₦airaland Forum

MuttleyLaff:
Since what you typed in response to that tintingz above post was:
"budaatum was talking about intra-specie learning
That is where I talked about religious and cultural upbringings "
I then turned "INTRA-specie learning" on its head to INTER-specie learning,
to ask about the cat and puppies example watched in the video

The cat apparently was a good observer of what the other specie was doing to its puppies
The cat then acted upon something as a result of wanting so bad,
this other something from this another specie, which the another specie was meant to be doing to its puppies

I made a mistake with that INTRA-specie stuff. An organism can learn from anywhere.

MuttleyLaff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-9VolGmZP0

What of this cat and puppies interspecies example?

INTRA-specie.

tintingz:
What interest does a specie of animal want from another specie?

I don't get, you mean animals in the jungle actually observe and learn what other animals do, there's nothing innate about thier emotions?

lol. A question for budaatum. If a given set of animals(A) learnt empathy from other animals(B), where the B learn there morality from? We can keep on tracing to a given set of animals for whom empathy is inherently either genetic or invented. The only thing that comes close to learned empathy is pretence. That FEELING of sadness towards a perceived innocent victim is inborn but to direct that empathy/compassion towards the victim depends on if we reason them to be innocent and worthy of empathy.

Edit: budaatum was talking about intra-specie learning. That is where I talked about religious and cultural upbringings.

tstx:
This one na Scammatozoa

a protozoa responsible for staged-miraculosis?

Boom! Our cover is blown, atheism is false. Me, hopefulLandlord, Johnydon22 and Seun all got it wrong

Architectkene:
Gra Gra haff end

lol. I remember D'Tigers at the Olympics then They won their first game only to collect ofe nsala nmebi e nmebi in the remaining games.

budaatum:
I see your point. You are pointing out reason and how it influences anger. But I am referring to how the individual is influenced. So consider: "I was sad that my neighbour had done what he did".

As opposed to you, influenced by thinking of your neighbour, I was thinking about my daughter and the damage done to her and the effect it would have upon her, and it has made me sad, and not angry. How come what is inborn here is compassion, for my daughter, and not anger at my neighbour?

Basic "get angry", is what I'd call a general tendency of the human nature. Not so inborn, but how we are. Everytime I return from the more aggressive Nigeria, I find that I have to volume down when I get back to uk. Individuals can learn to control their anger, and even if they get angry at all.

When you think about your neighbour, you get angry but when you think about your daughter, you get sad because you reason your daughter to be an innocent victim were as you reason your neighbour to be cruel. As for your second paragraph, remember in what case I considered anger analogous to empathy and compassion. In that case, what we get angry angry at depends on reasoning as I defined in an earlier post.

CAPSLOCKED:
NO NEED TO COMB YOUR HAIR, BRUSH YOUR TEETH, OR TRIM YOUR NAILS AS WELL.

Gbam. When people can't reason, dubious clergymen reason for them. Did god provide toothpaste for us? Did God provide shaving clipper for us?

budaatum:
I have seen lots of people get angry for no valid reason except their very own stupidity. And as a basic instinct, or reflex, there is no better example, though innate of the worst form. But the ability to be the more desired, less angry, however, is taught, and can be learned. A classic is turn the other, a lesson teaching the abandoning of reflex action for improved superior behaviour.

as I implied anger isn't a perfect analogy when you consider those that have anger issues. Let's consider only this case of anger to get my point on empathy and compassion: "I can be angry at someone but when I upgrade my reasoning and find out that there is no objective reason to be angry at that person then I stop being angry eg. I was angry when I was convinced that my neighbour molested and raped my daughter but I stopped being angry when I discovered it wasn't true". In this case, anger is inborn even though what I am angry at depends and is dictated by my reasoning.

budaatum:
I categorically reject the distinction you are attempting to make here! You yourself mentioned Messi, so don't try making it "kick a ball" now. Professional level of play is not "what we show empathy and compassion to"! Its simple kicking a ball better!

The ability to kick a ball at all (be empathic and compassionate) is inborn (yuk) for normal people, but whether one is empathic or compassionate at all, is learnt.

Yuk is to denote very reluctance leaning to acceptance with very strong reservations.

