Sowell Dreams Of Military Coup

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If one is a student of history it's reasonably clear that many great societies have progressed to a stage where violent political upheaval was triggered. The trigger is not always the same but solidly among the top two reasons is what I'd call losing your religion (wealth redistribution is neck-and-neck).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not a good student of history. Please name five examples of the phenomenon you describe above.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I was just thinking I'd love to be in a place where the leaders sufficiently embrace religion. How about we use Iran as a paradigm?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many successful Christian-based societies up and running. I imagine you're enjoying the fruits of this specific religion as we speak even while you denigrate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please name five examples of the societies you describe here. Also include your definition of what "Christian based societies" are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you not agree that Western society has evolved with Judeo-Christian values as the cornerstone of its morality? I am hard pressed to see Islamists creating the Declaration of Independence or Constitution, that much I say with full confidence.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If one is a student of history it's reasonably clear that many great societies have progressed to a stage where violent political upheaval was triggered. The trigger is not always the same but solidly among the top two reasons is what I'd call losing your religion (wealth redistribution is neck-and-neck).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not a good student of history. Please name five examples of the phenomenon you describe above.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I was just thinking I'd love to be in a place where the leaders sufficiently embrace religion. How about we use Iran as a paradigm?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many successful Christian-based societies up and running. I imagine you're enjoying the fruits of this specific religion as we speak even while you denigrate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please name five examples of the societies you describe here. Also include your definition of what "Christian based societies" are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you not agree that Western society has evolved with Judeo-Christian values as the cornerstone of its morality? I am hard pressed to see Islamists creating the Declaration of Independence or Constitution, that much I say with full confidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would the ancestors of Islamists count?

If so, check out the Code of Hammurabi

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.html

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If one is a student of history it's reasonably clear that many great societies have progressed to a stage where violent political upheaval was triggered. The trigger is not always the same but solidly among the top two reasons is what I'd call losing your religion (wealth redistribution is neck-and-neck).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not a good student of history. Please name five examples of the phenomenon you describe above.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I was just thinking I'd love to be in a place where the leaders sufficiently embrace religion. How about we use Iran as a paradigm?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many successful Christian-based societies up and running. I imagine you're enjoying the fruits of this specific religion as we speak even while you denigrate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please name five examples of the societies you describe here. Also include your definition of what "Christian based societies" are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you not agree that Western society has evolved with Judeo-Christian values as the cornerstone of its morality? I am hard pressed to see Islamists creating the Declaration of Independence or Constitution, that much I say with full confidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would the ancestors of Islamists count?

If so, check out the Code of Hammurabi

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.html

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you not agree that Western society has evolved with Judeo-Christian values as the cornerstone of its morality? I am hard pressed to see Islamists creating the Declaration of Independence or Constitution, that much I say with full confidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are "Judeo-Christian values" credited with "creating" the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? The author of the Declaration, Jefferson, was hardly what we would call a Christian or Jew. The contributors who wrote the Constitution were a varied group and certainly not uniformly Christian, and were undoubtedly much more influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like Locke than they were by Christ. So crediting the creation of the US's supreme law document and the US legal system to Christianity or Judaism seems awfully specious to me.

Certainly, though, if you're suggesting that that somehow America's revolutionary-era leaders who wrote the aforementioned documents and established our legal system had moral paradigms we should aspire to, I find that claim laughable as well. Many of the 'Founding Fathers' were of course slave owners, and I'm sure we're all familiar with Jefferson notably fathering children with at least one of the women he enslaved. I certainly won't go as far as to say he raped her, because who's to know -- but given that we're referring to an enslaved human being, I'm not sure we really need to confirm that Jefferson forced himself on his slaves to be disgusted nonetheless. Franklin was an avowed womanizer and had numerous affairs while traveling as an American ambassador in Europe, despite the fact he had a common-law wife. Strangely enough, it's my understanding that neither Jefferson nor Franklin had access to internet porn or Hustler magazine, but lo and behold, we see examples of the degradation of the traditional family that Sowell laments three centuries ago. Howard Zinn chronicles how Washington confiscated the landholdings of British Loyalists all across the South during the Revolutionary War in order to terrorize Loyalists while simultaneously providing a convenient funding scheme for his army. And then, of course, there is the not-so-inconsequential matter of Washington over-seeing the beating and murder of soldiers who deserted his army or staged mutinies. Nevermind the fact we're talking about soldiers who were likely conscripted through threat of force in the first place.

