₦airaland Forum

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

I just saw it. Thanks for the reply.

Martinez19:
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).

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

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).

Martinez19:
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).

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.

johnydon22:
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.

But how do we apply it to morality because it seems quite apparent that human beings don't have the same opinions about what is moral or not. This is something that is not debatable at all; it's an obvious fact. This makes me feel that I do not understand the topic at all.

Martinez19:
When people say morality is subjective, they mean that an action or deed is moral if an individual deems it so

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

ie. what is moral depends on what an individual deems moral and what's moral for one can be immoral for another

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.

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.

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?

Martinez19:
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).

I think the word "morality" is problematic because it can mean so many things that are not exactly the same. Moral norms. Moral codes. Moral principles. Moral philosophy. Moral behaviour. Moral judgement. This causes us to have disagreements that are purely based on definitions.

The core of morality is the judging of actions to determine whether they are appropriate (good, right) or inappropriate (wrong, evil). This judging can be done individually or collectively. So many different things can influence our judgment of actions including all the things that have been mentioned on this thread. Morality involves anything that can be influence our judgment of actions. Reasoning, empathy, laws, religious beliefs, tradition, peer pressure, social norms, philosophical reasoning, cost/benefit analysis, etc. All these things affect our judgment of actions.

Update: Seems that there are two threads on this topic. Yikes.

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!

Martinez19:
@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!

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'.

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:
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:
But how do we apply it to morality because it seems quite apparent that human beings don't have the same opinions about what is moral or not. This is something that is not debatable at all; it's an obvious fact. This makes me feel that I do not understand the topic at all.

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?

In fact, I think you do understand the topic, moreso than some even. Or you wouldn't have seen how complicated the topic is!

Subjectivity applies when the quality of being is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. And Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. Subjectivity is "one says", while objectivity "just is" independently of anyone's opinion. Your question, "How can we conclude that something is good if no person sees it as good?" Brings it to fore nicely.

Good denotes that which is to be or should be preferred when posed with a choice between a set of possible actions and is generally considered to be the opposite of evil. You would note the subjective in that definition, the subject "posed with a choice". The objective moralists claim the subjective choice is externally objectively imposed and/or innate. While the subjective moralists say humans decide their own morals.

The question, "How can we find out if something is 'objectively' moral?" Depends on how rigorous you intend to be. Morals, for instance, is a code of behaviour that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society. Do "codes of behaviour" originate from us human beings, or are they independent of anyone's opinion?

Martinez19:
If something is innate, it means you are born with it. I made it clear in my post.

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].

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.

Martinez19:
When I use the word innate, I mean inborn only. My post made it clear.

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

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.

Martinez19:
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}.

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

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.

Martinez19:
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.

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.

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.

Martinez19:
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.

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.

All morality is subjective because all value systems are a result of conscious creatures making value judgements.

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.

Seun:
But how do we apply it to morality because it seems quite apparent that human beings don't have the same opinions about what is moral or not. This is something that is not debatable at all; it's an obvious fact. This makes me feel that I do not understand the topic at all.

Humans have different opinions but morality is not individual.

One person is not moral to himself. Imagine if only you is on earth, what is the point of "Don't kill another?"

So, individual opinions do not matter in morality, as a social myth it takes a collection of opinions.

What is good (societal good) or in plain term Morality is an agreement(belief) between a collection of people.

Some people today are of the opinion that pedophilia is ok, they are called MAPs (Google it)

Does it change that societally we still consider pedophilia wrong?

Imagine if they convince everybody in the country, what happens?

So, individual opinions do not matter in morality. It must be intersubjective.

Someone here may need to read ‘The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics Of Morals’ by Immanuel Kant.

bknight:
Someone here may need to read ‘The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics Of Morals’ by Immanuel Kant.

It's free too, so no excuses!