3 ms·

Sorry I should have defined my terms. When I said Universalism I wasn’t referring to religion, more the modernist concept that there are a universal set of valu

Sorry I should have defined my terms. When I said Universalism I wasn’t referring to religion, more the modernist concept that there are a universal set of values the objectively exist (i.e. my morality is good and yours is bad). Certainly I think this concept sprang out of religion, but it has certainly taken on a life of its own outside of religion, as most people think of it anyway.

eesmith 9y ago
Thank you for the explanation. I'm still having a hard time understanding the timing. How did that modernist concept of moral universalism create or contribute to a society like the US in the late 1700s? I thought you were talking about Christian Universalism because "Christian Universalism originated in the late 18th century with the Universalist Church of America" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Universalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Universalism ) and Christian Universalists consider Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration, as one of their founders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Rush https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Rush ).
- hacknat 9y ago
  I consider universalism to be an enlightenment principle. The principle of: “if it’s true here than it’s true everywhere” is actually a relatively new concept in human thought. It contributes to thinking that ideology can unite us (i.e. universal principles like freedom, etc).
  - eesmith 9y ago
    Okay, then in the context of the US history, are you referring to natural law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism refers to "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature." While I can see it as encompassing natural law as a subset, the existence of slavery based on race/skin color and the lack of woman's suffrage in the late 1700s make me think that you are projecting an idealistic quality on US history which didn't exist.
    - hacknat 9y ago
      Not so much that it ever existed, though I think the aspiration has been, but just the myth of the Universalism itself (i.e. city on a hill, the first republic). I had a friend say once that the founders were arrogant, because they thought they could architect us into a perfect system, but the fact that they thought that actually lead to a pretty good system. I’m willing to criticize the US for its sins as much as anyone else, they are numerous, but as the most diverse society on the planet it is impressive how much reconciliation and almost no reprisals have occurred.
      - eesmith 9y ago
        What you describe sounds much more like justifications for American exceptionalism than an accurate description of history. "The first republic" .. well, as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States points out, the US created its own definition of "republic", so it got to be the first to meet that definition, and exclude earlier republics like the Roman Republic, The Messin Republic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Metz#The_Messin_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Metz#The_Messin_Rep... ) and the Mahajanapadas republics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahajanapada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahajanapada ). I've read too much Howard Zinn to believe the founders "thought they could architect us into a perfect system." Unless by "perfect" you mean one that would keep the powerful in power. And "most diverse society"? How do you measure US diversity vs, say, the diversity in India, Indonesia, South Africa, the UK, or Canada? The Jim Crow laws are some pretty big reprisals. During those decades there was what, one lynching each week on average for decades?

eesmith 9y ago

Thank you for the explanation. I'm still having a hard time understanding the timing. How did that modernist concept of moral universalism create or contribute to a society like the US in the late 1700s? I thought you were talking about Christian Universalism because "Christian Universalism originated in the late 18th century with the Universalist Church of America" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Universalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Universalism ) and Christian Universalists consider Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration, as one of their founders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Rush https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Rush ).

hacknat 9y ago
I consider universalism to be an enlightenment principle. The principle of: “if it’s true here than it’s true everywhere” is actually a relatively new concept in human thought. It contributes to thinking that ideology can unite us (i.e. universal principles like freedom, etc).
- eesmith 9y ago
  Okay, then in the context of the US history, are you referring to natural law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism refers to "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature." While I can see it as encompassing natural law as a subset, the existence of slavery based on race/skin color and the lack of woman's suffrage in the late 1700s make me think that you are projecting an idealistic quality on US history which didn't exist.
  - hacknat 9y ago
    Not so much that it ever existed, though I think the aspiration has been, but just the myth of the Universalism itself (i.e. city on a hill, the first republic). I had a friend say once that the founders were arrogant, because they thought they could architect us into a perfect system, but the fact that they thought that actually lead to a pretty good system. I’m willing to criticize the US for its sins as much as anyone else, they are numerous, but as the most diverse society on the planet it is impressive how much reconciliation and almost no reprisals have occurred.
    - eesmith 9y ago
      What you describe sounds much more like justifications for American exceptionalism than an accurate description of history. "The first republic" .. well, as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States points out, the US created its own definition of "republic", so it got to be the first to meet that definition, and exclude earlier republics like the Roman Republic, The Messin Republic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Metz#The_Messin_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Metz#The_Messin_Rep... ) and the Mahajanapadas republics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahajanapada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahajanapada ). I've read too much Howard Zinn to believe the founders "thought they could architect us into a perfect system." Unless by "perfect" you mean one that would keep the powerful in power. And "most diverse society"? How do you measure US diversity vs, say, the diversity in India, Indonesia, South Africa, the UK, or Canada? The Jim Crow laws are some pretty big reprisals. During those decades there was what, one lynching each week on average for decades?