I am not trying shift the goal post. I never mentioned knowing how to play better than Messi is inborn. I was simply trying to show vaxx that no matter how great the knowledge or reflex one has for a particular task, if one doesn't have the features to successfully execute it, then one doesn't have the ability. Hope you get?

Though the analogy may not be perfect but I was trying to say that a professional level of play is not inborn or else we would be talking of talent. Like wise, what we show empathy towards is not inborn but depend on reasoning.

budaatum:
When you say "ability to show empathy and compassion", do you mean that humans are capable of being empathic and compassionate? If you do, I agree. Just as humans are capable of becoming lawyers, or dentists or accountants. But if one doesn't put in the effort to learn to be a lawyer, or dentist or accountant or show empathy and compassion, and continue to develop those learnt skills (which is what they are), one wouldn't exactly be any good at any of them.


See Can Empathy Be Taught

empathy is like(not exactly) anger, we are born with the ability to be angry but what we are angry at depends on REASON. If there is no reason to get angry, we don't get angry. I can be agree at someone but when I upgrade my reasoning and find out that there is no objective reason to be angry at that person then I stop being angry. Hope you get my point.

vaxx:
I mean when football club like arsenal bench a footballer on the pitch due to injury, it still does not literarilly translate to losing of its ability. He only lost capacity to play and not possession and falculty.

Of course. Being benched doesn't mean he has lost the ability because the player still has two legs. Being benched is different from losing two legs. The benched player with two legs can be shown to have the ability to play if you bring him into the game where as it's not possible for the person that has no leg.

budaatum:
Thank you. And there's the fact that Messi developed over time and was not born with a football at his feet when he came out the womb.

So, can we say, the ability to be empathic is innate?
And to what extent would it be innate, if it were?

You need to make a distinction between the ability to kick a ball and being a professional and skillful player and also raw talent and refined talent.

The ability to kick a ball(be empathy and compassionate) is inborn for normal people where as a professional level of play(what we show empathy and compassion to) is developed and learned. Empathy and compassion is inborn but through reasoning, we decided what to show show empathy and compassion to.

vaxx:
ability to perform a certain task means you posses the required standard to accomplish a goal.

A skillfull footballer who is on the bench due to injury does not its possession, falculty or the skills, he just lost the means to play football.

Clarify your second paragraph.

For those who are religiously following this thread, here I my detailed take on morality. I mixed up this thread with the johnydon22's thread. I wrote it as a reply to budaatum.

A man's morality is govern by two things: his reasoning and empathy/compassion. Empathy and compassion is innate but what we shall be empathic and compassionate towards depends on our reasoning (a term I used to refer to our judgements based on our intelligence, logical prowess, knowledge base and convictions). We might be empathic towards animals but if we are convinced that a god exists; we are to fear him and offer animal sacrifices to him and we are brainwashed to think God provided animals to be used as sacrifices, we won't find anything wrong with sacrificing animals to god. In this case, our reasoning blunts our empathy/compassion towards animals. But if our reasoning is upgraded [ ie. We aquire the right knowledge (which obviously influences and dictates conviction)] and we see that there is no God and therefore no good reason to sacrifice animals and we realise that animals have feelings and consciousness and are deserving of empathy, we deem animal sacrifices immoral because it's torturous and has no positive or negative consequences in the long run (check the maths I gave johnydon2z). I dare say that, in a similar fashion, this how the abolition of slavery began. Some men saw that there is no good reason to enslave and torture humans despite the fact that the majority judged slavery okay (the bible and their christian upbringing influenced their reasoning and their empathy towards blacks were blunted but that wasn't the case for the slave liberators whose thinking were upgraded and there was nothing to blunt their empathy. These same slave masters would be found to be empathic towards their children because they have no reason not to except they were like Nigerians who torture their children because A CLERGY TOLD them that their children are witches). The upper case "ACL CLERGY TOLD THEM" highlights what and how there reasoning are influenced.

