4 ms·

Maybe the morals our societies have held for hundreds/thousands of years around moral decency and civility had a point. But I guess I'm glad you're wiser than a

Maybe the morals our societies have held for hundreds/thousands of years around moral decency and civility had a point. But I guess I'm glad you're wiser than all the generations that came before you, and you know better than all of them.

chromatin 3y ago
A sort of Chesterton's fence of morality, if you will.
- MeImCounting 3y ago
  I think the reason behind medieval "morality" is pretty well understood. I dont necessarily think HN is the best place to discuss this as it could be seen as pretty political. Regardless there is plenty of literature out there talking about this and it comes down to maintaining the hierarchy of the genders, property rights and religious sects seeking societal control (think Calvinism)
__s 3y ago
This puritanism is neither so greatly long lived, nor globally distributed
- theonething 3y ago
  It's been around for at least 2000 years.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jrflowers 3y ago
    Exactly. When you look back 2000 years to Greek and Roman societies they shied away from any nude depictions of the human form. Nudity as we see it in society nowadays has only been around since the invention of Playboy in the 1950s
    - theonething 3y ago
      > Exactly. When you look back 2000 years to Greek and Roman societies they shied away from any nude depictions of the human form. Nudity as we see it in society nowadays has only been around since the invention of Playboy in the 1950s Right. When I stated that puritan morality existed 2000 years ago, that totally means that there were no displays of nudity at all back then. Everything has to be 100% one way or the other after all. The idea that different kinds of morality could exist among different groups of people, even across individuals, in the world in the same time period is just absurd isn't it?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - jrflowers 3y ago
        > The idea that different kinds of morality could exist among different groups of people, even across individuals, in the world in the same time period is just absurd isn't it? I am sorry I thought that you meant that puritan morals have existed for over 2000 years not that they could have existed over 2000 years. The fact that modern interpretation of Puritanism may have existed at any point in time is proof positive that pornography as currently defined is bad and should be banned
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
krapp 3y ago
The morals our societies held for hundreds/thousands of years were held to justify slavery, blood sacrifice, antisemitism, genocide, rape, witch hunts, inquisitions, white supremacy, child labor and countless other once noble and virtuous ends now considered among humanity's greatest atrocities and horrors. Of course that also depends on when and where you look, because those morals have also evolved over time even within the window of what one might consider "traditional values." Yes, we can be wiser than all the generations that came before us. The premise that all morality and ethics were solved before humanity even learned to smelt iron is absurd.
- alanwreath 3y ago
  > morals our societies held for hundreds/thousands of years were held to justify slavery, blood sacrifice, antisemitism, genocide… People will be people with or without religion, no need to make the leap and claim the reason for the season was to retain all the horrible practices you describe.
  - MeImCounting 3y ago
    Religion may not have been the reason those things were done but has absolutely been used to justify every one of those things. Religion is the tool not necessarily the cause.
    - filoleg 3y ago
      Absolurely agreed. If it wasn’t for religion, it would’ve been for something else. Religion was just a background theme/cause for it, but not the reason. A good analogy that comes to mind is what triggered WW1. Sure, we all know that it kicked off due to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. One thing I remember vividly from that time period being covered in my history classes is the teacher going very in-depth on all the tensions and confilcts between the sides piling up for quite some time before the assassination, and how those countries were all already at their throats itching to get into a fight. The teacher spent multiple lessons going into all of this, which made it rather plain obvious that if it wasn’t for the Archduke’s assassination, it would’ve been for something else. That’s one thing from that teacher that stuck with me forever, the teacher’s explanation of how major the difference is between a cause and a reason, despite people using them synonymously often. Archduke’s assassination was the cause/trigger for the start of WW1, but it was not the reason for it. Causes/triggers are direct, quick, simple, interchangeable, standalone, and specific. Reasons are fundamental, complex, and often come in multiples, all interacting and feeding off each other in complex ways. Same with the religion-caused conflicts/atrocities mentioned in this thread of comments. Religion was not the reason for those imo, it was just the cause/trigger, but not the reason. Hell, I am halfway thinking that it could even be that some religions in those ancient days were partially formed in response as to justify certain behaviors, rather than religions causing/triggering those behaviors, but that’s just a baseless speculation on my part that I myself have zero certainty in. Off-tangent sidenote: without trying to take a dig at any specific religion, as I have no issues with religions themselves or their followers at all in present times, it does seem rather convenient that one of the most mainstream religions these days was found on the premise of a married woman giving a “virgin birth” to a child that wasn’t her husband’s son. Sensibly, once couldn’t explain it any way other than getting pregnant by someone other than the husband or a miraculous divine intervention. And knowing the very real life-ending consequences those days for women for that and, on top of it, giving birth to that child, the choice would be rather obvious.

chromatin 3y ago

A sort of Chesterton's fence of morality, if you will.