Says Zinn:

"A smaller mutiny took place in the New Jersey Line, involving two hundred men who defied their officers and started out of the state capital in Trenton. Now Washington was ready. Six hundred men, who themselves had been well fed and clothed, marched on the mutineers and surrounded and disarmed them. Three ringleaders were put on trial immediately, in the field. One was pardoned, and two were shot by firing squads made up of their friends, who wept as they pulled the triggers. It was 'an example', Washington said."

But yeah, it's contemporary liberals who are morally depraved. And to think, Washington never played Grand Theft Auto, nor did he ever deal with those pesky "liberal justices", who through their vile treachery, essentially force us by will of their decree to lower our moral standards.

Had Sowell been around then, perhaps he would have harangued the moral conduct of our political leaders and suggested a military coup to supplant them?

Regardless, I don't know about you, but *I* don't enslave anyone, nor do I cheat on my wife, nor do I beat/kill people merely because they refuse to kill other people who I want dead, nor do I steal other people's property because they happen to disagree with me politically. But I sometimes watch violent movies and listen to music with swear words in them, so perhaps they were better men than I. While these guys are the forebears and cornerstone of *your* morality, I sure don't take my moral cues from them, and I doubt there are many who do.

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you not agree that Western society has evolved with Judeo-Christian values as the cornerstone of its morality? I am hard pressed to see Islamists creating the Declaration of Independence or Constitution, that much I say with full confidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are "Judeo-Christian values" credited with "creating" the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? The author of the Declaration, Jefferson, was hardly what we would call a Christian or Jew. The contributors who wrote the Constitution were a varied group and certainly not uniformly Christian, and were undoubtedly much more influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like Locke than they were by Christ. So crediting the creation of the US's supreme law document and the US legal system to Christianity or Judaism seems awfully specious to me.

Certainly, though, if you're suggesting that that somehow America's revolutionary-era leaders who wrote the aforementioned documents and established our legal system had moral paradigms we should aspire to, I find that claim laughable as well. Many of the 'Founding Fathers' were of course slave owners, and I'm sure we're all familiar with Jefferson notably fathering children with at least one of the women he enslaved. I certainly won't go as far as to say he raped her, because who's to know -- but given that we're referring to an enslaved human being, I'm not sure we really need to confirm that Jefferson forced himself on his slaves to be disgusted nonetheless. Franklin was an avowed womanizer and had numerous affairs while traveling as an American ambassador in Europe, despite the fact he had a common-law wife. Strangely enough, it's my understanding that neither Jefferson nor Franklin had access to internet porn or Hustler magazine, but lo and behold, we see examples of the degradation of the traditional family that Sowell laments three centuries ago. Howard Zinn chronicles how Washington confiscated the landholdings of British Loyalists all across the South during the Revolutionary War in order to terrorize Loyalists while simultaneously providing a convenient funding scheme for his army. And then, of course, there is the not-so-inconsequential matter of Washington over-seeing the beating and murder of soldiers who deserted his army or staged mutinies. Nevermind the fact we're talking about soldiers who were likely conscripted through threat of force in the first place.

Says Zinn:

"A smaller mutiny took place in the New Jersey Line, involving two hundred men who defied their officers and started out of the state capital in Trenton. Now Washington was ready. Six hundred men, who themselves had been well fed and clothed, marched on the mutineers and surrounded and disarmed them. Three ringleaders were put on trial immediately, in the field. One was pardoned, and two were shot by firing squads made up of their friends, who wept as they pulled the triggers. It was 'an example', Washington said."

But yeah, it's contemporary liberals who are morally depraved. And to think, Washington never played Grand Theft Auto, nor did he ever deal with those pesky "liberal justices", who through their vile treachery, essentially force us by will of their decree to lower our moral standards.

Had Sowell been around then, perhaps he would have harangued the moral conduct of our political leaders and suggested a military coup to supplant them?

