₦airaland Forum

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?

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?

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.

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!!!

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

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.

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

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.

hahn:
A non-arbitrary value like?
Got it

Like; a value system that transcends human determinism.

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.

hahn:
And that basis is?

The belief of a Non-arbitrary value on the subject.

Note: Moral subject is different from moral action.

CoolUsername:
Your statement is true but you fail to realize that morality itself evolved from a utilitarian viewpoint; i.e., behaviours that benefit the group are good and those that cause harm are bad. Of course I'm oversimplifying, but this underlying premise still till today.

So?

That's a blatantly false statement to make in these times, with ICT, air travel, and the global stock market, we depend on each other more than ever. This phenomenon is only going to get not pronounced if we continue in this trajectory.

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.

With all due respect, this where my empiricism trips your sophistry. With hard facts and evidence of the negative consequences of an action, my "opinion" on paedophilia is only as much of an opinion as any scientific theory.

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

Take for instance, this is an analogy:

Is pedophilia wrong?
yes.
Why?
Because it hurts people
Is hurting people wrong?
Yes
Why?

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.

tintingz:
I hope you know what causes VVF?

I don't know. So?

frank317:
What in the world is this...what's happening to u johnny?

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

Society/humans decides what's moral or not based on a whole lit of factors... Evil acts are not condemned just for the sake of it, but base din how it affects us.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Moral relativity

CoolUsername:
You miss the point that the are several negative effects caused by child molestation. This isn't just a matter of preference but rather, a matter of societal problems that child molestation exacerbates in a statistically significant way.

www.aswllp.com/Sexual-Molestation-Abuse/What-are-the-Long-Term-Effects-of-Childhood-Sexual-Abuse.shtml

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

I think that there's a very general consensus that mental illness isn't good for society, that criminal behaviour, alcohol abuse, and antisocial tendencies after not good for society. Paedophilia has a strong correlation with these things. It is only rational to protect children.

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

Which brings me to my point that Allah should have known about this and should have not let the ideology he inspired become synonymous with it.

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

CoolUsername:
That's where you're wrong. Demonstrating, the negative effects that an act can have on an individual and societal level can be used to argue whether it should be allowed or not.

Something being allowed or not is not same thing as being moral. Something can be legal but still immoral and vise versa.

Also, in modern times, societies are no longer isolated. So society A and B have to come to some sort of compromise in order to coexist.

LMAO. Actually, societies have always been isolated. International relations have always been something present in earthly politics from the ancient times.

You have to make up your mind; it is either morality is relative (subjective and local) or it is not. You can't have it both ways.

But it remains; it is blatantly illogical for a moral relativist to make moral conclusions on the actions of others outside his intersubjective clique because there is absolutely no basis for that.

tintingz:
What If I demonstrate why their practice was wrong?

I would truly like this. Go on

CoolUsername:
He's a paedophile by the literal definition of the word. He was a fully grown man who was sexually attracted to young children.

Most people who subscribe to moral relativism still know that general societal consensus is used as the standard although subject to change. So, sorry to say, most people are against paedophilia.



Also you seem to forget that objectively weighing the effects of paedophilia, there are marked negative social, economic, and mental effects to it.

Again, the problem here is moral relativity. You seem not be understanding the implication of that position.

Let me try and simplify it.

it means any given action is objectively morally neutral.

society A says it is wrong - then it is wrong for society A not for everyone else.

society B says it is right - then it is right for society B and not for everyone else.

As a moral relativist, you cannot say someone who conforms to the standards of society B is wrong because that directly contradicts your idea of moral relativism.

Only an objective moral basis can be wrong or right across localities or time.

rekinomtla:
No, I would not do that. But I also would not criticise anyone on moral grounds if I was a moral relativist.

Exactly

CoolUsername:
I think intersubjectivity is a simple enough way of describing what most moral relativists really mean when we say that morality is subjective since a lot people seem to misunderstand it.

However, the case still stands that the best that a religious leader and a supposedly perfect man could do was reflect the morality of his time.

