₦airaland Forum

thehomer: You were asking a question based on something I didn't say.

How so? You said we're are capable of complex thoughts and I asked you what you meant by complex in the context of morality. . . .where did I get you wrong?

If man were perfect, won't his choices have been perfect?

Interesting. Please give me an example of a situation where one has multiple choices concerning a matter that are all different and yet all equally perfect.

Let's take his commands one at a time. I'm judging this command immoral because it commanded the killing of children for land.

This tells me nothing about the basis by which you condemn the action. "I am judging X immoral because it is X" tells us nothing about the laws by which you judged it

Here, I'm asking you if commanding a genocide for the purpose of taking other people's land is right or wrong. Why don't you answer that?

And I have asked you to tell me the basis by which you define right and wrong. Until you can do that, we can't know what is truly right and what is truly wrong. My answer therefore will be irrelevant to you.

wiegraf: Stop right there.

What determines your reason, what determines your objectives?

In what sense do you mean?

wiegraf: Really? Supposing I promised a genocide? Or to roast you for eternity whatever reason?

reductio ad absurdum

1, 2 & 4, not if you have a less than positive view of life.

3. Haha, not at all. A simple example, repeat, unrepentant influential offenders. Or to defend your own, like the op implies.

Do you really understand the meaning of "truly"

wiegraf: Anony, with regards to this, what exactly do you want addressed?

I just wanted to hear what you thought of the post and the ideas therein. I don't want to give you a soundbite. Do you think that post accurately describes how morality is objective? If yes cool. If no, why don't you think so?

thehomer: You ain't seen nothin' yet.

He actually agrees with me that good is dependent on human well-being. But for some reason, we still need some God to tell us what is beneficial to humans given what we've managed to find out about ourselves.

A philosopher said that the ideas of objectivity and subjectivity can be confusing to people. It looks like Mr anony has been confused by these ideas.

@bold. I didn't know you believed human well-being was dependent on living to the glory of God. . .or were you just misrepresenting me again?

mazaje: Morality mostly evolves for the better. . .It makes us more tolerant and less acceptable of evil deeds. . .Do you deny the fact that morality evolves?. . .I am judging them based on your own objective moral standards. . .Enslaving people against their will is an objective moral evil. . .Rape is an objective moral evil, killing innocent children for crimes they did not commit is an objective moral evil. . .I am judging them and condeming their actions because it is objectively wrong. . .

I see a problem here. How exactly do you define what is 'better'? If what we consider better today can evolve into what we consider worse tomorrow, how can we know that it is better that what we previously considered better is now considered worse instead of what we considered better remaining better?

Kay 17: Mr anony's arguments for objective based morality amazes me more and more. He claims there is objective morality, he claims such objective morality is impossible without God. No God No morality, yet morality is objective.

You are confusing objectivity with necessity. Physical laws are objective yet they are not necessary hence they could have been fine-tuned. You can easily have a universe where the speed of light, gravitational constant e.t.c had very different values. Same with morality, it is easy to imagine a possible world where torturing babies for fun is not objectively morally wrong. The fact that we ought to live in a particular way and not another is strong indication of a transcendent moral law and hence a moral lawgiver.

thehomer: To put it simply, it is that everything that exists is physical. Note that this doesn't mean that certain phenomena don't emerge out of the physical.

Now, what are you trying to say? I hope that you'll also be willing to let us examine your views.

It is these sorts of vacuous statements I don't like. You really have told us nothing about what you mean when you say something is physical and how we can differentiate it from non-physical things.

You might as well have said: "To put it simply, it is that everything that exists is spiritual. Note that this doesn't mean that certain phenomena don't emerge out of the spiritual"

All you have done is put everything under your "physical" umbrella while being careful to leave the door open for yourself in case there are "certain phenomena" that may not be considered physical. So please explain your worldview properly and stop hiding behind shadows

to quote one of your comments again (ironically this was you accusing me of your crimes):

......I notice that as usual, you're unable to actually present your own view and defend it. You just prefer to chuck out pointless diversion. A tactic that you and others in your shoes have accused me of without showing evidence for your accusations. Your attempts are just so obvious its embarrassing.

So once again;

[size=17pt]@thehomer, why don't you explain what your own brand of materialism is so that we'll understand what it is you're trying to say?[/size]

Pastor AIO: Number of points. 1) I never said that 'we cannot know anything'. For instance I said that I can be sure that 'I' exist. How and where, I may not know, but I know that I exist.