Regardless, I don't know about you, but *I* don't enslave anyone, nor do I cheat on my wife, nor do I beat/kill people merely because they refuse to kill other people who I want dead, nor do I steal other people's property because they happen to disagree with me politically. But I sometimes watch violent movies and listen to music with swear words in them, so perhaps they were better men than I. While these guys are the forebears and cornerstone of *your* morality, I sure don't take my moral cues from them, and I doubt there are many who do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see the American liberal education system has done its job well, brainwashing the kiddies into discounting the accomplishments of the founders by hammering home the 'slave' card. Jefferson et al., authors of documents that were in no small measure the inspiration to this day of man's quest for freedom the world over, these accomplishments are to be belittled because they were flawed or even deeply flawed men? Nothing personal Devaut, I just find it sad how successful liberal academia has been in disparaging the founders, of course making it all the easier for them to therefore succeed in debauching the principles they espoused, those contained in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. And in so debauching, facilitating their goal of bastardizing and molding the document(Constitution) to whatever it is they see fit(see the 'living and breathing' advocates for example). All in all I would say they have been quite successful, you have been taught to dislike the very men without whose vision the world would today in all likelihood be a lot less free and civilized.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I see the American liberal education system has done its job well, brainwashing the kiddies into discounting the accomplishments of the founders by hammering home the 'slave' card. Jefferson et al., authors of documents that were in no small measure the inspiration to this day of man's quest for freedom the world over, these accomplishments are to be belittled because they were flawed or even deeply flawed men? Nothing personal Devaut, I just find it sad how successful liberal academia has been in disparaging the founders, of course making it all the easier for them to therefore succeed in debauching the principles they espoused, those contained in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. And in so debauching, facilitating their goal of bastardizing and molding the document(Constitution) to whatever it is they see fit(see the 'living and breathing' advocates for example). All in all I would say they have been quite successful, you have been taught to dislike the very men without whose vision the world would today in all likelihood be a lot less free and civilized.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is about the biggest cop-out response possible. You have absolutely no response for the defense of their conduct as human beings, because of course their is none. The best you can do is to conjure up some rant about liberal bogeymen in academia.

Absolutely no defense of your claim that "Judeo-Christian" values are the "cornerstone of our society". Absolutely no refutation of the notion that those who shaped our legal system in fact lived in open rebellion of the so-called values they ostensibly imbued into our society. In fact, you concede it. Absolutely no refutation of the notion that, in fact, the founders of this national had vices that far more immoral than the drug users, pornography watchers, and rap-music listeners that Sowell and Bork castigate. Absolutely no empirical or historical evidence to support your claim that "Judeo-Christian" values formed the "cornerstone" of Western society anywhere in the world, let alone the US. No, just some pathetic rant about the danger of liberal propaganda in the education system; which, of course, is entirely ironic, considering your argument here is nothing more than typical right-wing, flag-waving propaganda that, through ridiculous historical revisionism, suggests American's Founding Fathers were pious Christians (ignoring the fact many were not Christians at all), and that America's liberals have perverted our society's moral content away from their vision of an ideal society where Christian moral standards are adhered to.

It's of course also ironic how the right is more than willing to excuse the Founding Fathers for all of their failings, like slave-ownership and outright murder, while simultaneously claiming that it's the left who embraces moral relativism.

Am I supposed to continue taking you seriously here? If your response to this will be nothing more than a continued hand-waving rant about liberal indocternation in public schools, I probably won't respond again.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see the American liberal education system has done its job well, brainwashing the kiddies into discounting the accomplishments of the founders by hammering home the 'slave' card. Jefferson et al., authors of documents that were in no small measure the inspiration to this day of man's quest for freedom the world over, these accomplishments are to be belittled because they were flawed or even deeply flawed men? Nothing personal Devaut, I just find it sad how successful liberal academia has been in disparaging the founders, of course making it all the easier for them to therefore succeed in debauching the principles they espoused, those contained in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. And in so debauching, facilitating their goal of bastardizing and molding the document(Constitution) to whatever it is they see fit(see the 'living and breathing' advocates for example). All in all I would say they have been quite successful, you have been taught to dislike the very men without whose vision the world would today in all likelihood be a lot less free and civilized.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is about the biggest cop-out response possible. You have absolutely no response for the defense of their conduct as human beings, because of course their is none. The best you can do is to conjure up some rant about liberal bogeymen in academia.

Absolutely no defense of your claim that "Judeo-Christian" values are the "cornerstone of our society". Absolutely no refutation of the notion that those who shaped our legal system in fact lived in open rebellion of the so-called values they ostensibly imbued into our society. In fact, you concede it. Absolutely no refutation of the notion that, in fact, the founders of this national had vices that far more immoral than the drug users, pornography watchers, and rap-music listeners that Sowell and Bork castigate. Absolutely no empirical or historical evidence to support your claim that "Judeo-Christian" values formed the "cornerstone" of Western society anywhere in the world, let alone the US. No, just some pathetic rant about the danger of liberal propaganda in the education system; which, of course, is entirely ironic, considering your argument here is nothing more than typical right-wing, flag-waving propaganda that, through ridiculous historical revisionism, suggests American's Founding Fathers were pious Christians (ignoring the fact many were not Christians at all), and that America's liberals have perverted our society's moral content away from their vision of an ideal society where Christian moral standards are adhered to.

