I think that Deepsight is being fundamentally misunderstood in this thread. Possibly because 'Morality' is such a murky idea here, and each of us actually has a different thing he is talking about when we mention morality. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, or being dismissed again with a disdainful 'I don't do definitionism', I think we need to set out a definition of Morality so we know what we are talking about here.

Morality is a contrived set of rules by groups for mutual benefit. Is has supremacy over the instinctive individual drive for survival by means of domination and self aggrandisement.

Can you offer up an example of where and when some Moral was contrived?

Deep Sight:

Can you please address the question I asked:



Additionally, can you tell me if there are any History Books which teach that the acts of Bonaparte, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great or Ghengis Khan, were evil and wrong acts not to be emulated. Is it not rather the case, that History reveres and celebrates these men as great men?

Please be very specific in your answer to the question in red in my quote above.

"Until lions have their own historian, the history of hunting will always glorify the hunter".-- Chinua Achebe

Pastor AIO: I think that Deepsight is being fundamentally misunderstood in this thread. Possibly because 'Morality' is such a murky idea here, and each of us actually has a different thing he is talking about when we mention morality. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, or being dismissed again with a disdainful 'I don't do definitionism', I think we need to set out a definition of Morality so we know what we are talking about here.




Can you offer up an example of where and when some Moral was contrived?

I know Deepsight is fundamentally and greatly understood, hence the clear answers and explanations to his questions.
Morality ain't as murky as you tryna paint it.

"Morality is a contrived..."
All you have to look at are the functions of morality for you to know that they are mostly a contrived set of rules...

kwangi: "Until lions have their own historian, the history of hunting will always glorify the hunter".-- Chinua Achebe

Napoleon was defeated in Russia and finally in Waterloo and then sent to exile. Yet we do not hear that he is not to be emulated. He brought freedom to a lot of the peoples he invaded. We hear a lot about what an amazing war general he was.

kwangi: I know Deepsight is fundamentally and greatly understood, hence the clear answers and explanations to his questions.
Morality ain't as murky as you tryna paint it.

"Morality is a contrived..."
All you have to look at are the functions of morality for you to know that they are mostly a contrived set of rules...

Examples please.



ps. and a definition of morality too, Thanks in advance.

Some interesting thoughts on Morality by the Anti X,


Morality makes stupid.-- Custom represents the experiences of men of earlier times as to what they supposed useful and harmful - but the sense for custom (morality) applies, not to these experiences as such, but to the age, the sanctity, the indiscussability of the custom. And so this feeling is a hindrance to the acquisition of new experiences and the correction of customs: that is to say, morality is a hindrance to the development of new and better customs: it makes stupid.

from Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 19, R.J. Hollingdale transl.


Whoever has overthrown an existing law of custom has always first been accounted a bad man: but when, as did happen, the law could not afterwards be reinstated and this fact was accepted, the predicate gradually changed; - history treats almost exclusively of these bad men who subsequently became good men!

from Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 20, R.J. Hollingdale transl.


Suspicious.-- To admit a belief merely because it is a custom - but that means to be dishonest, cowardly, lazy! - And so could dishonesty, cowardice and laziness be the preconditions for morality?

from Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 101, R.J. Hollingdale transl.


Get more from here: http://www.theperspectivesofnietzsche.com/nietzsche/nmoral.html

Pastor AIO:

Examples please.



ps. and a definition of morality too, Thanks in advance.

I know say you don dey follow dis thread from page one, so your demand for examples are unnecessary.
But if you insist, start from page one so as not to miss anything.

Pastor AIO: Some interesting thoughts on Morality by the Anti X,


Morality makes stupid.-- Custom represents the experiences of men of earlier times as to what they supposed useful and harmful - but the sense for custom (morality) applies, not to these experiences as such, but to the age, the sanctity, the indiscussability of the custom. And so this feeling is a hindrance to the acquisition of new experiences and the correction of customs: that is to say, morality is a hindrance to the development of new and better customs: it makes stupid.

from Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 19, R.J. Hollingdale transl.


