₦airaland Forum

tintingz:
The question is, what influence the change from what was believed to be good and later became bad?.

There must be a collective knowledge, experience, feelings that prompt the changes.

Abraham Lincoln as a case study, he believed slavery is bad while the majority Americans believed it's good, why is his morality different from the rest of his people?

Abraham Lincoln simply upgraded his reasoning unlike the Americans who were stuck in their religious and cultural upbringing that slavery is good.

budaatum:
Or a retrograde! Homosexuality is not new in India.

The British Raj criminalised anal sex and MouthAction (for both heterosexuals and homosexuals) under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which entered into force in 1861. This made it an offence for a person to voluntarily have "carnal intercourse against the order of nature." Wik

Also see LGBT themes in Hindu Epics

[So it seems morality is taught so that reasoning can upgrade. That's what religion and the Law is designed to do, to teach and guide people into the desired morality by those who have upgraded already, the teachers and guides.

When your thinking is well upgraded, religious garbages no longer influences your reasoning and one now sees that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and homosexual sex as long as it happens between two consenting adults. As I have said, reasoning and empathy/compassion govern morality. Empathy/compassion is innate and can't be taught while critical reasoning can be taught and influenced. Religious and cultural norms are not innate and have to be taught and since they influence reasoning, they influence an individual's moral compass.

Apt reasoning shows that religion is not a worthy moral guide.

@bold
No. Upgrading reasoning inevitably leads to an upgrade in morality but upgrading morality doesn't necessarily lead to an upgrade in reasoning because while reasoning (alongside empathy/compassion) governs morality, morality does not govern reasoning.

tintingz:
So what about a Muslim man from Saudi Arabia supporting gay right?

Is his morality influenced by social myth or his empathy?

And secondly, India just legalized homosexuals relationship, is it that the previous social myth(criminalizing gays) was good and suddenly it became bad, what could influence this changes/adjustment?

According to me, morality is govern by reason and empathy/compassion. Morality varies because of the influence of religious and cultural upbringings. Since religion and culture upbringings are different from place to place and they influence reason, morality will vary from place to place. Religious and cultural norms have to be taught because they are not innate but compassion cannot be taught because it's innate.

Take away religious and cultural upbringings, people will agree on what's moral on many more issues. The recent legalisation of homosexuality and homosexual marriage; abolishment of slavery despite what the holy books say etc. are due to "upgrade" in reasoning. Normally parents would take care of their children but JW parents would cut ties with their children if they(children) reject JW doctrines to the extent that they wouldn't want to see their grandchildren (not even on their birthdays) and these parents don't see anything wrong in that. Why is this? Because their reasoning are influenced by jehovah witness' doctrine. Take that jw brainwashing away and see them act like compassionate parents.

Only you and god know the kind of impression you were giving out.

BurningBlade:
Martinez19. I'll explain my point later. My hands are full at the moment.

Cheers.

Okay, I will be waiting.

BurningBlade:
it's subjective. Pure and simple. No two ways about it.

@ Seun and Burningblade what are your thoughts

Saying morality is subjective because moral norms have changed from time to time is like saying that truth is subjective because popular beliefs haved changed from time to time. The variation in moral perspective among different races is due to religious and cultural upbringings (both of which are usually combined in many races). Cultural norms and religion are man made that's why it must be taught but many people confuse a race's cultural norms/upbringing and religion with their innate morality. When people think homosexuality is wrong, where do you think got that idea from? When people claim premarital sex is wrong, where do you think they got that from?

Take away religious and cultural upbringings, people will, together, agree on what's moral. Reasoning and empathy govern morality and given that religion is different from place to place and it influences reasoning, hence the different views on morality.

Basically, I am simply saying that as long as the empathic and compassionate aspect of morality is concerned, morality is objective but the reasoning aspect tends to vary due to external influences like religion and culture. As example is the issue of virginity. I believe that if we subtract culture and religious programming from people, they will agree more on what's moral and even more after reasoning together.

Seun:
Can you describe what it means for morality to be objective or subjective? I feel that a clear and generally accepted definition of subjective and objective morality will quickly clear up our apparent disagreement.

johnydon22’s intersubjectivity idea is awesome, but I would use the word “collective” to describe it. But first let’s define the terms so we can be sure that we are talking about the same things.

When people say morality is subjective, they mean that an action or deed is moral if an individual deems it so ie. what is moral depends on what an individual deems moral and what's moral for one can be immoral for another.

When people say morality is objective, they mean that what is moral is not dependent on an individual's perspective. Saying morality is objective means what is good is good regardless of how people choose to see it.

johnydon22:
As promised, let me try and summarize human morality and its nature.

Your classification highlights, subjective and objective nature of things or ideas and while this is correct, there is a third option and this is intersubjectivity.