It's of course also ironic how the right is more than willing to excuse the Founding Fathers for all of their failings, like slave-ownership and outright murder, while simultaneously claiming that it's the left who embraces moral relativism.

Am I supposed to continue taking you seriously here? If your response to this will be nothing more than a continued hand-waving rant about liberal indocternation in public schools, I probably won't respond again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it is as easy as it may appear to accurately sit in judgment of men like Jefferson who held slaves. Here are my thoughts:

As horrible a practice as slavery is, it should be considered that hundreds of years ago, most people probably did not consider it to horrible, and even considered the enslaved people (of various groups, not only black) to be inferior and even perhaps even somewhat subhuman.

With our enlightened outlooks today, we do not subscribe from such beliefs and even recoil from them, but it is not entirely fair to project today's standards or understanding on the distant past in judgment.

During the time of Jefferson, whites enslaved blacks, blacks enslaved blacks, blacks enslaved whites in Africa, and who knows what other cultures and races enslaved many around the world.

It is easy to think that this shows some enormous moral failing on the part of the enslavers, but that is judging solely by today's standards. When people are raised to believe one thing, it is the rare person who truly questions it, especially when it is in line with the accepted customs of the day and age, and comprises an integral element of the economic model as well.

No, I don't think that "excuses" slavery in the old days, but it makes it so that we cannot accurately determine just how bad any moral failings were, if those activities were in keeping with the times and were generally accepted and practiced.

It also would be nice to think that we ourselves could never do such a thing, but if we were raised in that day and age, and taught what they were taught, how can we say for sure what we would believe or how we would act? It is only in relatively recent history that the practice of slavery has become widely considered to be wrong. For most of the history of mankind, it was generally accepted and practiced. Does that make most older cultures evil...or just unenlightened?

In militaries around the world, deserters or those who have been unwilling to follow orders have frequently been made examples of. I recoil and shudder at the thought myself, but again, viewed within context and context of the times, it is not the same thing as today. Mutinies were brutally put down, because if they weren't, the mutineers might well kill the commanders as well as some soldiers or sailors. Armies have shot deserters for as long as there have been armies, and have applied force against any of the populace who supportd the other side. Does that make it "right"? No, but I don't think we can say that it shows horrible moral conduct by the commanders, either, especially when that was a generally accepted practice of the day and age.

A few hundred years from, there may well be things that you or I routinely do today, and think little of, at which the people of the future would be aghast. Just a little food for thought, such as it may be.

I think there is a difference between being evil, and being unenlightened.

Thanks for reading.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it is as easy as it may appear to accurately sit in judgment of men like Jefferson who held slaves. Here are my thoughts:

As horrible a practice as slavery is, it should be considered that hundreds of years ago, most people probably did not consider it to horrible, and even considered the enslaved people (of various groups, not only black) to be inferior and even perhaps even somewhat subhuman.

With our enlightened outlooks today, we do not subscribe from such beliefs and even recoil from them, but it is not entirely fair to project today's standards or understanding on the distant past in judgment.

During the time of Jefferson, whites enslaved blacks, blacks enslaved blacks, blacks enslaved whites in Africa, and who knows what other cultures and races enslaved many around the world.

It is easy to think that this shows some enormous moral failing on the part of the enslavers, but that is judging solely by today's standards. When people are raised to believe one thing, it is the rare person who truly questions it, especially when it is in line with the accepted customs of the day and age, and comprises an integral element of the economic model as well.

No, I don't think that "excuses" slavery in the old days, but it makes it so that we cannot accurately determine just how bad any moral failings were, if those activities were in keeping with the times and were generally accepted and practiced.

It also would be nice to think that we ourselves could never do such a thing, but if we were raised in that day and age, and taught what they were taught, how can we say for sure what we would believe or how we would act? It is only in relatively recent history that the practice of slavery has become widely considered to be wrong. For most of the history of mankind, it was generally accepted and practiced. Does that make most older cultures evil...or just unenlightened?