Whoever has overthrown an existing law of custom has always first been accounted a bad man: but when, as did happen, the law could not afterwards be reinstated and this fact was accepted, the predicate gradually changed; - history treats almost exclusively of these bad men who subsequently became good men!

from Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 20, R.J. Hollingdale transl.


Suspicious.-- To admit a belief merely because it is a custom - but that means to be dishonest, cowardly, lazy! - And so could dishonesty, cowardice and laziness be the preconditions for morality?

from Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 101, R.J. Hollingdale transl.


Get more from here: http://www.theperspectivesofnietzsche.com/nietzsche/nmoral.html

What's this?
Too murky!
Are they talking morality, customs, laws, beliefs or what?
These ideas/concepts are distinct as well as related.
BTW Nietzsche's perspectives are no more valid than mine or my grandpa's.
They are just what they are, Nietzsche's perspective.

kwangi: What's this?
Too murky!
Are they talking morality, customs, laws, beliefs or what?
These ideas/concepts are distinct as well as related.
BTW Nietzsche's perspectives are no more valid than mine or my grandpa's.
They are just what they are, Nietzsche's perspective.

I never said that they were more valid that yours. I just said that they were interesting.

kwangi: I know say you don dey follow dis thread from page one, so your demand for examples are unnecessary.
But if you insist, start from page one so as not to miss anything.

Actually it is very necessary cos I think that people are talking about rather different things from the looks of the thread.

^Okay. They are indeed interesting.
I don't know about others, but from the get go, I've been talking human morality.
Never lost sight.

kwangi: By what measures did you arrive at the conclusion that acts of war, robbery... are inspired by the need for survival?
Was colonisation inspired by greed, vain glory or need for survival?
Morality is what keeps man's base instincts/urges in check.

BTW, I asked the Op some questions he answered in a funny way. I no understand sha.

Pastor AIO:

Examples please.



ps. and a definition of morality too, Thanks in advance.

The UN declaration of of fundamental human rights and the Geneva convention is are two great example of contrived morality.
Magna Carter is another great example, as is the rule of law, Habeas Corpus, etc.

These are contrived morality that have become universal and enshrined in the legal codes of all nations.

Pastor AIO:

Napoleon was defeated in Russia and finally in Waterloo and then sent to exile. Yet we do not hear that he is not to be emulated. He brought freedom to a lot of the peoples he invaded. We hear a lot about what an amazing war general he was.

Indeed history looks at these figures with awe and respect because of the of their bravery, their tenacity and singlemindedness . But we also look at their atrocities with great disgust.

That is why no sane person attempts to repeat the deeds of these so-called great men.

The contrived moral codes of our day would never allow such madness and such enactment of negative history.

We call these men great because surely they stand out like sore thumbs in history. We do no emulate their deeds.
We study their acts to teach the folly and consequences of unchecked individual ambition.

^^^ Please, please, please AND please: for heavens sake can you just give me a specific, direct answer on my question:

Were those acts of warfare IMMORAL? ? ? ? ? ?

Yes or no will suffice, please!

plaetton:

We study their acts to teach the folly and consequences of unchecked individual ambition.

Can you in all good conscience claim that this is why we study the conquests of Alexander, Caesar, Bonarparte, Genghis Khan, and co? Can you point to one single History book that paints any of these men in a negative light or suggests that they ought not to have conquered as they did? Is it not rather the case that they are storied in History with celebration of their conquests, great monuments and statues and the like? Can you genuinely claim that they are "sore thumbs" and are reviled and only taught about as bad lessons? Can you really claim this? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

^^YES!
They were immoral.
Dis topic suppose don dead by now!

kwangi: ^^YES!
They were immoral.
Dis topic suppose don dead by now!

WHY? IF MAN BE NOTHING BUT A SMARTER APE, WHAT MAKES TERRITORY GRABBING AMONG SMART APES IMMORAL? THE LOWER APES DO SO BY PRIMITIVE FIGHTING: SINCE WE ARE SMARTER, WE DO SO BY SOPHISTICATED FIGHTING: WEAPONS, GUNS, BOMBS, JETS, ARMIES. HOW IS THIS IMMORAL FOR HEAVENS SAKE?

