Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,181,850 members, 7,915,446 topics. Date: Friday, 09 August 2024 at 12:57 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / The Basis Of Human Morality (13827 Views)
Dialectics Of Violence And Morality / Self-service, Selfless-service And Nigerian Christian Morality. / The Decent Of Human Morality (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (19) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Nobody: 3:28pm On May 19, 2013 |
Pastor AIO: I like the reasoning here:What happens when everybody starts using their high intelligence to STEAL food from each other? Violence comes into the picture. Life becomes nasty, short and brutish. It is because of our supposed high intellect that morals exist in order to ensure the survival of our specie. Or do you think you can survive if you are to be the only human left in whatever town you are living in? After you must have "survived" by eating the flesh of others who also ate others flesh and so on. What is survival? |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by PastorAIO: 3:47pm On May 19, 2013 |
Are we discussing Morality or Survival of the Specie. Is Survival of the Specie intrinsically linked to morality? What about self sacrifice? Could that ever be a moral thing to do? kwangi: What happens when everybody starts using their high intelligence to STEAL food from each other? |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by DeepSight(m): 4:01pm On May 19, 2013 |
plaetton: The question is about morality: and not efficiency. Morality goes to the individual and what is right and wrong. Why should an individual even be concerned about the group? Why would it be wrong or immoral to be only concerned about himself? Indeed, talking about group survival, why would it be wrong for an individual to be actively interested in decimating the entire group for his own selfish interest and pleasure. What makes that immoral for him to do - if indeed he is merely a smarter ape? Would you consider a very smart ape to be acting immorally if in his smartness he decided to eliminate other apes to conserve resources for himself? Why would that be bad or immoral? |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by DeepSight(m): 4:04pm On May 19, 2013 |
kwangi: What happens when everybody starts using their high intelligence to STEAL food from each other? But this is what happens in reality: such is, for example, official corruption on a massive scale. It has been the case throughout history. What makes it evil or immoral, if we are merely highly intelligent competitive apes? |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by DeepSight(m): 4:14pm On May 19, 2013 |
Again to Plaetton - looking at the question of group survival. Do you realize that as populations increase and you have cases of over population and limited resources - do you realize that a time comes when a decreased population would in fact be better for the health and survival of the group. In such a situation, would we then say that it becomes moral for a small portion of the population to eliminate and murder the rest. Such as 2 million people in Nigeria murdering the rest - 158 million, and thereby living bountifully, peacefully and in great health and wealth in the land. You must therefore realize that that which is more efficient which is what you are advocating, has many sides and does not equate with that which is moral or immoral. |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Nobody: 4:37pm On May 19, 2013 |
Pastor AIO: Are we discussing Morality or Survival of the Specie. Is Survival of the Specie intrinsically linked to morality? What about self sacrifice? Could that ever be a moral thing to do?1.We are discussing both. 2. Yes. Considering Man's base urges. 3. That's a different case. |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by UyiIredia(m): 4:43pm On May 19, 2013 |
I find that the problem with materialism is that concepts such as morality, empathy and logic are not strictly reducible to the material processes responsible for them. We know the basis of all mentations is the human brain but why should the materials in the brain evoke these mentations. There is no reason for a purposeless, amoral material to start considering purpose, yet this is what we see in the brain and in all biological systems. Going by the known fact that purpose & morals can only be defined in context of that which has intelligence I can extrapolate that morality (particularly in humans) ultimately comes from an intelligent being (God). Materialists must realize that matter alone can't think or feel. These attributes require a specific assemblage of materials which CANNOT self-assemble the only reasonable option is to infer from human ability to create intelligent machines that intelligence is required to create intelligence and this necessitates a God. After all is said and done I think the basis of morality is intelligence. 2 Likes |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Nobody: 4:47pm On May 19, 2013 |
Deep Sight:Yeah... True, what are the resultant effect of such habits? However, this is not aptly analogous to the scenario we're discussing. |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by ijawkid(m): 4:50pm On May 19, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: I find that the problem with materialism is that concepts such as morality, empathy and logic are not strictly reducible to the material processes responsible for them. We know the basis of all mentations is the human brain but why should the materials in the brain evoke these mentations. There is no reason for a purposeless, amoral material to start considering purpose, yet this is what we see in the brain and in all biological systems. Going by the known fact that purpose & morals can only be defined in context of that which has intelligence I can extrapolate that morality (particularly in humans) ultimately comes from an intelligent being (God). Thank you my bro..thank you!!!!!.......... |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by UyiIredia(m): 5:23pm On May 19, 2013 |