Because to suggest to be perfect was to reflect the morality of your own time is by implication an argument that your own moral position is better - again this consequentially implies that morality transcends social definition therefore objective.

This in itself is not the problem. The problem is that even in modern times people still is his actions to justify their own padephilia. Do you see any Muslim on this thread saying "yes, the prophet messed up here"? No they defend his actions, ironically using some variation of one of the responses in the meme I posted.

Actually, no muslim can say the prophet messed up because he didn't - His actions were simply in coincide with the moral framework of his society and time. Even you cannot argue the prophet was wrong because that would be just like pouring a fanta into a bottle of stout.

If you are saying the prophet is wrong then you are arguing that morality is objective and transcends whatever the society or time defines it as.

So, your argument here is like eating your cake and having it again.

If morality is defined by society and time - then any action that falls within that social framework is moral - therefore Muhammed on this ground isn't wrong.

You are arguing that morality is socially defined and also insisting that a man whose actions coincides with the social moral framework of his time is morally wrong, how the fuccccck does that work?

Unless of course you are saying morality is objective and whatever is wrong is wrong no matter what a society or a particular timeline of human history thinks - but you are not.

Rilwayne001:
That was a mistake, I've corrected it.

Ok

The Quran did not specify the age of marriage for either party, so what transcendental authority are you referring to in this regard

God himself is the transcendent assumption upon which theistic morality is built. The fundamental argument of theism on morality is that "morality is objective"

Unless you are saying morality is socially defined and not given by defined by God.

Rilwayne001:
I would not do that because we are no longer in the 6th century. Lots of things have changed over time and there's a change in the societal rules and norms, which automatically has been imprinted in our DNA.

DNA really? Common bro.

You quite know such marriage of 54 year old man marrying a 9year old girl was the order of the day back then and no one sees any wrong in it. The major reason why someone said earlier on on this thread that had it been it was worse back then as you're trying to paint it now, those his haters would have come hard on him with great criticism that will be attached to history books for eternity, but because it was the norms and culture back then, no one saw Amy wrong and everything went by. You know quite well these is a fact but you still out of your hatred for anything that has to do with Islam, feign ignorance and painting it so dark when actually we have similar scenario between Mary and Joseph too.

You are theist right? I do not think you should find anything morally wrong with this action since in theism morality isn't defined by the society but by a transcendent authority.

malvisguy212:
I understand you bro. but what the Muslim guy wrote is another excuse to justify under age marriage .

Actually it is not. His argument was against the atheists who were condemning the act even though they mostly think that morality is subjective and socially defined.

So, if an atheist say that morality is socially defined and is local, then on what ground does such a person stand to condemn an action socially acceptable as good in the given society and time it was acted on?

For an atheist to make such argument, he must by implication be accepting that morality is objective therefore doesn't matter what a society says is right or wrong - right or wrong remains the same everywhere through every time, and i believe coolusername is not saying morality is objective

malvisguy212:
so atheists cannot condemn a society were the people eat human flesh just because there culture support it ?

An atheist can, but such moral condemnations require a basis that transcends secular moral conclusions.

CoolUsername:
While I believe that morality is indeed subjective, we all still make judgements based on it, no matter how socially libertarian you may be, you still make mortal decisions based on your personal view.

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.

Or else, there's really no other way for anyone to make judgements.

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.

Also, I don't think that supporters of paedophilia outnumber people who are against. So, even going by that standard, Mohammed is still in the wrong.

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

malvisguy212:
so there is nothing wrong if a 90 years old man get marry to a 9 years old girl just because some community say its okay ? the Holocaust is good because the Nazi German benefit from it, at least they reduce the population of the Jews. smh

Read what i said again. i didn't say any of these things were right or wrong, i didn't state a moral position. Simply said i agree with the poster who stated an atheist lacks basis to make moral condemnation except of course on the grounds of personal opinions.

CoolUsername:
Simple, if Mohammed was not a perfect man - which he wasn't, since he was a paedophile - Islam is a baseless belief.