Deep Sight:

WHY? IF MAN BE NOTHING BUT A SMARTER APE, WHAT MAKES TERRITORY GRABBING AMONG SMART APES IMMORAL? THE LOWER APES DO SO BY PRIMITIVE FIGHTING: SINCE WE ARE SMARTER, WE DO SO BY SOPHISTICATED FIGHTING: WEAPONS, GUNS, BOMBS, JETS, ARMIES. HOW IS THIS IMMORAL FOR HEAVENS SAKE?

Firstly, we are talking morality, the basis.
YOU brought up the survival angle! Where you argued that despite what man does, so far as it is geared towards survival that it should not be judged!
YOU gave instances of wars, government corruption, colonisation. Went ahead to bring it down to individual level of armed robbery, etc.
Then I asked, were these acts propelled by the need to survive or rather, were they inspired by the need for survival?
To your question above, it is because we are supposedly smarter apes and it's morality or otherwise will depend on the propelling factor.
When you want or need stuff that belongs to someone else you BEG or ASK for it. Better still, you can offer something in exchange!
(To me man is man. I don't know about the ape angle. We are animals)
The aforementioned points are the reasons why mindless land grabbing propelled by greed and its like are IMMORAL.

kwangi: By what measures did you arrive at the conclusion that acts of war, robbery... are inspired by the need for survival?
Was colonisation inspired by greed, vain glory or need for survival?
Morality is what keeps man's base instincts/urges in check.

Bros, attend to the above post please. When you first ignored it, I thought, "okay, he must have come to a realisation..."

Deep Sight: @ Plaetton and all others arguing in terms of group survival and efficiency, etc, you still have not got the point at all.

I have to be brief right now, and so I will give you another spin of the matter to consider. Later in the day I shall respond more elaborately.

Now, if we say that group survival is the basis for morality, it eludes you that there are many groups in the world with differing wants, needs, cultures and the like. As such, the survival of one group may depend on acts of war with another group. Throughout history, this has been the case in terms of warfare and resources. People, nations and groups rise against one another in acts of war for the purpose of acquiring territory and resources for survival.

Now, this fits in perfectly with the survival needs of such groups! And more importantly, it is observed throughout history, and in every part of the world - thus evincing it as most natural.

The question therefore, would be if these acts of war targeted at achieving resources, are immoral or evil?

Was colonization evil? Was the expansion into the new world with its attendant acts of war on the native populations evil? Were the expansionist wars of the great generals, Alexander the Great, Darius, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, evil or immoral acts? Were these acts not acts of group survival and acquisition? Does this not fit in snugly and nicely with survival of the fittest?

Now the further step in the thought development is to scale down to smaller groups. If a larger group such as a nation can legitimately initiate acts of warfare over resources, what then makes it immoral for smaller groups to initiate similar acts? Pirates? Highway Bandits? Armed Robbers? Bullies at school? Powerful citizens in society? Unless one is hypocritical, one will see that the exact same principle per force applies! You must note that there is a difference between illegality and immorality, no?

Further, you cannot argue that this is bad because it leads to anarchy: for what is warfare if not anarchy? Indeed, is anarchy not the default state of nature?

Further still, I find Plaettons argument about human advancement and the development of better methods really poor! For this argument insinuates that things that were morally okay when man was less developed now become immoral in a more developed world! Does morality change based on available resources? Are there not still millions of people going hungry in the world today, in many backward and uncivilized nations? Would it be immoral for such people to steal food? If they need your resources, would it be immoral to seize your resources for their survival?

If we are merely highly developed animals, you can never argue that acts of warfare or seizing resources from one another are wrong or evil. NEVER.

Please start by addressing the question in red above.

Na the post be dis!

^^^ Ol boy, you have not said anything. i cannot glean anything from your posts. In case you didn't know, the whole point of the thread is to contest the idea that man is an animal. If man was indeed an animal, his animal instincts would govern his moral choices. However there is clearly that part of man that is above animal instinct. That is the part that renders him man. This thread, as I said earlier, is rendered for the sake of contesting the strict materialist view of the nature of man as an animal, a product of the mindless interaction of matter only.