2) No statement crumbles with your approach above. Rather you are caught in a paradox. It is Paradox that certain people find so unpalatable. Yet we find Paradox in every system of thought. If it makes you feel uncomfortable then don't think too deeply about life.
What you consider a crumbling argument is what I would term a mystery. I can't remember where exactly but I have defined my used of 'mystery' on nairaland before as 'Not a catch all term for the as yet unknown, but rather a term for the Unknowable'.

Many say something is a mystery but they hope that with time the mystery will clear up and they'll know.

I say there are somethings that are beyond the categories of knowledge. When we approach these things we are met with paradox. That shows that you are at the limits of knowledge/beliefs/epistemological claims.

So if I get you correctly, you are saying that you know that you exist period. The rest is a mystery/paradox? If that's what you are saying, then I won't push this further because I see no way out this. Let's move on to things that are not so mysterious shall we?

3) I would not just say that Morality was subjective. I would say that I have a bias for my morality. This bias instinctively makes me fight to defend my biased morals. It's a common method when say a theist and an atheist from the same country are arguing over morality, that an example is advanced, say cannibalism. 'Is cannibalism moral'? Of course the other party would never say cannibalism was moral because he comes from the same cultural milieu as the person asking the question and so has the same bias to hate cannibalism.
No, such an approach is just plain dumb. The perfect response to that question would be, 'I, too, find cannibalism objectionable because I've been raised to do so and I will go to the end of the world to have it stamped out, however to demonstrate that it is an objective moral, my friend, you would have to travel to Papua New Guinea and convince some aborigines with logic and arguments that it is morally wrong. If you can do that then I'll start to concede that it might be universal.'

You see questions like "is cannibalism wrong? Yes or No" strike me as lazy questions that have no interest in understanding morality but are more interested in winning arguments. I'd rather ask the question "why is cannibalism wrong?" That leads us beyond merely the action to the intent which is where moral judgments are actually made.

I'll link you to a comment I made earlier on this, read it and tell me what you think, let us discuss further from there.

Here it is:

my comment on the nature of morality

thehomer: What sort of information does this researcher have? If it has knowledge about social animals, intelligence, culture and other such characteristics, it would be able to understand why it can be said that for a human, those acts would be wrong. You're just ignoring what I've already said.

Please tell me how as an alien researcher, you would go about knowing this solely from empirical observation and without the ability to read the minds and intents of your subject animals.

thehomer: This is just your transference in action. You're used just mumbling about the Bible and having what you say accepted. Once a little challenge pops up, you start complaining about the challenge.

Yawn. I have only described your methods. Funny enough, I like to engage with you, I only usually stop when I see that we are now moving round in circles and getting nowhere. It makes no sense beating dead horses you know. I learnt that lesson from arguing with guys like logicboy

thehomer: Actually, that is the argument that totally destroys your claim about God having anything to do with morality not to talk about objectivity.

Actually it doesn't because if God did create humans and animals, He can very easily have different purposes and demands for them.

For you it becomes a problem because you claim that there objective moral principles are not based on any designer, you also claim that humans are animals, you also claim that we should only accept what we can observe and test.

You must now explain why different animals are observed engaging in the same activities and yet one is specially picked out as moral while the others are considered amoral.

thehomer: I said we're capable of having complex thoughts.

Avoiding my question again are we?

But then, something perfect made by a perfect being shouldn't be able to become imperfect otherwise we can expect Heaven to go the same way.

Man has freedom to choose his actions that plays a big part. A perfectly straight line that has choices can choose to become crooked.

Finally. A response. Now if that were God's purpose, why would he give immoral commands like commanding a genocide?

Upon what basis do you judge any of his commands immoral?

You're just expatiating on my point without actually saying the role your God has to play. Remember the sorts of instructions your God has given in the past. Were those instructions morally right or wrong? Was commanding a genocide morally right or wrong?

The question you must first answer is upon what basis you consider them wrong?

Deep Sight: Im no go gree.

Lol, his tatics usually ends up in last man standing wins no matter how absurd and contradictory the position is. He'll probably try to drag this thread on until someone gets tired of dancing with him.

Ironically, the atheists on this forum are some of the most fanatical people I've come across in my life.

mazaje: So?. . .how does that affect the fact that even by their own standard what they did is evil. remember they called others that did the same thing they did to others evil people. . .

Lol, you really don't see the problem do you? If you claim that morality evolves, how can we know for sure that it didn't evolve between the time they were victims to the time they were the "oppressors"? How can we know for sure that morality hasn't evolved again such that you are now morally wrong for condemning them?