In addition, his sexual perversion is used in the Islamic world to justify their own sexual perversion. Making Islam an actively dangerous belief.

You did not really answer his question bro.

READ IT AGAIN

rekinomtla:
How are atheists criticizing aisha marriage when they believe society is the source of morality? If the marriage was normal and accepted by the society back then, then the atheist has no valid objections. You can't have your cake and eat it too, either morality is relative/subjective or it is not.

malvisguy212:
cc johnydon22 come and answer this question.

I actually agree with him. An atheist or someone with secular moral background has no basis to morally condemn that

lilianofentse:
Am not his side chick.

lol. You are

JujuSugar:
Curious points here......

SImulation Hypothesis claims that we are simulated , aka created, that there is a simulator somewhere processing some kind of data and creating us......

This is a type of creationism. So if we are going to accept that the simulation hypothesis could be true , then we have to accept that at least some kind of creationism must be in play.......

You simply can not play the simulation game if you have no computer. Just as you need a computer to run ( = create) the game you also need a simulator to create this universe............

So if there is no creator and no god(s) the simulation hypothesis can not be true. This is undeniable.........

shadeyinka, this may interest you

The fundamental premise of the simulation theory is the that there is a simulator creator or creators

NnennaG6:
So i was watching a movie about a week ago titled "The Thirteenth Floor", and its been on mind for quite some time. Now i've come to a conclusion: We are living in a simulated reality and experiments already carried out prove it.

Crazy right? If that caught your attention stick with me a while and I'll walk you through it.

Particles react one way when being viewed by a human.

Particles react differently when not viewed by a human.

PROOF:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Particles fired down experimental tubes unaware if a human would be at the end, measured at the start of the tube and the end of the tube.

When there was a human at the end the particle acted like there would be a human at the end even when it didn't know there would be because it would only find out in the future if a human was present.

When fired down the same tube with no human at the end to watch, the particle was measured acting the way it does when no human is present at the beginning and at the end, before it could possibly know there would be no human present.

PROOF:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7Z_TIw9InA.

Just like when you are looking down a road in a computer game, everything that's behind you in said computer game isn't there because it's not on screen, the particles aren't "on" because you are not looking at them, if you then turn around they are on, you can't however catch them unaware that you are going to turn them "on." they know in advance. This is how all particles work.

So what would need to be true if this were a simulation. One day the world would just start like a computer turning on. It would be off one minute and on the next kind of like a big bang.

What else would be true? The entire world we exist in would be entirely mathematical because it's held on a computer and is made up of code. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

The world would be entirely made up of coded laws, like gravity, enersia and there would be a speed limit just like the speed of light, because there is a maximum speed at which a computer can run like all computers. When traveling at the speed of light we believe time slows down, just like when you are near large amounts of mass such as a black hole. Why would time slow down? Because of the limitations on our simulator. Traveling at the fastest speed possible and being next to large mass would require large amounts of processing power taxing our simulation slowing it down.

Would we see computer code in the world we live in? We've already found it. String theory which is earths best mathematical explanation for the world we live in has computer code in it.

PROOF:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMlUepVgbA

This is a computer simulation.

Having established this,
1)If we were in a simulation then doesn't that follow that the creator(s) of that simulation should be GOD(S) to us?
2)If the creators of simulations are considered GOD(s) are we GODS too if we can create them?

cc Ihedinobi3, LordReed, MuttleyLaff, Hermes019, Anas09, IAmSabrina

Of course, if this is a simulation, it follows that creators of this simulation in a basic sense of the word are Gods.

However, this also suggests that there is a much realer reality, that is the reality upon which the framework of this simulation is built.

Like our reality is to a game.

This suggests a much realer universe, a reality of the creators.

Heck, the world of the creators could be one out of a nigh infinite number just like ours in this universe.

The creators of this simulation may be one out of a countless others that exist in their universe.

This is even consistent with my idea of a hyper space and time

This however takes us back to the very primary question we have always asked.

How did this real universe begin?

NnennaG6 which part of Enugu are you in, I'd like to very much discuss with you.