Okay o.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Please, please, please AND please: for heavens sake can you just give me a specific, direct answer on my question:

Were those acts of warfare IMMORAL? ? ? ? ? ?

Yes or no will suffice, please!

Ofcourse ,they were immoral and evil.

They caused unspeakable horror, destruction, loss of human life, displacement, despair and grief to millions.
all the for the sake of individual or small group ambition to dominate the world.
How could you ask me such a question?

Deep Sight:

Can you in all good conscience claim that this is why we study the conquests of Alexander, Caesar, Bonarparte, Genghis Khan, and co? Can you point to one single History book that paints any of these men in a negative light or suggests that they ought not to have conquered as they did? Is it not rather the case that they are storied in History with celebration of their conquests, great monuments and statues and the like? Can you genuinely claim that they are "sore thumbs" and are reviled and only taught about as bad lessons? Can you really claim this? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

The history writers present us with facts, we make the judgements.
No one that I know celebrates these historical meglomaniacs that you refer to.

Alexander the great, Caesar, Ghengis Khan are no better than the greatest Villian of the 20th centurian, Adolf Hitler.
I dont know any contemporary historian that celebrated Adolf Hitler's deeds.
Now, in the distant future, they might put him the in same category as you putting Ghengis Khan and Caesar because they would not be sensitive to or empathize with the nature of horrors perpetuated by these mad men.

History teaches about these mad sore thumbs so that we can be able to clearly delineate right ambition from wrong ambition.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Ol boy, you have not said anything. i cannot glean anything from your posts. In case you didn't know, the whole point of the thread is to contest the idea that man is an animal. If man was indeed an animal, his animal instincts would govern his moral choices. However there is clearly that part of man that is above animal instinct. That is the part that renders him man. This thread, as I said earlier, is rendered for the sake of contesting the strict materialist view of the nature of man as an animal, a product of the mindless interaction of matter only.

I think you are changing the goal post to suit.
Man is an animal biologically, yes.
man is a smarter animal, yes.

Man can think, imagine, judge, love, regret.
Man, the smart animal, has used his brain to figure out that he can co-operate with his fellow humans for survival and mutual benefit.
But man, knows that individual need for survival and individual ambition can threaten the survival of the collective.
Man evolves moral codes to regulate and checkmate the excesses of individual ambition.
Once in a while renegades break from these moral codes to wreck havoc on humanity.
History takes notes of these renegades.
So what?
What exactly remains your point.

plaetton:

Ofcourse ,they were immoral and evil.

They caused unspeakable horror, destruction, loss of human life, displacement, despair and grief to millions.
all the for the sake of individual or small group ambition to dominate the world.
How could you ask me such a question?

How so?

Animals do this everyday, within and without their species. I have even observed a baby eagle kill its sibling because it wanted and needed all the food that its mother was bringing to the nest. This is survival. If we are merely more intelligent animals, we will naturally develop better ways of doing same. More sophisticated warfare is one. When we get past that, apartheid is another.When we get past that, globalization and economic imperialism are yet others.

Remember that this thread is for the strict materialist who sees man as a higher animal only. Such people must not complain that a higher animal acts like animals but does it better.

Animals don't wake up in the morning with several options or choices for sustenance and survival. Man does.
taking what belongs to others is choice
Among several options that are always at our disposal.

plaetton:

The UN declaration of of fundamental human rights and the Geneva convention is are two great example of contrived morality.
Magna Carter is another great example, as is the rule of law, Habeas Corpus, etc.

These are contrived morality that have become universal and enshrined in the legal codes of all nations.

There is a chicken and egg ish here. Let us take Magna carta for example. Do you really think that someone just arbitrarily came up with Magna Carta and then that became the moral viewpoint of the english. OR is it not more likely that first came the moral sense that King's ought to be held accountable and this then after a lengthy struggle became enshrined in law.

If the Moral sense did not precede the Law making then why the struggle to have laws made, struggles that are often seen as fights for Justice.

