objectivity when he doesn't believe that God interferes with the affairs of humans?

Because morality can be an inherent quality of the universe as much as the laws of physics for a deist - God doesn't need to incessantly interfer.

UyiIredia:
TBH his argument make sense. And BTW I am something between moral relative and absolutist. I feel you can still argue against pedophilia under a case where moral relativism doesn't fully apply and there's some moral absolute.

Do we seriously have to judge pedophilia like eating a cake? I think the moral sphere isn't so divided against the two sides as it seems.

I don't think absolutism has an inbetween. Something is either absolute or not.

UyiIredia:
Well you can right. But seriously pedophilia is grossly wrong. No arguments there.

You are at least a deist, you can believe in moral objectivity hence this statememt is more rooted.

However the guy is arguing on the logic of a moral relativist (atheist) to condemn pedophilia as it was practised within a moral provision 1,500 years.

frank317:
No its is not based on the believe that human live is sacred... It is because the effect is not going well with us. Killing causes sadness, loss of loved ones, creates a vacuum, pain and burden. As a result humans agree its bad.. Yes some people must be killed because its a necessity.
If it was because human life is sacred then no one will ever be killed no matter what they did.



I don't know if I get u right but this sounds like u are making my point for me.

That has always been my point here

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?

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?

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.