wiegraf: Circular reasoning, because it is well-known that it is moral (or good) to be logical. BTW the Incas and Aztecs were cannibalistic yet built great empires. Furthermore, I always note that people use circular reasoning to justify morality or the origin of morality it is said that morality is useful, advantageous, necessary which clearly means the same thing and are all presumably moral. Some even say reason or logic, but these also are presumably moral. |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by PastorAIO: 5:33pm On May 19, 2013 |
kwangi: Good question! What survives? Are we talking about the survival of the individuals or are we talking about the survival of the genome? Does the genome survive from one mutation to the other? Doesn't everything change, isn't everything subject to processes(death is a part of process)? Panta Rhei (Uyi Iredia ) Is it the same genome if it mutates? This brings us back to the problem of identity. Has the species survived if it evolves into another species? Have Pterodactyls survived? 1 Like |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Nobody: 5:37pm On May 19, 2013 |
So Deepsight, you just went ahead and ignored my post? Well, you never respected me in the first place....... #butthurted |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by plaetton: 5:49pm On May 19, 2013 |
Getting interesting. Will address them when I get home. |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by wirinet(m): 6:46pm On May 19, 2013 |
Deep Sight: Morality is often set by a group and not the individual. Moral codes are a set of rules that bind the group together and set to promote progress and developments of the group. And these moral codes differ from society to society. Some society see killing and eating certain animals as immoral, others see having muliple spouses as immoral, same for drinking alcohol. japan sees suicide as a very moral thing to do to save a family name from disgrace while most people sees it a very immoral thing to do. An individual is concerned about it group survival because his own very survival depends on protection from the group. it is universal phenomena, social animals such as ants, bees and humans that put group interest above personal interest survives much better than solitary animals. Same for societies that put group interest above personal interest. That is why i believe the Nigerian society cannot survive very long, the individuals therein put personal interest above group interest. History has shown that when a smart "ape" tries to decimate other less smart "apes", it always back fires in the end, because the less smart "apes" come together to fight the more powerful and smart "apes". this has happened throughout history, from hitler to Nero to saddam. The most successful societies are the most socially advanced societies and not necessarily the smartest. 1 Like |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by wirinet(m): 6:54pm On May 19, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: correction, the Aztecs and incas were not cannibalistic. Human meat was not a delicacy eaten by ordinary citizens in the society. It was practiced as a religious ceremony by the high priests at certain times of the year and it involves very few persons. What is eaten at such ceremonies is the heart, not that a pot of human meat soup. 1 Like |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Nobody: 6:57pm On May 19, 2013 |
Haven't had time to go through the thread completely, so forgive me if these questions have already been answered/asked. - Without the quest for surival, would there be any need for morality? - Secondly, if our quest for survival forces us to create moral codes to guard/protect/advance our species, then that's all 'morality' is.. A sort of defence mechanism to protect us from the harsh reality that the universe doesn't care about any of us. Just live and be the best while you're at it. Following this line of thought, it would only be fair to say that nothing's moral or immoral of its own. As obadiah once put it, evil is 'simply something that goes against our goals/aims' 1 Like |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Nobody: 7:01pm On May 19, 2013 |
wirinet:Thank you. Wanted to correct that very ridiculous notion. |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Nobody: 7:06pm On May 19, 2013 |
wirinet: kwangi: Yeah... True, what are the resultant effect of such habits? |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Nobody: 7:16pm On May 19, 2013 |
Deep Sight: |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by plaetton: 7:39pm On May 19, 2013 |