Check out the maths I gave johnydon2z that describes how people are biological wired to build up their moral codes and see the interplay of empathy/compassion and reasoning. What a man would deem moral or immoral depends on two factors: his reasoning(his judgments based on intelligence, logical prowess, knowledge base and convinction) and empathy/compassion. Empathy and compassion is innate(as it is an ability we are born with) but what we would be empathic and compassionate towards is not innate and it depends on our reasoning. Since our reasoning are different, what a person would deem immoral is what another man would not deem immoral. Men in Muslim countries deem premarital sex immoral and a taboo but atheists do not deem it immoral because they reason differently. However since truth is objective, if people's reasoning are upgraded(ie. they acquire the right knowledge and they believe it), the range of things they find moral shall increase proportionate and the limit of that increase in the objective morality(that only moral code no one can make a case against) . So while that is not yet happening, what people deem moral shall vary. Hope my stance on morality is understood?

budaatum:
Do you agree that a thing that is innate is not a thing learnt or developed over time?

Learnt - no! , developed over time - it depends. As far as empathy and compassion is concerned, we are born with the ability to show empathy and compassion but what we show empathy and compassion towards depend on and is regulated by reasoning (our judgment based on our intelligence, logical prowess, knowledge base and convinction). You can't learn or develop empathy/compassion itself but what you show empathy and compassion to is dependent and regulated by reasoning.

vaxx:
i am aware of this phenomenon and that is why I ask you to make a little research before coming up with evidence .

Of course they need our help to make them perfect the swimming but naturally baby does have a natural ability to swim, the natural ability comes from a pair of reflexes she has when she's in the water. And that is what i am trying to show or prove .

The swimming reflex. If you support a baby in water tummy-side down she will move her arms and legs in a swimming motion.

Dive reflex. A baby will hold her breath and open her eyes when she's under water.

I would have to side budaatum on this one. If I know how to play football better than Messi but I have no legs, do I have the ability to play football? Ability to perform a certain task means you have all it takes to successfully execute the task.

budaatum:
It is not yet clear to me, and I've said so! Please see the following and note the word "seem", "implies". They don't mean it is exactly so!

SYNONYMY NOTE:
innate, inborn are often interchangeable, but , innate has more extensive connotations, describing that which belongs to something as part of its nature or constitution, and, inborn, the simpler term, more specifically suggesting qualities so much a part of one's nature as to seem to have been born in or with one [inborn modesty]; inbred refers to qualities that are deeply ingrained by breeding [an inbred love of learning]; congenital implies existence at or from one's birth, specifically as a result of prenatal environment [congenital blindness]; hereditary implies acquirement of characteristics by transmission genetically from parents or ancestors [hereditary blondness].

When I use the word innate, I mean inborn only. My post made it clear.

budaatum:
I think we need to flesh out what is meant by "innate". Too many words in your retort sound more like "developing over time", to me, which is opposite to my understanding of an ability being 'innate'.

If something is innate, it means you are born with it. I made it clear in my post.

Seun:
Obviously, nobody believes this. Nobody here would say that, "if a terrorist believes that suicide bombing is moral, then that makes it moral".

It makes it moral for them not moral for you. They deem it moral but you don't. You say it's immoral but they say it's moral.

NB: In my last post, I clarified my stance on morality.

If the highlighted statement means that what one person considers to be moral may be different from what another person considers to be moral, then it's an obvious fact that we all know. That's why this debate is so challenging for me to get into. I must be missing something.

Of course as I explained above.


I don't get it. How can we conclude that something is good if no person sees it as good? How can we find out if something is 'objectively' moral?[/quote]Well if no one sees suicide bombing in the name of Allah as bad, does it mean it's not bad? Can a deed be deemed moral in respective of what people think? The idea behind objective morality is that deeds are inherently good or bad irrespective of what people think while for subjective morality, the idea is that no deed is inherently good or bad. So do you think morality is subjective or objective? Do you think certain actions are inherently good or bad?

budaatum:
This argues against moral norms being innate Martinez19, or I am completely missing your point.

"Cultural and religious upbringings" are all education which would be unnecessary if its already been innately prewired in.

@first paragraph
You are missing my point. Let me explain better so you and Seun would understand my point.

