4 ms·

> discerning of good and evil Humans don't have such a capacity. The notions of 'good' and 'evil' have historically been in flux and went through many huge cha

by saguro 9y ago

> discerning of good and evil Humans don't have such a capacity. The notions of 'good' and 'evil' have historically been in flux and went through many huge changes. Modern humans consider the typical behaviors of past humans as 'evil'. Vikings - rape after conquering is good. People today: that's evil. India until 2 generations ago - arranged marriage is good. Today that's evil. Homosexuality - has oscillated many times between good and evil. In fact, different geographic regions will still have polar opposite views on this today.

nkoren 9y ago
> India until 2 generations ago - arranged marriage is good. Today that's evil. Suggest you do some homework. Something like 80%-90% of marriages in India are still arranged. And most people are pretty happy with this situation, or at least no more miserable than "Love marriages" -- which remain highly controversial -- would make them.
- saguro 9y ago
  The definition of 'arranged marriage' today has been neutered. Until 2 generations ago, arranged marriage meant that women had absolutely no say in their marriage - it was at the decision of the parents and to further the desires of the parents. Today, arranged marriage means that the woman's parents will present her with prospective marriage partners but leave the decision making to her, including veto or asking the parents to 'arrange' for a man that the woman fancies - kind of like Tinder but the matching algorithm is parents. That version of arranged marriage is straight up better than the (serious) dating scene in westernized countries. The original version is definitely considered evil by today's morals.
  - nkoren 9y ago
    Okay, you have an alright understanding of the contemporary meaning of the term "arranged marriage" in that case. I find that sticking with contemporary parlance really helps avoid misunderstanding. The term you presumably meant to use -- in today's language -- would be "forced marriage". In which case: agreed!
DeusExMachina 9y ago
All you are saying is that we do make such distinction, only that it does not stay the same across time. Is there any other animal that does this?
z0r 9y ago
The notion of what is acceptable and good fluctuating throughout time and cultures doesn't remove the fact that the distinction is made. And your nitpicking criticism that misses the forest for the trees is an excellent example of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil, with its implicit value judgements.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

by saguro 9y ago

nkoren 9y ago

> India until 2 generations ago - arranged marriage is good. Today that's evil. Suggest you do some homework. Something like 80%-90% of marriages in India are still arranged. And most people are pretty happy with this situation, or at least no more miserable than "Love marriages" -- which remain highly controversial -- would make them.

saguro 9y ago
The definition of 'arranged marriage' today has been neutered. Until 2 generations ago, arranged marriage meant that women had absolutely no say in their marriage - it was at the decision of the parents and to further the desires of the parents. Today, arranged marriage means that the woman's parents will present her with prospective marriage partners but leave the decision making to her, including veto or asking the parents to 'arrange' for a man that the woman fancies - kind of like Tinder but the matching algorithm is parents. That version of arranged marriage is straight up better than the (serious) dating scene in westernized countries. The original version is definitely considered evil by today's morals.
- nkoren 9y ago
  Okay, you have an alright understanding of the contemporary meaning of the term "arranged marriage" in that case. I find that sticking with contemporary parlance really helps avoid misunderstanding. The term you presumably meant to use -- in today's language -- would be "forced marriage". In which case: agreed!

DeusExMachina 9y ago

All you are saying is that we do make such distinction, only that it does not stay the same across time. Is there any other animal that does this?

z0r 9y ago

The notion of what is acceptable and good fluctuating throughout time and cultures doesn't remove the fact that the distinction is made. And your nitpicking criticism that misses the forest for the trees is an excellent example of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil, with its implicit value judgements.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]