4 ms·

Imposing modern morals on groups of people from 700 years is a bizarre thing to do. Who exactly are you preaching all this righteousness to?

haltingproblem 6y ago
Modern idolatry requires modern morals. Alexander also conquered a large swaths of land, did not read about him sacking cities or imposing rape and death on the subjugated populace. If anything, Greek culture and armies gradually assimilated over the centuries into native cultures.
drdeca 6y ago
I'm not really sure why, unless one is a moral relativist. Of course, I don't mean that it isn't necessary to take into account what background situation they are in, and what the consequences of different policies would be. Perhaps gluttony is always bad, but the amount and types of harm it causes depends on the food supply. And similarly, perhaps slavery is always wrong, but different cultures have practiced different forms of it, which had varying degrees of wrongness, perhaps some of which could even have been less wrong than our prison labor system. We do not judge someone who is struggling to pay for their own food much for neglecting to provide food for the homeless they pass by, at least not compared to someone who is very wealthy passing by the same person. In the same way, perhaps we could speak about our current society having much greater wealth and resources than the society of the past, and therefore is able to afford to do more, and therefore has more of an obligation to do more, but none of this should change the truth that good is good and bad is bad, and the nature of the good is the same throughout time.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > the nature of the good is the same throughout time. At least peoples' perception of good and bad changes a great deal between societies and across time. Not just our society, but every society, sees their perception is correct and everyone else's is wrong.
  - watwut 6y ago
    Yeah, but we dont use this particular thing to claim that what Hitler or Stalin or yesterdays mass shooter did was actually ok. Even further into history, we do judge individuals freely on range of things - perceived betrayal being popular one. We also celebrate historical people quite a lot - and we praise them and put them on pedestal as good examples it would be biased to not talk about flaws too.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      We kill people today and justify it as good. (Warfare, executions.) There's no guarantee that future societies won't consider us barbaric. > it would be biased to not talk about flaws too Frankly we are obsessed about finding flaws in historical people. For example, Einstein treated his wife not so well. I don't feel any compulsion to bring that into a discussion of his achievements. It doesn't diminish his achievements.
      - watwut 6y ago
        > We kill people today and justify it as good. (Warfare, executions.) There's no guarantee that future societies won't consider us barbaric. Which is fine and so what. Had Hitler won or Stalin won, I would be perceived and lesser and bad. So what? Executions have a lot of opposition now. Various warfare has a lot of opposition now. People now judge both prosecutors and politicians that cause all that war related suffering. > Frankly we are obsessed about finding flaws in historical people. First, you made up obsession. Second, what you call historical flaws were pretty often subject of massive criticism of contemporaries. They were pretty often not really the norm. Third, when you praise values or behavior of back then, the bad side of it is completely fair game. Because the wins are often related, facilitaded by or directly caused the ugly side. > For example, Einstein treated his wife not so well. I don't feel any compulsion to bring that into a discussion of his achievements. It doesn't diminish his achievements. And if you was taking about his relationship advice, his marriage behavior would suddenly matter. If you talked about why women in past did not had same achievements as men, his wife history is very nice example to be used.
  - 6y ago

haltingproblem 6y ago

Modern idolatry requires modern morals. Alexander also conquered a large swaths of land, did not read about him sacking cities or imposing rape and death on the subjugated populace. If anything, Greek culture and armies gradually assimilated over the centuries into native cultures.

drdeca 6y ago

I'm not really sure why, unless one is a moral relativist. Of course, I don't mean that it isn't necessary to take into account what background situation they are in, and what the consequences of different policies would be. Perhaps gluttony is always bad, but the amount and types of harm it causes depends on the food supply. And similarly, perhaps slavery is always wrong, but different cultures have practiced different forms of it, which had varying degrees of wrongness, perhaps some of which could even have been less wrong than our prison labor system. We do not judge someone who is struggling to pay for their own food much for neglecting to provide food for the homeless they pass by, at least not compared to someone who is very wealthy passing by the same person. In the same way, perhaps we could speak about our current society having much greater wealth and resources than the society of the past, and therefore is able to afford to do more, and therefore has more of an obligation to do more, but none of this should change the truth that good is good and bad is bad, and the nature of the good is the same throughout time.

WalterBright 6y ago
> the nature of the good is the same throughout time. At least peoples' perception of good and bad changes a great deal between societies and across time. Not just our society, but every society, sees their perception is correct and everyone else's is wrong.
- watwut 6y ago
  Yeah, but we dont use this particular thing to claim that what Hitler or Stalin or yesterdays mass shooter did was actually ok. Even further into history, we do judge individuals freely on range of things - perceived betrayal being popular one. We also celebrate historical people quite a lot - and we praise them and put them on pedestal as good examples it would be biased to not talk about flaws too.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    We kill people today and justify it as good. (Warfare, executions.) There's no guarantee that future societies won't consider us barbaric. > it would be biased to not talk about flaws too Frankly we are obsessed about finding flaws in historical people. For example, Einstein treated his wife not so well. I don't feel any compulsion to bring that into a discussion of his achievements. It doesn't diminish his achievements.
    - watwut 6y ago
      > We kill people today and justify it as good. (Warfare, executions.) There's no guarantee that future societies won't consider us barbaric. Which is fine and so what. Had Hitler won or Stalin won, I would be perceived and lesser and bad. So what? Executions have a lot of opposition now. Various warfare has a lot of opposition now. People now judge both prosecutors and politicians that cause all that war related suffering. > Frankly we are obsessed about finding flaws in historical people. First, you made up obsession. Second, what you call historical flaws were pretty often subject of massive criticism of contemporaries. They were pretty often not really the norm. Third, when you praise values or behavior of back then, the bad side of it is completely fair game. Because the wins are often related, facilitaded by or directly caused the ugly side. > For example, Einstein treated his wife not so well. I don't feel any compulsion to bring that into a discussion of his achievements. It doesn't diminish his achievements. And if you was taking about his relationship advice, his marriage behavior would suddenly matter. If you talked about why women in past did not had same achievements as men, his wife history is very nice example to be used.
- 6y ago