Uyi Iredia:

Very wrong. Go to Wikipedia. Alexander the Great's war tactics have been used to teaching entrepreneurial skills. Napoleon may have indeed terrorized Europe but it can't be denied that France reached the height of its prestige under him. His charisma won him many dedicated soldiers.

Deep Sight:

That the strict materialist worldview is wrong, because going with strict materialism, there is nothing evil or wrong with all of these acts?

plaetton:

I guess it's because you too have been all over the place.
I could not figure out exactly what your point has been.
I do not agree with any person, atheists or not who holds such a view.
But I do not see the connection with holding such views,even if wrong, with the atheistic worldview.

Mr anony: @Deepsight let me butt in here to ask you a question.

If it was already morally wrong from the onset to kill twins, why did people feel it was morally right to do so?
Surely you know that the person who killed her own twin children did it because she was convinced that it was the right thing to do. Same applies to those Nigerians of not so long ago who hammered nails into the heads of their children in the name of "killing witches".

What do you have to say about these people? Were their acts objectively evil? Mind you, they were as convinced of their righteousness as you are convinced of their guilt.

plaetton:

With all due respect, that is kind of silly.

Hitler also had an efficient killing machinery. He made prisoners work, took out their gold teeth for refinement, cut their hair for wigs and fabrics, then gassed them to death when they could no longer be physically productive.
Wow! Efficiency!
Should we celebrate him for that too.

If I find a foolproof way to rob banks, would that somehow make my acts more moral?

striktlymi:

Hmmmm...thought provoking....

But was the killing done just for the fun of it? Or do these people believe that by so doing they choose the lesser of two evils?

The question here is: what do these people believe would be the penalty for not killing the twins? If the penalty is believed to be a total annihilation of their race then it would be that they choose the lesser evil...

Let's bring this closer home...if there is an outbreak of a deadly airborne disease, that is capable of killing people within the hour, in Lagos...would it then be right to allow those in Lagos the freedom to move to other parts of the country?...I am very sure that deadly force will be used to prevent this movement if necessary...

Depriving these twins their right to life is wrong and I believe the parents (or at least the mother) would feel very bitter about it but when compared to what they face as a community, they would be left with no choice but to carry out the act.

I believe they know the act of killing these twins is evil but killing them comes with its merits: the multitude is saved....anyways, their ability to feel the sense of wrong when the twins are killed only give credence to the position of Deepsight and the 'good' Pastor.

Mr anony:
You understood me very well

wiegraf:

And exactly what are the objectives of these strict materialists? Or they have non? What do they value?

Mr anony: @DeepSight, Pastor AIO and Plaetton,I think my questions are heading nowhere, let me just come out clean and say what I think we are missing.

Let us use the example of the witch killer woman who hammers a nail into the head of her own child.

We can react to this case in the following ways:

1. She is evil because it is evil to hammer a nail into the head of a child.

2. She is not evil because different people have different moral codes

3. She is evil because what she did used to be good in the past but is no longer good today

4. She is good because that child is a witch and deserves to be killed.

The above are not exactly correct but the more important question is: What have we missed here?

Let me suggest to you that the problem is that we haven't really tested the case by any real moral principles.
========================================================================================================================

I'll lay before us the moral principle of justice/fairness - that a person ought to pay the price for his or her actions i.e. if someone hurts another person, equal hurt ought to be meted out to him likewise if a person is kind to another, equal kindness ought to be meted out to him not more and not less. An eye for an eye.

According to this principle, a murderer would rightfully deserve death.

Let now bring it back to the witch-killer mom. I'll call this:
=========================================================================================================================

The Case of Madam WitchKiller VS Mr DeepSight.

When she accuses her victim of being a witch, what does she mean? She means that the child is a murderer who uses his/her magical powers to kill people. In fact the child is responsible for the deaths of her husband and her other five children. She has also seen the child in a dream chasing her with a cutlass.

From her point of view this child is a murderer and deserves to die.

But what does DeepSight see?
DeepSight for starters does not believe that the child has such magical powers, he thinks the death of the woman's husband and her 5 children are a coincidence. The child is not responsible for murder and therefore doesn't deserve to die.

Notice that both of them agree to the moral principle of fairness, they both agree that a murderer deserves to die. What they are really arguing over is whether or not the child is actually a witch and knows what he is doing.

If during their discussion the child proceeds to point 4 people who immediately die on the spot. What if he points 4 more people and those die as well, I can almost bet that as more and more people drop dead as the child points at them, DeepSight will become more and more convinced that the child deserves death.
=========================================================================================================================

The same moral principle of "murderers deserve to die" only that the information available to DeepSight and Madam Witchkiller is different.



Ever notice how when you accuse someone of being evil, he usually replies by saying something like "you don't understand, you didn't see what I saw, if you were in my shoes you would not have acted differently?

No one ever says. "What do you mean that murder is wrong?" or "what do you mean by fairness?" or "what do you mean that I ought not to rob?" rather they try to justify what they did by providing reason's why their deed is not evil.

Uyi Iredia:

It was a positive contribution nonetheless. The argument being made fir Alexander & Napoleon. Consider Googling 'positive contributions of Napoleon' for instance.

Deep Sight: ^^^ False. Most of these men were leaders of thought and new developments, new initiatives and new ideologies themselves; aside from surrounding themselves with an agglomeration of the best minds of their time. Do you know who tutored Alexander?