Subjectivity means something is a matter of individual belief

Objective means something is independent of belief

but Intersubjectivity means something is a matter of a large collection of individual beliefs.


Human morality as a concept is a social tool just like many other human ideas out there.
Humans are the only species on this planet that can effectively hold a large society and manage them.

I know you may bring up animals such as Ants, or bees, termites and some others; that will be a very valid question so i will address that. An ant, bee or termite is part of a social structure that is an inherent genetical implication, the social behaviors of these animals is a result of genetic codes in their gene, they simply have no choice, they are genetically wired (as an evolutionary mechanism) to be like this, the actions of these animals are rather intuitive reactions to impulses. Queens, soldiers, workers all carry out an inherent role or action as dictated by their genetical protocol, so their societies are not entirely societies in the sense of the human society.

A small puppy in America understands the rules of fall, chase, bite, fall and chase in dog plays simply because these are genetic, wolves mapping out territories or the scavenger nature of Hyenas.

Humans on the other hands are the dominant species in this planet, they straight out own the planet and almost certainly every other animal continues to exist out of the benevolence of humans (Don't argue, humans have the capacity of wiping out any specie they want, so many species has already fallen to this)

Most dominating species that once walked this planet like mammoths, sabertooth lions and other large animals or vegetation seems to have been thrown into extinction once humans are introduced into that given locality, even other human species like the Neanderthals also fell for this extinction basket.

Biologically neaderthals are stronger, bulkier and even more resistant to harsh weather than homo sapiens (us). Humans also lack the brute strength of elephants or lions or tigers, the thick furs or the large dentition or claws, so how so did humans become the most dominant species in this world.

simple; they were capable of controlling large amount individuals in a given society. Naturally, humans are not programmed like ants with an inherent societal dependency, we constructed the fabrics that held our social structure ourselves and this structure is called Social mythology.

Social mythologies include: Religious beliefs, nations, associations, laws, government, organizations, money, value, cooperations and, you guessed right Morality

Two humans who never met each other can automatically become friendly with each other when they share something in common. A christian can easily work with other christians he never knew, a man from Nigeria in a foreign country will easily become friendly with another man from Nigeria he never knew before, this is because they share similar myths.

Social myths are not subjective, it doesn't take the belief of one person to validate, it takes the belief of many people to be effective. If you stopped believing in money today, it doesn't change the value of money or affect the society in any way but if 99% of the people in the world stops believing in money or its value, money automatically becomes useless.

We obey laws because its a myth most of us agree with.
We call ourselves Nigerians because we believe in the myth of Nigeria or nations.
If the whole world stops believing in nations, automatically it disappears, social structures are social myths are thrive on the back of intersubjective beliefs.

Human morality like every other concept above is an intersubjective belief, a social myth that is only relevant because we believe in it. There is no inherent moral codec that comes prescribed with the universe, we created this myths and our belief in them keeps them active.

So, for the human society to work, there is need for shared belief, morality is one of these myths that holds the fabrics of the intricacies of human social interactions together.

it is not objective because that would imply that it is independent of belief neither is it subjective, one person out of 100million not believing in the constitution doesn't really matter.

it is rather intersubjective.

Nice write up. But what about empathy? Doesn't empathy play a role in how we choose to treat others?

budaatum:
If "we are born with" "moral norms", how come it changes by location and can be influenced by subjective beliefs?

As I said, moral norms are influenced by cultural and religious upbringings. Cultural and religious upbringings influence reasoning which, along with empathy, govern morality. As it's hard to find a race without a culture and religious ties(which are both merged together with religion dictating culture in all places), it's not unusual to see people disagreeing on what's right and wrong. Back in the days, in Europe, it was shameful, socially stigmatising and disgraceful to not be a virgin, why? Because of the influence of christianity which, in the old testament, placed an unreasonable priority on virginity. It would have been a taboo, then, to suggest that it wasn't a big deal to lose your virginity. Remove religious and cultural upbringings, you will see that people will start agreeing on what's moral or not in most things(probably not all since they will reason different on most things).

johnydon22:
Go and look at my reply to your post, i promised an expatiation, just did.

I just saw it. Thanks for the reply.

johnydon22:
Morality and truth are not the same and this equivalence is false.

Popular belief does not mean truth because truth is not a belief that is why it is objective. while popular belief may change, the truth doesn't. The earth orbits the sun is a truth. Popular belief once held the opposite, this doesn't change the truth.

Morality on the other is a belief, a human idea and therefore is prone to human modification as it is not an objective inherent universal variable.