Deep Sight: The Extra Terrestrial Intelligence Example.

You are an Extra Terrestrial Being. You are flying about the universe researching planets and creatures and ecosystems. You Come across the Earth.

On the Earth, you find and study many animals. Man is one of such animals, the most intelligent that you find.

You see that ALL the animals engage in some form of predatory territorial behavior or the other, for their survival and desires.

You see that man, being the most intelligent, also engages in same: i.e: scavenging, murdering, for resources and territory.

You conclude that all other animals on the Earth you have found can do this and it is not wrong for them to do this for their survival but it is wrong for the smartest animal amongst them to do same in smarter ways.

If thehomer can really pay attention, he'll see that this illustration exposes the fatal flaw in his arguments. There is really no reason why the alien should decide to hold humans to a different moral standard apart from the other animals.

thehomer: I can think about a black hole, they cannot.

Perhaps you missed the point of my question. What do you mean when you say that a mind is complex? To use your example, how is a mind that can think about blackholes more complex than one that cannot?

Still boils down to the same thing. If God made man perfect and placed him in a perfect world, how come he is now imperfect? Or if God didn't make man perfect or placed him in an imperfect world, why would he do that?

Man has chosen to do evil and hence made himself imperfect.

And here we see the question that just halts you in your tracks. Rather than answering a direct question, you try to sidestep it by presenting something else.

Just answer my question. What is God's purpose?

The question really doesn't bug me. Asking you a question in reply is just my way of getting you to really examine your question. Well since you've pushed on and on, let me answer you in the way you want to be answered.

God's moral purpose for man is that man acts in a way that is objectively morally right. Satisfied?

And I've said again that lions and dogs aren't the sorts of animals that can make moral decisions. Making moral decisions require certain features that dogs and lions don't have or that they have to limited degrees. e.g can a lion stop itself from copulating based on introspection? Humans can and that is a significant difference.

Hmm,
If I get you correctly, you are saying that because an animal lacks the ability to think about it's actions (very debatable but I'll agree for now), It cannot be held morally responsible for them. Would the following not apply to an animal's lack of mathematical or rational/logical ability as grounds upon which we can say it isn't as intelligent as man and hence we ought not to have the same expectations for it?

Now let us inspect your comment shall we?

To introspect and decide for or against an action in this context is to morally evaluate the action. This presupposes that there is an objective moral standard against which the action is evaluated as right or wrong and then consequently acted upon accordingly. I hope you do realize that this is much the same way a person will sit and ponder over a logical problem or a mathematical problem and then proceed to act according to it.

Once again, by trying to run away from it, you have run right back to the reality that morality is objective and not only that, a man who goes against objective moral principles does not merely have a different opinion rather he has a wrong one.

Now we have agreed that people can be objectively morally wrong. The next question that follows is why are our moral principles the way they are? Why do our moral principles compel us to live by them. Why is it that moral principles are not merely as they are but point to us as we ought to be? Why is our existence subject to a certain moral reality? When you begin to truly and seriously ponder this, you'll be well on your way to discovering your creator.

thehomer: Their biology also prevents them from having complex thoughts and cultures.

"complex" another vague word. In what ways are your thoughts more complex than those of a dog or a lion?

So is man a perfect being or not?

The question is not whether man is perfect or not. The question is whether God made man imperfect? Here's what the bible says about that

See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes. Ecclesiastes 7:29

What is God's purpose? That is my question.

What is objectively morally good?

thehomer: Maybe I don't understand what you're asking for. What sort of answer do you want?

Again, do you think there are no significant differences between humans and other animals? If you do, then surely you realize that this entire line of questioning is moot. So why don't you tell me whether or not you think there are significant differences before I bother with looking at the sort of answer you want.

We are here talking about morality. You have claimed that other animals are "significantly different" from humans.

My question is in what way are they significantly different in a moral sense? for instance, how is dog r[color=#000000]ap[/color]e "significantly different" from human ra[color=#000000]pe[/color] in a moral sense? How is a lion killing another lion and taking over his family significantly different in a moral sense from a man doing the exact same thing to another man and his family?

mazaje: When did I say this nonsense you typed above. . As usual when you have nothuing to say , all you do is make things up. You know me better than that, i always never play your games. . .Their actions were evil. . .Even by their own standards, because they same thing the egyptians did to them which they termed as evil was the same thing they set out to do unto others. . Moses, Joshua(assuiming the sories were true) , Hitler, Moa etc all belong to the same category. . .