Deep Sight:I dont remember harping on efficiency. Morality are sets of contrived value systems that humans have put in place to regulate behaviours and attitudes, ultimately for the mutual benefit of the social unit. Therefore, behaviours or attitudes that is percieved to be of immediate or long term detriment of the social unit are deemed wrong, immoral or evil. Let me repeat, Morality is not a thing or concept that stands seperately on its own. No. It is the collective that nitpicks and chooses their moral boundaries. Morality cannot exist outside of social unit. For example, animals copu.late in public because they have no moral boundaries prevent them from doing so. Irrespective of what motivates or drives an individual action, it is the collective will of the social unit that determines whether a particular action is deemed moral or immoral, not the individual. In summary, individual actions are not the determiners of morality. No matter how you rationalize your need to dominate or eat another human being, the moral boundaries of your society will either prevent, judge or punish your actions. |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by plaetton: 7:43pm On May 19, 2013 |
musKeeto: Haven't had time to go through the thread completely, so forgive me if these questions have already been answered/asked. Thank you Chief Muskeeto. Exactly what I just posted above. |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by plaetton: 7:53pm On May 19, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: I find that the problem with materialism is that concepts such as morality, empathy and logic are not strictly reducible to the material processes responsible for them. We know the basis of all mentations is the human brain but why should the materials in the brain evoke these mentations. There is no reason for a purposeless, amoral material to start considering purpose, yet this is what we see in the brain and in all biological systems. Going by the known fact that purpose & morals can only be defined in context of that which has intelligence I can extrapolate that morality (particularly in humans) ultimately comes from an intelligent being (God). What you consider purpose are just infinitely random systems, that seem, from our perception, to resemble order. In most cases, it means nothing in the grander scheme of existence. If morality is innate, then can we say that animals also follow an innate moral code from god? How do you know that matter alone can't think or feel? If thinking and feeling emanate from the brain cells, then how can you say the brain does not have the required assemblage of materials to generate and transmit electrical impulses that make us think and feel? When the brain cells are diseased or damaged, what happens to thinking and feeling? They become haphazard, distorted indecipherable. Not so? In these cases, we dont see the god gene, miraculously superceding and maintaining the required equilibrium conditions that promote thinking and feeling. Do you? |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Kay17: 7:56pm On May 19, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: I find that the problem with materialism is that concepts such as morality, empathy and logic are not strictly reducible to the material processes responsible for them. We know the basis of all mentations is the human brain but why should the materials in the brain evoke these mentations. There is no reason for a purposeless, amoral material to start considering purpose, yet this is what we see in the brain and in all biological systems. Going by the known fact that purpose & morals can only be defined in context of that which has intelligence I can extrapolate that morality (particularly in humans) ultimately comes from an intelligent being (God). Note that the materialist stands in awe of the dynamism of matter. Is an existentialist a materialist too?? |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Kay17: 7:58pm On May 19, 2013 |
Morality is group sentiment, it is best studied sociologically, and in a cultural context. 4 Likes |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by Nobody: 8:02pm On May 19, 2013 |
Kay 17: Morality is group sentiment, it is best studied sociologically, and in a cultural context.My point all along. |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by plaetton: 8:09pm On May 19, 2013 |
Deep Sight: Again to Plaetton - looking at the question of group survival. Do you realize that as populations increase and you have cases of over population and limited resources - do you realize that a time comes when a decreased population would in fact be better for the health and survival of the group. In such a situation, would we then say that it becomes moral for a small portion of the population to eliminate and murder the rest. Such as 2 million people in Nigeria murdering the rest - 158 million, and thereby living bountifully, peacefully and in great health and wealth in the land. Wrong. By using Our thinking faculties, we have options. Several, infact. We never have to resort to murder in order to survive as a species. With technology, we can rearrange our consumption and resource distribution systems. We can adapt to new diets, new resources, new energy that takes less from the earth. We can build , underwater and underground cities. By Jove, we can even move populations to the moon and other uninhabited planets when interplanetary travel becomes common. There is nothing that a group of humans endowed with unclogged brains(unclogged from the bondage of slavish religions) cannot do in this era. And speaking of era, what is the defining turning point of this new era? The emasculation of religion. 1 Like |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by UyiIredia(m): 8:30pm On May 19, 2013 |
plaetton: No. Check your dictionary for the definition of purpose. Nowhere implies what you've written. plaetton: How do you know that matter alone can't think or feel? Because it has never expressed its thoughts or feelings. And because I know that thoughts and feelings are specific to very intelligent organisms eg humans and apes. Please read well I never said what you claimed above. Rather I said the structures required for thoughts and feelings can't self-assemble. plaetton: When the brain cells are diseased or damaged, what happens to thinking and feeling? Agreed. |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by plaetton: 8:43pm On May 19, 2013 |