They are equivalent in the aspect that they don't change regardless of what people think. Morality is not just a belief or idea, I believe that it's something we are born with and it's governed by reasoning and empathy. The difference in moral norms across all places and history is due to influence of religious and cultural upbringings (both of which are usually merged together and influence reasoning).

andrew444:
Sneidjer didn't even make the top 3 and you are here saying he was robbed,if you had mention iniesta I will understand not sneidjer

Sneijder not making the top 3 was robbery on it's own. Duh!

1- 1 Derby equalises!

Saying morality is subjective because moral norms have changed from time to time is like saying that truth is subjective because popular beliefs haved changed from time to time. The variation in moral perspective among different races is due to religious and cultural upbringings (both of which are usually combined in many races). Cultural norms and religion are man made that's why it must be taught but many people confuse a race's cultural norms/upbringing and religion with their innate morality. When people think homosexuality is wrong, where do you think got that idea from? When people claim premarital sex is wrong, where do you think they got that from?

Take away religious and cultural upbringings, people will, together, agree on what's moral. Reasoning and empathy govern morality and given that religion is different from place to place and it influences reasoning, hence the different views on morality.

hopefulLandlord:
The guy is either a comedian or a gay activist using reverse psychology

He was dead serious.

Why is it troubling for humans to accept that they are mortal in every sense of the word?
Why are people afraid to death? Una wan stay here forever?

Bawofss:
Modric is a lucky player, players like Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo, Henry, Lampard neva won d award.....
Despite how talented they are. Congratulations to you bro, hala madrid

As in Xavi, Pirlo, Iniesta, Sneijder, Lampard, Scholes, Gerrard, Henry, Eto'o etc. all overshadowed by Ronnie and Messi

Kingsley1000:
some of you penaldo fans are ingrats,
when FIFA robbed ribbery of the award in 2013
after winning UCL,bundesliga and German cup
you guys didn't wail.Modric deserves it big time
because world cup performance is rated higher
than ucl
A win by a player who conducts
the whole team on the pitch and dictates the
rhythm of the game consistently over one who is
anonymous for most of the game and then pops
up to score penalties and tap-ins all over the
place.
Modric orchestrates a beautiful
performance every time he's on the ball.

some of you Messi fans are ingrats, when FIFA robbed Sneijder of the award in 2010 after winning Ucl, Seria A and Italian cup you guys didn't wail. Modric deserves it big time because world cup performance is rated higher than ucl. A win by a player who conducts the whole team on the pitch and dictates the rhythm of the game consistently over one who is anonymous for most of the game and then pops up to score penalties and tap-ins all over the place. Modric orchestrates a beautiful performance every time he's on the ball.

Cc. Johnydon22, hopefulLandlord, Seun, 1Sharon, Heywhaie

People responding to the false analogy and shading us.

I don't know if anyone has seen this but I think this has to be called out :

festwiz:
This has been talked about before.

I think the question was put forward by johnydon22.

can you share the link on this thread?

johnydon22:
I could make a very basic breakdown on the nature of human morality for everyone

please do I am waiting.

I discovered that atheists are divided on whether morality is objective or subjective. I would like we atheists to discuss this. Is morality objective or subjective? Why?

NB: Christians are not allowed to participate in this discussion. It is meant for only atheists.

OrestesDante:





★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★


∆ As this looks like a kind gesture, it oozes more foolishness than wisdom.

She is ηοω in α great risk from robbers and jealousy from inside the church.

mtchew...

---

ωετιη οsυη ειεςτιοη δεγ ταικ αβεg
∆


★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

how did you get the Greek font? Help a brother I have been searching for it.

ikorodureporta:
They are unconscious but don't u think d spirit wld look for where to dwell...

.

If I see Christopher Hitchens , na craze I go craze, in fact, I go ya werey. Christopher Hitchens?

frank317:
Pastor Chris, adeboyo, oyedopo and tb Joshua....in fact all the pastors in nigeria

As in!

Scamming your fellow blacks is quite stressful. Melodious tunes are helpful in relieving stress while relaxing.

Suzzyyy:
You are too rude, this is 700k we are talking about, my life savings not that I don't wnt to help, I love him so much tht I cnt see him sad, I just want advice to know if Im doing the right thing, dassall.

Personally, I don't think your bf will turn his back on you. If he was the selfish opportunistic type, he would have begged you since. From what he has done for you in the past and how he tried to manage his business in the past on his own, I can say he is kind and responsible. However, if you feel like not giving up to 700k, don't give. Besides, business is a risk and the 700k might not yield the desired result.

Note that he would feel inevitably betrayed because he once took the risk to lend you 100k and didn't bother you with his business troubles and this would affect your relationship. Still, follow your heart.

hopefulLandlord:
This girl would've been freed if prayer works

I also why Jesus would let a girl go through torture after refusing to denounce her faith in him. Is christian martyrdom necessary? Can't almighty yahweh send his gospel across without the blood shed of his followers in the hands of unbelivers ?