Wow! Are you about to deny that you have ever said that morality evolves?

thehomer: I've answered this in so many ways but you just keep on repeating the question. There are significant differences in judgement, science, empathy, biology and other such features.

Do you think there are no significant differences?

The question you have not yet answered is in what way are they "significantly different" and how that ought to play out in the context of morality. All you keep doing is repeating that they are significantly different.

thehomer: It answers everything as far as I can see. It also explains why they don't speak.

But their biology allows them both to force other members of their species to have sex against their will, it also allows man and animals to kill other members of their species. These are similarities their biology allows. Why subject the exact same actions to different moral scales

Then how could he have made anything imperfect?

He didn't

That is a question not an answer. Try to answer the question or have you suddenly forgotten how to answer a question using your own terms? You did that before using the word "sacred". Answer my own question using your own terms. We can explore the terms after we have a general sense of the implications.

That is an answer. You have admitted that there is such a thing as the way man ought to behave. A purpose of a thing is exactly that: The way the thing ought to behave. Or what do yo think "purpose" means?

thehomer: You say this as if there are no significant differences between the species.

Again, "what are these "significant differences"?

thehomer: I didn't say it wasn't an animal. It was the one I chose to make my point using that as an example. You on the other hand just seem to be confused about the point.

Ok then let's try the equally animal example of the dog

thehomer: I was making a joke but you're welcome to explain what you mean.

ok joke it was

thehomer: Sarcasm from me.

meh

thehomer: You know, I've answered more than my share of questions here. I'll answer this and you'll have to answer questions that I already posed before that you ignored.

It is a fact of their biology.

This does not answer anything at all and you know it

What is God's nature?

perfect

What is his purpose?

What is objectively morally right? (I'm assuming you are referring to how he want humans to act morally.)

thehomer: Sure massive empathy is all that is needed. That is why they would kill off other cubs and take over kills they didn't make. They've even started running a system of determining who would lead the pack by voting.

again he switches
.........[size=13pt]The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he argues that morality is based on empathy and judgment then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that animals with empathy and judgment are not the sort of animals that make moral decisions[/size].......

thehomer: Yes. Just the other day, a wolf was talking about changing from the social group of a pack to one based on capitalism.

Pardon me but from an evolutionary perpective, this is no different from saying

Just the other day, a man was growling to the moonlight and running on all fours.

thehomer: Many words are relative. It doesn't suddenly stop them from being useful. I didn't invent the praying mantis, it is a real animal that illustrates my point.

If you think they're equally valid, then you're welcome to show that they are.

a praying mantis is as much an animal as all of my examples. If you think it isn't, you are welcome to show that it isn't.

thehomer: Lions aren't the sorts of creatures that make moral judgements.

Dogs aren't the sorts of creatures that make moral judgements.

Why not?

Deep Sight: EMPATHY! THE BIG WORD! THE VERY BASIS OF MORALITY!

LIONS DISPLAY MASSIVE EMPATHY AND YET THEHOMER WOULD NOT HOLD THEM IMMORAL OR AMMORAL FOR THEIT ACTS OF MURDER AND PLUNDER!

Lol, This is what tends to happen when a persons swings from base to base employing whichever argument he deems fit to help him escape a particular situation.

While I think the lad quite brilliant, I have never really known thehomer to present a logically consistent worldview. He has perfected the art of switching presuppositions halfway through an argument and then back again.

Deep Sight: I wonder if thehomer is acquainted with the order and sense of society within a pack of wolves.

Thehomer's arguments sound to me like specieism.

thehomer: As I said before, judgement, science, empathy, biology and other such features.

Yeah but lions have empathy for other lions they will help a wounded lion in a fight yet a male lion will kill another male lion to take over his pride. Is that action immoral?

Dogs also have empathy, they have been known to rescue other dogs and even human children in danger yet male dogs force themselves upon female dogs. Is the action of a dog r[color=#000000]api[/color]ng another dog immoral?

thehomer: Why not praying mantis? Its the example I want to use. My question is whether or not there is a significant difference between humans and the preying mantis.

"significant" is a very vague and relative word and the praying mantis is an example you've invented to help you escape. You've said here that human moral precepts are not derived from animals. If all the examples I suggested count as animals, then they are all equally valid.

thehomer: Whether or not it is appropriate for humans to treat each other in that way.

What exactly defines what is appropriate or inappropriate?