If morality came from written laws then how comes we can feel a sense of injustice towards even the Law itself.

Can you really say that before the UN declaration of human rights that people did not feel that other humans had fundamental inalienable rights?

It seems to me that the examples you gave are not examples of contrived morality, far from it, they are Laws contrived specifically to attend to a pre-existing moral disposition.

plaetton: Animals don't wake up in the morning with several options or choices for sustenance and survival. Man does.
taking what belongs to others is choice
Among several options that are always at our disposal.

For example? How do you know that animals don't have options for sustenance? I would say that they have as much options as humans. Some animals have less or no options, as do some men too.

plaetton: Animals don't wake up in the morning with several options or choices for sustenance and survival.

Now its glaring that you are becoming sentimental in your reasoning: which is what you accuse the religious of. My intentions in opening this thread are thus gradually being acheived.

Man does.

This is a presumption. A great many men do NOT have choices. Millions live in stark starvation, even, as you must know, surely.

taking what belongs to others is choice

For many, it is a necessity.

Among several options that are always at our disposal.

Are you living in this world at all?

Deep Sight:

How so?

Animals do this everyday, within and without their species. I have even observed a baby eagle kill its sibling because it wanted and needed all the food that its mother was bringing to the nest. This is survival. If we are merely more intelligent animals, we will naturally develop better ways of doing same. More sophisticated warfare is one. When we get past that, apartheid is another.When we get past that, globalization and economic imperialism are yet others.

Remember that this thread is for the strict materialist who sees man as a higher animal only. Such people must not complain that a higher animal acts like animal but does it better.

Beautifully put

I'll go a step further for those who believe human morals are a result of evolution.

If we only think that some things are good and others evil because we evolved a mind capable of telling good from evil how do we know that such things are truly good or truly evil since evolution is not concerned with truth but with survival? How do we know for sure that they are truly good and evil and not just merely how we happened to survive?

Edit: I'll go even further from morality to the question of rationality. How do we know that our basic rational intuitions are true and not just merely how we happened to evolve. For instance how do we know that we ought to test truth claims with logic? How do we know that it isn't merely how we happened to evolve?

plaetton:

I think you are changing the goal post to suit.
Man is an animal biologically, yes.
man is a smarter animal, yes.

Man can think, imagine, judge, love, regret.
Man, the smart animal, has used his brain to figure out that he can co-operate with his fellow humans for survival and mutual benefit.
But man, knows that individual need for survival and individual ambition can threaten the survival of the collective.
Man evolves moral codes to regulate and checkmate the excesses of individual ambition.
Once in a while renegades break from these moral codes to wreck havoc on humanity.
History takes notes of these renegades.
So what?
What exactly remains your point.

In that case these are not moral codes but simply selfish survival codes developed from fear and weakness which go against the laws of nature and natural instincts as shown in nature.

Pastor AIO:

There is a chicken and egg ish here. Let us take Magna carta for example. Do you really think that someone just arbitrarily came up with Magna Carta and then that became the moral viewpoint of the english. OR is it not more likely that first came the moral sense that King's ought to be held accountable and this then after a lengthy struggle became enshrined in law.

If the Moral sense did not precede the Law making then why the struggle to have laws made, struggles that are often seen as fights for Justice.

If morality came from written laws then how comes we can feel a sense of injustice towards even the Law itself.

Can you really say that before the UN declaration of human rights that people did not feel that other humans had fundamental inalienable rights?

It seems to me that the examples you gave are not examples of contrived morality, far from it, they are Laws contrived specifically to attend to a pre-existing moral disposition.

[size=24pt]GBAM![/size]

@ Plaetton, if you examine your position carefully, you will find that it directly means that such things as slavery, apartheid and other forms of oppression, were right and good at the time that they were done since man had not yet developed or contrived better ways and instituted better moral codes. Your position would mean that these acts only became wrong when man developed further and therefore outlawed them.

Is it the Universal declaration of Human Rights that makes abuse of human rights inherently wrong? In other words, before such declarations came into place, were such abuses therefore right and good? Just as Pastor AIO has asked!