As a corollary to my last post, why do mentally insane people behave irrationally and do things that are at most times outside the moral boundaries of their society? Can we say, by theistic logic, that the spirit of god had departed from them, and therefore they had lost their moral underpinnings? No. It is due to their inability to grasp, and their indifference to the moral boundaries of society ,that we seek special protections for them. them |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by wiegraf: 10:30pm On May 19, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: No, it's not. Did you read the post I was replying to? Deep Sight: Are you telling me you cannot pick up from this that he's saying a ruthless application of logic does not mean more moral (in the traditional sense)? He's very clearly saying so. So do must of your xtian brothers actually. You hear it time and again; being logical leads to a ruthless application of survival of the fittest, it's the logical conclusion. Visit the abortion thread and watch your friend anony (and others) appeal to emotion, visit this thread and watch your bretheren admit they do not use their brains with these issues, and your xtianity does define your moral code, does it not? Or are you telling me your faith-based religious system, which dictates your moral code, is built around logic? God ordering abraham to sacrifice his son was being logical? The genocides perhaps? Empathy is the trait most people associate with morality, not logic. Logic they imagine leads to a dog eat dog world. At best it's seen as a necessary evil, not the driving force of morality. Uyi Iredia: You're not even disputing that more logical means more moral, in fact you assert that (while paradoxically adhering to a faith-based religious system, this is probably why you had problems with your 'faith'), so why bring this up? It's meaningless actually. If more logical means more moral (by our standards), and more logical implies less crimes like cannibalism, why bring this up? They might have built great empires, true, but have you looked at their neighbors/competition, the conditions at the time, etc? Have you looked at where this cultures evolved from, which cultures they advanced, their legacies, etc? You do understand just how isolated and barbaric South-America was circa these civilizations' golden years? Despite the blood lust of these civilizations, they were probably less blood thirsty than most of their peers. And just how advanced did these empires become? Consider your ancestors in Guinea were eating each other less than 200 years ago, they were also in no way anywhere near European Empires at the time, no? That is the usual level of development of cannibalistic societies. Even if the Aztec and Incan Empires no longer existed by the time Europeans arrived at SA, their descendents were still around. They didn't put up much of a fight, did they? Do you think they would have put up more resistance even in the glory years of those Empires? Through history you'd find that more advanced = less violent, fact (I'm reading a fat book atm with hard numbers to back this assertion up, see here for him talking about his sources). More advanced civilizations generally, not necessarily, tend to be more logical. They also generally tend to be regarded as more 'moral' or good, at least by today's definitions of good. Again, even you assert that. While great, their greatness has to be examined in context. Relatively, they weren't that great. Uyi Iredia: I have no idea about what you're on about, but see above. |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by UyiIredia(m): 1:47am On May 20, 2013 |
wiegraf: Logic simply defined is the principles of correct reasoning. Logic is therefore something considered moral. It seems to me that Deep Sight was questioning why certain things which are advantageous (e.g stealing for money for one's upkeep) aren't considered moral. |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by wiegraf: 3:02am On May 20, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: Again, it is not. Even going by your definition, as it's (ostensibly) advantageous to do certain immoral things, making the reasoning behind such acts seem correct, or logical, most people assume it would be logical to be immoral. Do you get it? Here for instance, ds could assume it would be logical to steal in these scenarios, as logic supports the act. This is an act deemed immoral by modern standards, yes? In other words, strict application of logic, or doing what may seem reasonable, would lead to situations we consider immoral. Simply put; that it is logical to be immoral. I may not have hard numbers, but I would DEFINITELY say this is the prevailing view of most of the world. Do you know how many people go around insisting that without the fear of hell fire we'd all be hedonistic rapine loving monsters? Why do you think that's the case? |
Re: The Basis Of Human Morality by UyiIredia(m): 12:52pm On May 20, 2013 |
wiegraf: Yes it is. In such cases the 'immoral' acts would be moral based on logic. |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (19) (Reply)
The Cain And Abel Nature In Every Human Being / Pastor Sign Fireman: Why Actor Enebeli Enebuwa Is Sick Again / Thank God For One Thing In Your Life
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 118 |