A man's morality is govern by two things: his reasoning and empathy/compassion. Empathy and compassion is innate but what we shall be empathic and compassionate towards depends on our reasoning (a term I used to refer to our judgements based on our intelligence, logical prowess, knowledge base and convictions). We might be empathic towards animals but if we are convinced that a god exists; we are to fear him and offer animal sacrifices to him and we are brainwashed to think God provided animals to be used as sacrifices, we won't find anything wrong with sacrificing animals to god. In this case, our reasoning blunts our empathy/compassion towards animals. But if our reasoning is upgraded [ ie. We aquire the right knowledge (which obviously influences and dictates conviction)] and we see that there is no God and therefore no good reason to sacrifice animals and we realise that animals have feelings and consciousness and are deserving of empathy, we deem animal sacrifices immoral because it's torturous and has no positive or negative consequences in the long run (check the maths I gave johnydon2z). I dare say that, in a similar fashion, this how the abolition of slavery began. Some men saw that there is no good reason to enslave and torture humans despite the fact that the majority judged slavery okay (the bible and their christian upbringing influenced their reasoning and their empathy towards blacks were blunted but that wasn't the case for the slave liberators whose thinking were upgraded and there was nothing to blunt their empathy. These same slave masters would be found to be empathic towards their children because they have no reason not to except they were like Nigerians who torture their children because A CLERGY TOLD them that their children are witches). The upper case "ACL CLERGY TOLD THEM" highlights what and how there reasoning are influenced.

Check out the maths I gave johnydon2z that describes how people are biological wired to build up their moral codes and see the interplay of empathy/compassion and reasoning. What a man would deem moral or immoral depends on two factors: his reasoning(his judgments based on intelligence, logical prowess, knowledge base and convinction) and empathy/compassion. Empathy and compassion is innate(as it is an ability we are born with) but what we would be empathic and compassionate towards is not innate and it depends on our reasoning. Since our reasoning are different, what a person would deem immoral is what another man would not deem immoral. Men in Muslim countries deem premarital sex immoral and a taboo but atheists do not deem it immoral because they reason differently. However since truth is objective, if people's reasoning are upgraded(ie. they acquire the right knowledge and they believe it), the range of things they find moral shall increase proportionate and the limit of that increase in the objective morality(that only moral code no one can make a case against) . So while that is not yet happening, what people deem moral shall vary. Hope my stance on morality is understood?

@second paragraph
What? we don't learn things because we want to know what is moral and immoral. We learn truth because of curiosity, academic reasons and survival . Some of these truths we learn(eg. Yahweh does not exist) will inevitable influence what we deem moral, okay and immoral. Did we develop culture because we want to inform ourselves on morality? Nah!

budaatum:
Yes, I would "expect people of old to be empathic to animals" if the Bible had not taught they were "an object of sacrifice to appease yahweh", but only if empathy were innate. If empathy was innate they would have ignored yahweh for the love of the animal.

"The recent care about animals is due to the new testament (teaching, education, law), which declares animal sacrifices redundant and the upgrade of reasoning that bring about the realization (learning, awareness, consciousness), that animals have feelings and the are deserving of empathy."

due to the fact that you want to subtly make a case for christianity, you misrepresent me, ignore certain parts of my posts and introduce your distortion.

In the first paragraph, you didn't include the role of reasoning in morality instead you treated the case as if empathy alone determines a man's moral compass. You also forgot where I said people's moral compasses are influenced by religious and cultural upbringings and will different due to different religious and cultural upbringings from place to place. You ignored that because your narrative that christianity is true is more important.

I will reply your posts tomorrow.

Biafrawillcome:
Guys I have a girlfriend she is 23. Am 22 was born 01/01/1996 she was born June 1995.
.
Am thinking of buying a serx toy because this girl is sex starving me. 3 months no sex
And I can't sleep with olosho. Anytime I go there my pernis does not stand.
Let me make this as brief as possible. I love this girl aren't cheating on her.
But the problem now is anytime I call her she will say her parents this and that.
.
And this is y I don't date 18,19,20.
Because of parents wahala.
This one is 24 he her parents monitor her movement.
One day she was with me the aunty was calling her to come back that the school has dismissed.
They even have her timetable.

Guys we've had sex only twice.

For months she is in Port Harcourt so as I. But we don't see. She said shell be free after school resumes.

She said she is not cheating on me. And when I forcefully collected her phone I discovered is the truth.

I send her money last week. 5k
Sent her 5k like three times now that I haven't seen her.
To make things short.
I like her but this sex starving is too much.
Over 3 months now.
No sex.

I want to start looking for another girl.