MeImCounting 3y ago
I think the reason behind medieval "morality" is pretty well understood. I dont necessarily think HN is the best place to discuss this as it could be seen as pretty political. Regardless there is plenty of literature out there talking about this and it comes down to maintaining the hierarchy of the genders, property rights and religious sects seeking societal control (think Calvinism)

__s 3y ago

This puritanism is neither so greatly long lived, nor globally distributed

theonething 3y ago
It's been around for at least 2000 years.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jrflowers 3y ago
  Exactly. When you look back 2000 years to Greek and Roman societies they shied away from any nude depictions of the human form. Nudity as we see it in society nowadays has only been around since the invention of Playboy in the 1950s
  - theonething 3y ago
    > Exactly. When you look back 2000 years to Greek and Roman societies they shied away from any nude depictions of the human form. Nudity as we see it in society nowadays has only been around since the invention of Playboy in the 1950s Right. When I stated that puritan morality existed 2000 years ago, that totally means that there were no displays of nudity at all back then. Everything has to be 100% one way or the other after all. The idea that different kinds of morality could exist among different groups of people, even across individuals, in the world in the same time period is just absurd isn't it?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - jrflowers 3y ago
      > The idea that different kinds of morality could exist among different groups of people, even across individuals, in the world in the same time period is just absurd isn't it? I am sorry I thought that you meant that puritan morals have existed for over 2000 years not that they could have existed over 2000 years. The fact that modern interpretation of Puritanism may have existed at any point in time is proof positive that pornography as currently defined is bad and should be banned
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

krapp 3y ago

The morals our societies held for hundreds/thousands of years were held to justify slavery, blood sacrifice, antisemitism, genocide, rape, witch hunts, inquisitions, white supremacy, child labor and countless other once noble and virtuous ends now considered among humanity's greatest atrocities and horrors. Of course that also depends on when and where you look, because those morals have also evolved over time even within the window of what one might consider "traditional values." Yes, we can be wiser than all the generations that came before us. The premise that all morality and ethics were solved before humanity even learned to smelt iron is absurd.

alanwreath 3y ago
> morals our societies held for hundreds/thousands of years were held to justify slavery, blood sacrifice, antisemitism, genocide… People will be people with or without religion, no need to make the leap and claim the reason for the season was to retain all the horrible practices you describe.
- MeImCounting 3y ago
  Religion may not have been the reason those things were done but has absolutely been used to justify every one of those things. Religion is the tool not necessarily the cause.
  - filoleg 3y ago
    Absolurely agreed. If it wasn’t for religion, it would’ve been for something else. Religion was just a background theme/cause for it, but not the reason. A good analogy that comes to mind is what triggered WW1. Sure, we all know that it kicked off due to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. One thing I remember vividly from that time period being covered in my history classes is the teacher going very in-depth on all the tensions and confilcts between the sides piling up for quite some time before the assassination, and how those countries were all already at their throats itching to get into a fight. The teacher spent multiple lessons going into all of this, which made it rather plain obvious that if it wasn’t for the Archduke’s assassination, it would’ve been for something else. That’s one thing from that teacher that stuck with me forever, the teacher’s explanation of how major the difference is between a cause and a reason, despite people using them synonymously often. Archduke’s assassination was the cause/trigger for the start of WW1, but it was not the reason for it. Causes/triggers are direct, quick, simple, interchangeable, standalone, and specific. Reasons are fundamental, complex, and often come in multiples, all interacting and feeding off each other in complex ways. Same with the religion-caused conflicts/atrocities mentioned in this thread of comments. Religion was not the reason for those imo, it was just the cause/trigger, but not the reason. Hell, I am halfway thinking that it could even be that some religions in those ancient days were partially formed in response as to justify certain behaviors, rather than religions causing/triggering those behaviors, but that’s just a baseless speculation on my part that I myself have zero certainty in. Off-tangent sidenote: without trying to take a dig at any specific religion, as I have no issues with religions themselves or their followers at all in present times, it does seem rather convenient that one of the most mainstream religions these days was found on the premise of a married woman giving a “virgin birth” to a child that wasn’t her husband’s son. Sensibly, once couldn’t explain it any way other than getting pregnant by someone other than the husband or a miraculous divine intervention. And knowing the very real life-ending consequences those days for women for that and, on top of it, giving birth to that child, the choice would be rather obvious.