Deep Sight:

Yeah yeah yeah, neither here nor there as always. I can't believe you do not recognize that your last few posts entirely contradict everything you have said before on this thread. Worever. We are used to you by now.

plaetton:
positive contributions by serendipity.

Deep Sight:

Please we are not playing musical chairs. If you have something to say, speak it straight.

Pastor AIO:

Stop whining. It doesn't befit you.

My last few post do not contradict anything that I've said before. I am of the opinion that the [size=20pt]sense of[/size] Morality changes from time to time and culture to culture, you obviously aren't. I'm okay with that, you obviously aren't, but you don't have to bitch about it.

wiegraf:

And do tell how exactly was I dancing around?

You make a claim, that they are wrong/evil because their value system is flawed. I am asking you, again, what exactly is this value system? What is their objective.

Please don't play musical chairs

Deep Sight:

In the bold, you will see why you are being either clever by half, or completely missing the issue.

Pastor AIO:

Okay, so can I take it that you think there is an objective morality beyond the human sense of morality? Even then I still think that is subject to change. But I won't go into that part. Rather I'll press you to demonstrate this objective morality.


ps. I get that you are making this thread over a somewhat different issue. That against the claims of materialists etc etc.

Deep Sight:

What is Mala in se?

See my post above. Can you tell me that no such thing as Mala in se exists.

Logicboy03: First of all, let us get the basis of morality for a materialist atheist and also a definition of "good" for the atheist



Good- a definition;
Something that is beneficial to human survival or causes less harm than benefits when a situation is assessed.

Basis of Morality for the materialist (3 bases)
1)Evolution; our primal instincts is survival. Eat, kill, hustle in the jungle to survive. This is our "animalistic morality". It is not perfect as survival instincts can turn one to do drastic and regretable things- eg rats kill deformed children for there to be resources to feed the healthy ones.

2) Logic; We use logic to hone our animalistic instincts. We dont have se.x with every se,xual partner, especially without consent. Our actions should be reasonable. We are good to others because we want others to be good to us. We respect elder's wisdom because they naturally have experience. We dont inhale exhaust smoke because it will kill us.


3)Society; two heads are better than one and society makes some logical decisions (this is why religion must be separate from govt). Businesses have to pay tax and have to be audited so that they dont engage in illegal businesses, there should be an armyn to defend a country etc. This is why laws must be based on reason alone....one foolish law can destroy a country.








1) Survival....either most of humans die or they eat meat. It is the basis of survival...we must eat to survive or we are committing suicide....even if you are a vegetarian, you are killing plants which are living things

2) Same as above

3) Cannibalism is dangerous, even for the human cannibal. The chance of transferring disease from human meat to umans is high plus other viruses known to come with cannibalism.

Secondly, do unto others.......would you love your fellow human beings to eat your or your family? We have logic and reasoning- cannibalistic animals dont......

As long as there are options to eat other meat or plants why should one be a cannibal? War and starvation is another case

Pastor AIO:

I would say that what is deemed Mala in se is 'merely' deemed so. it is the deeming part . . .

The issue of euthanasia suffices to complicate the murder part.

Deep Sight:

A strict materialist would hold that nothing exists but matter - physical things - and that we are the product of the mindless interactions of such matter. Such a worldview would would subscribe to the ToE as the basis for our existence, and thus regard man as nothing but an animal - only a more intelligent one. Within this worldview it is difficult to see why it should be wrong for men TO DO AS ANIMALS DO, but merely do the same things with smarter methods.

ds:
If anyone then says that the smartest method for staying alive would be to have collective codes, that is fine: but it should be recognized that that is a system for self-protection, and nothing more. It does not then render any proscribed acts intrinsically evil: this is the key distinction you fail to make.

ds:
There is a difference between law and morals. This is a huge subject all by itself within the subject of Jurisprudence as taught in Law. It is a distinction that I see many within this thread, notably Plaetton, have failed to absorb. Legality is not morality and vice versa, although of course there are converging areas. It may be illegal to park your car in a certain space, but not necessarily immoral. Likewise it may be immoral to be unfaithful within marriage but not necessarily illegal. Some things that are illegal are criminal and others are not. There are civil wrongs called torts, which may arise from negligence and may not necessarily be immoral. These are the distinctions.

ds:
Now, within the philosophy of law, there are wrongs that are called mala in se (which means an intrinsically evil or wicked deed) and mala prohibita (which means a deed that is not intrinsically evil or wicked, but is illegal by the prohibition of the law.

Now what you guys are doing amounts to a failure to distinguish between mala in se and mala prohibita. By your position, there would be no such thing as mala in se until and unless it is so declared by law - which is mala prohibita.

As such, you should ask yourself whether such a thing as mala in se exists at all. Whether such a thing existed in antiquity. Or whether such a thing only began to exist when societies made formal declarations in that regard. That is the key question.

ds:
It is altogether illogical for the strict materialist to regard man as a smarter animal only, and complain when smarter animals do what animals do in nature, but only does it more smartly.

This is the centre of the matter.

Logicboy03:



Deepsight loves to ignore arguments that destroy his premises and conclusions..............

Deep Sight: ^^^ I assume that's you, Wiegraf.

One line suffices to render all you wrote to the trash can: if there are no objective morals, everyone is free to do as he pleases and no one else can label any other person's acts immoral as its all subjective as you say. End of.

In short: to thy tents o Israel.

striktlymi:
Am I permitted to marry this post?

LightningLord:
Please, do try to murder someone in broad daylight, and we'll see if no one can label the act immoral