Should I go ahead

Abeg look for another girl. You do not deserve her. So if you don't calm your prick, you will die abi? Don't be selfish, put your self in her shoes and be patient. Given the kind of parents she has, it would be difficult for her to meet your demand. Sex shouldn't define your relationship.

tintingz:
Yes, consensus which was never a thing in the past between races, tribes.

Because you can't do anything of your choice, now imagine someone doing that to you?

People are the UN, they just name the organization UN which is the social myth.

The point here is, there's nothing like leaders coming together to discuss and reach consensual agreement, reason we have wars flying around in the past.

In the discussion, they all reason how slavery and wars is not a good thing.

I'm not arguing about social myth, my argument here is did almost all leaders just wake up and said tyranny is bad.

There must have been some influence in thier thought, was it after WW2 they now see the cruelty in being a tyrant?

Would it be okay to tell Johny the Don that, all things being equal, the knowledge that oppressing your fellow man against his will is bad is intuitive? I guess not.

tintingz:
Good point.

Even Thanos(villain in Marvel comic) knew what he was doing is wrong but he went ahead to do it(because of greed), when he killed Gamora.

I think Johny the Don is questioning the basis of everything whether intuitive or not. I think he got things wrong when he, for the most part, equated the intersubjective mountains we've made out of a moth hole with morality eg. money. A diamond is expensive and valuable but no one in our society can argue that there is objectively anything of value inherent in diamond other than it being an allotrope of carbon. Majority might choose to take slavery as okay and put it in effect but that mean that it's okay. Majority might choose to place so much value on a dog and make it the Queen of England but that doesn't give it the capacity to rule. Our imagination enables us build mountains out of a moth hole but that doesn't mean that the mountain is real. People's intersubjective stance on what's moral has no bearing on what's indeed moral otherwise we wouldn't fault yahweh and the jews for condoning slavery at that point in time. I dare say the condemnation of yahweh on the issue of slavery is always based on empathy/compassion and reasoning.

If there is anything that comes close to the learned social myths, then it is religion and culture. Are there many things that exist in the human mind? Yes! but even with abstractions, there are objective judgement eg. there are objective answers relating to a particular abstract mathematical model. Besides, one can only go as far with questioning and proving human intuition. If we are sincere, there are certain things we just know without proof, explanation and evidence. It will be cumbersome to ask how I know Nairaland and Seun exist and how I define reality and how I know I am not in a dream state compare to others.

johnydon22:
I never said it is subjective, intersubjectivity is different from subjectivity.

Let me play with you here to show you that objectivity and morality argument is a slippery slope: What makes this particular standard moral?

Is that these standards are universally discovered to be inherently moral or that there is a consensus in belief that they are?




You have said human morality is objective many times but many times have not demonstrably proved this.

These are the pertinent questions.

What makes something moral?

Is morality an objective state?

I never said you implied subjective. I was simply defining what people see as subjective and objective morality before driving home my point.

As I have said, what is moral/good depends and is a combination of two factors:
A) the degree of pleasurable or torturous impact on the human psychology, emotion and body.
B) the degree and nature of its resultant long term consequences in the events of things.

Here is the maths (I didn't include intensity/degree of impact which would give us a better perspective to answer the question "is it worth it?", where we consider different combinations A and B :
1) torturous + bad long term consequence in the long run = bad
2) torturous + positive long term consequences in the long run = good
3) torturous + neither negative nor positive consequences in the long run = bad
4) pleasurable + positive consequences in the long run = good
5) pleasurable + negative consequences in the long run = bad.
6) pleasurable + neither negative nor positive consequences in the long run = good.
7) neither pleasurable nor torturous + neither positive nor negative consequences in the long run = okay.
neither pleasurable nor torturous + positive consequences in the long run = good
9) neither pleasurable nor torturous + negative consequences in the long run = bad

This is how the human body is wired. One can only go as far with questioning human intuition Or do you want to ask why we are wired so and what makes the biological wiring good?

johnydon22:
It is like a ripple, it starts at a point and spreads to every other part.

Christianity started with few people, so did Islam but through ripple-effect social interactions, more people are convinced.
For Instance, the rise in Atheism is consistent with the development of the internet, information could go far distances unhinged. That is how opinions propagate to the point of collective social acceptance.



