God's Warriors (CNN)

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I just figured something out.

Why would anyone just "feel like" stabbing someone? I have never felt that way, but animals are pretty violent without the cerebral cortex that we have. If you stop yourself from thinking about things, and hone your emotional responses, you can make your behaviors more like that of an animal.

What groups of people train themselves to discard reason (even if only in certain circumstances)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Women?

[Subfallen]

I'm obviously comparing the modern (secular humanist) zeitgeist with that of an era where crucifixion was common, slavery was universally condoned, women were commodities, and notions of spiritual commonality were nonexistent. How hard is this to grasp? Eternal conscious torment of unbelievers is merely the most extreme example of a belief that is beyond repugnant today, yet didn't bat many eyes 2000 years ago.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm obviously comparing the modern (secular humanist) zeitgeist with that of an era where crucifixion was common, slavery was universally condoned, women were commodities, and notions of spiritual commonality were nonexistent. How hard is this to grasp? Eternal conscious torment of unbelievers is merely the most extreme example of a belief that is beyond repugnant today, yet didn't bat many eyes 2000 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

People still believe in Hell today. They also believe in other things that would be morally repugnant in ancient times. You are trying to make the point that humanity has morally evolved into something better over the years, when the facts show that human nature remains the same despite differing circumstances. I can still read the 2700 year old Homer and realize that Hector was not a monkey.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm obviously comparing the modern (secular humanist) zeitgeist with that of an era where crucifixion was common, slavery was universally condoned, women were commodities, and notions of spiritual commonality were nonexistent. How hard is this to grasp? Eternal conscious torment of unbelievers is merely the most extreme example of a belief that is beyond repugnant today, yet didn't bat many eyes 2000 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

People still believe in Hell today. They also believe in other things that would be morally repugnant in ancient times. You are trying to make the point that humanity has morally evolved into something better over the years, when the facts show that human nature remains the same despite differing circumstances. I can still read the 2700 year old Homer and realize that Hector was not a monkey.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course exceptional men are never constrained by their age! The Nicomachean Ethics and the Republic still stand as examples of the most courageous and beautiful wars ever waged for an ideal; no matter if we agree with their conclusions.

But, again, I'm looking at the average Westerner's sense of human dignity and equality. Compared to the average man of A.D. 0, we have made profound progress. This is irrefragable. Drawing and quartering would no longer fly as standard operating procedure. Racism is roundly condemned. Gender equality is given.

Obviously 2000 years has not changed human nature. But the ideals of human interaction present in the collective unconscious HAVE changed! And our ideals of human interaction are much better approximations of "Love your neighbor as yourself" than they were 2000 years ago.

[hexag1]

[ QUOTE ]


Toddlers are also seen acting selfishly and stupidly, but we don't blame them because they don't know any better.

[/ QUOTE ]

this goes toward proving my point, not the other way around. Toddlers are seen acting selflessly and we can't attribute it to their religious indoctrination or ethical education.
Toddlers are seen acting selfishly and we cant't attribute it to bad parenting or societal pressures.
We must conclude that these behaviors are innate.

[ QUOTE ]
You claim that the eye for an eye moral system is irrational, but then why were so many of the ancient cultures irrational by our standards?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is true, but our judgment of their irrationality isn't all because they followed the practice of 'an eye for an eye' b/c not all of them did. Other practices of theirs allow us to deem their systems of morality and justice irrational.

[ QUOTE ]
Every ancient culture we know of and many foreign cultures today have practices that we consider to be morally repugnant. Again, why the differences? Why the irrationality?

[/ QUOTE ]
Human nature and historical accident can explain these differences. And no, this doesn't contradict my claim that morality is innate. It is perfectly possible that different aspects of human nature are contradictory.

[ QUOTE ]
If this comes from DNA, are they genetically inferior?

[/ QUOTE ]

depends on what you mean by genetically inferior. If you meant it ub the general sense, then yes, these societies as a population were inferior, because their members were less likely to survive that more cooperative ones. The policy of 'an eye for an eye' would undoubtedly increase the mortality rate.

[Peter666]

"Human nature and historical accident can explain these differences."

But how can you tell which practices are innate and which are due to historical accident? You yourself are living within a historical accident which makes your moral judgments subjective.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm obviously comparing the modern (secular humanist) zeitgeist with that of an era where crucifixion was common, slavery was universally condoned, women were commodities, and notions of spiritual commonality were nonexistent. How hard is this to grasp? Eternal conscious torment of unbelievers is merely the most extreme example of a belief that is beyond repugnant today, yet didn't bat many eyes 2000 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

People still believe in Hell today. They also believe in other things that would be morally repugnant in ancient times. You are trying to make the point that humanity has morally evolved into something better over the years, when the facts show that human nature remains the same despite differing circumstances. I can still read the 2700 year old Homer and realize that Hector was not a monkey.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course exceptional men are never constrained by their age! The Nicomachean Ethics and the Republic still stand as examples of the most courageous and beautiful wars ever waged for an ideal; no matter if we agree with their conclusions.

But, again, I'm looking at the average Westerner's sense of human dignity and equality. Compared to the average man of A.D. 0, we have made profound progress. This is irrefragable. Drawing and quartering would no longer fly as standard operating procedure. Racism is roundly condemned. Gender equality is given.

Obviously 2000 years has not changed human nature. But the ideals of human interaction present in the collective unconscious HAVE changed! And our ideals of human interaction are much better approximations of "Love your neighbor as yourself" than they were 2000 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the collective unconcious has changed and changes all the time. The only caveat I have is that if you are going to insist that we have developed "better" ideals, you will also have to admit that we have developed new capacities for evil as well.

[Subfallen]

The human capacity for evil has always seemed limitless to me. What new capacities are you referring to?

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
The human capacity for evil has always seemed limitless to me. What new capacities are you referring to?

[/ QUOTE ]

The devolution of warfare in the last 150 years provides a good example. The concepts of total war (Sherman's march), mass aerial bombings of cities (WWII), and the preemptive strike war (Iraq) would have been unconscionable even 200 years ago. The chivalrous attitude has devolved into destructive efficiency.

[Subfallen]

Those are hardly acts that required new depths of evil; merely better technology for the same old evil.

E.g., "total war" predates the OT Israeli conquest of Canaan, I don't see why you give Sherman credit for inventing it.