There is always a second option, many people through history has always contradicted the prevailing belief of their time. Lincoln wasn't the only person that believed that slavery was wrong, it was not as simplistic as that. Slaves were beginning to revolt, there was a cascade of ideological conflicts and the Northern part of America fought to abolish slavery.

But unlike Copernican realization, there is no objective basis for slavery either way it goes, so it falls into a matter of what we believe.

The idea of Biafra began with Ojukwu, how many people believe it today? Millions.

So, its about ideological propagation and acceptance.

The formation of this ideas can be influenced by many things, pity, sympathy, ego, pride, greed, empathy, bias or even love.

lol. You haven't contradicted me and tintingz point. It doesn't matter how something that influences reasoning spreads, once it has convinced the mind, it will influence it's reasoning and judgement as hence morality. I might be a christian now but if Islam convinces me, I will start thinking that women should start wearing the hijab, sharia law is okay and that it's okay to cut off a boy's hand for stealing.
Since reasoning(alongside empathy/compassion) govern morality, anything that influences reasoning will influence morality regardless of how it is spread. Mind you, it is one thing to know what's right and it is another thing to choose to do what's right. The tobacco company in the past knew that tobacco was harmful but they kept on lying and selling to people because they wanted money. Pastorpreneurs know that it is bad to do what they do but they decide to go ahead.

johnydon22:
Meaning it is not objective then. Objectivity do not vary. Anyway forget that, lets proceed.

Why is morality objective?

Wait o. I hope you understood my point. If it's subjective FOR HUMANS then different people will disagree on what's moral and their opinions are valid for each of them but if it's objective FOR HUMANS, then only a particular standard can be shown be actually moral using reasoning and empathy/compassion.

Permit me to use certain unofficial words here
Humanocentric morality(moral codes for humans) is objective despite what humans what to believe. Felinocentric (moral codes for cats) is objective despite what any cat might want to think. The same for all specie-centered morality.
However, when you combine all species together and try to look for a universal all encompassing objective moral code, you would be disappointed as such can not exist. For every new organism, there is a specie-central objective moral code for that new organism. Is my point clear before I move on?

johnydon22:
Upgraded? again?

Well, when I say upgrade reasoning, I am mean reasoning and it's judgement influenced by more facts and insights than it had before. As reasoning upgrades, it becomes independent and doesn't lean entirely on religious and cultural upbringing. With our innate compassion and empathy, as reasoning upgrades continously, the range of things on which we agree is moral proportionally increases.

johnydon22:
Ok. wait. you think morality is objective?

For humans, yes. For all organisms, it's different as I explained earlier.

budaatum:
So, tell. Why do you think empathy is innate?

And as a side, how would you explain the new and current empathy to animals and the earth?

Are you for real? did you expect people of old to empathic to animals when the bible constantly made them an object of sacrifice to appease yahweh? For a man who is convinced of yahweh's existence and whose reasoning is influenced by that, do you expect him to care for animals and forgo making animal sacrifices that would clean his sins?

The recent care about animals is due to the new testament which declares animal sacrifices redundant and the upgrade of reasoning that bring about the realization that animals have feelings and the are deserving of empathy.

johnydon22:
What if compassion or empathy is innate, what makes it good? why is it good? This is the question Martinez is not asking. Why is something good?

His ideas implies "good" as something we discover and not simply a fabrication of ours given effect because we believe it.

It's an emotional idea, nice but quite naive.

Martinez19 oya come here and defend ya seff

The objective moral compass varies from organism to organism and centres around that organism except by the virtue of reasoning. All things being equal, It is expected that a human will save a drowning human rather than a drowning dog except if the human happened to be a serial killer and rapist and the dog is his loyal pet dog. There is no universal moral compass that all organism must be subjected to. It's understandable that a cow would want to kill a human being for eating suya where as it's outrageous for a human being to want another human dead for eating suya despite the fact that suffering was dealt on the cow.

What's good is for the most part intuitive. However what is to be regarded as good or bad depends on and is a combination of two factors:
1) the degree of torturous or pleasurable impact on the human psychology, emotion and body.
2) the degree of it's lasting consequences in the event of things.

Cocaine is pleasurable but is the pleasure worth the lasting consequences on the brain and body?
Child birth is pain but is the pain worth the survival of our specie?