In militaries around the world, deserters or those who have been unwilling to follow orders have frequently been made examples of. I recoil and shudder at the thought myself, but again, viewed within context and context of the times, it is not the same thing as today. Mutinies were brutally put down, because if they weren't, the mutineers might well kill the commanders as well as some soldiers or sailors. Armies have shot deserters for as long as there have been armies, and have applied force against any of the populace who supportd the other side. Does that make it "right"? No, but I don't think we can say that it shows horrible moral conduct by the commanders, either, especially when that was a generally accepted practice of the day and age. <font color="red"> DVaut interjection: Notice that Washington subdues the mutiny, disbands most of the mutineers, thereby removing the immediate threat -- then has his soldiers fire a couple of rounds into the brains of two mutiny leaders who were already apprehended as 'an example'. So much for the claim that the mutineers posed a threat and might kill the commanders.</font>

A few hundred years from, there may well be things that you or I routinely do today, and think little of, at which the people of the future would be aghast. Just a little food for thought, such as it may be.

I think there is a difference between being evil, and being unenlightened.

Thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is abject moral relativism at its worst. You understand that, right? It's the exact, textbook definition of moral relativism: "Don't judge those guys, they had historical, cultural and societal circumstances that prevent us from applying our normative moral standards to them".

Never again do I want to hear right-wingers proclaim it's liberals who embrace moral relativism while they simultaneously claim we can't judge slave-owning and murder because of historical context or extenuating circumstance. It's nothing more than hypocrisy.

As a side note, of course Jefferson and Washington knew how despicable slavery was. That's why they freed all of their slaves -- or should I say, that's why they freed them in their wills after they themselves died, of course. Because it's obviously hard to profit off of your slaves from a coffin, once you're done profiting from the humans you own due to your own life expiring, you may as well let your slaves go. But yeah, it's contemporary liberals who's morality we should question, and it's the Founding Fathers' "Judeo-Chrisitian values" who we should use as a "cornerstone" for our society.

What a crock. Some of you people frighten me -- and I don't mean you John Kilduff. While I find your defense of the revolutionary leaders questionable at best, I'm referring more to those who readily embrace right-wing propaganda about continued "moral degeneracy" of contemporary American society while ignoring the fact American history -- nay human history -- is littered with despicable acts of human cruelty and needless suffering, the responsibility of which lies at the feet of so-called "moral elites" like the Founding Fathers, whose supposedly utopian vision for society is completely contradicted by their own personal behavior. And yet the right pretends as if video games, violent movies, the President getting head in the Oval Office and shock-jocks like Howard Stern debase us, as if we were on some kind of moral plateau to being with. Nevermind the fact that the so-called panacea for this moral degeneracy involves subverting the rule of law and using military force to subvert popular will -- actions that almost any rational person would call inherently immoral. Seriously, what a load of [censored].

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it is as easy as it may appear to accurately sit in judgment of men like Jefferson who held slaves. Here are my thoughts:

As horrible a practice as slavery is, it should be considered that hundreds of years ago, most people probably did not consider it to horrible, and even considered the enslaved people (of various groups, not only black) to be inferior and even perhaps even somewhat subhuman.

With our enlightened outlooks today, we do not subscribe from such beliefs and even recoil from them, but it is not entirely fair to project today's standards or understanding on the distant past in judgment.

During the time of Jefferson, whites enslaved blacks, blacks enslaved blacks, blacks enslaved whites in Africa, and who knows what other cultures and races enslaved many around the world.

It is easy to think that this shows some enormous moral failing on the part of the enslavers, but that is judging solely by today's standards. When people are raised to believe one thing, it is the rare person who truly questions it, especially when it is in line with the accepted customs of the day and age, and comprises an integral element of the economic model as well.

No, I don't think that "excuses" slavery in the old days, but it makes it so that we cannot accurately determine just how bad any moral failings were, if those activities were in keeping with the times and were generally accepted and practiced.

It also would be nice to think that we ourselves could never do such a thing, but if we were raised in that day and age, and taught what they were taught, how can we say for sure what we would believe or how we would act? It is only in relatively recent history that the practice of slavery has become widely considered to be wrong. For most of the history of mankind, it was generally accepted and practiced. Does that make most older cultures evil...or just unenlightened?

In militaries around the world, deserters or those who have been unwilling to follow orders have frequently been made examples of. I recoil and shudder at the thought myself, but again, viewed within context and context of the times, it is not the same thing as today. Mutinies were brutally put down, because if they weren't, the mutineers might well kill the commanders as well as some soldiers or sailors. Armies have shot deserters for as long as there have been armies, and have applied force against any of the populace who supportd the other side. Does that make it "right"? No, but I don't think we can say that it shows horrible moral conduct by the commanders, either, especially when that was a generally accepted practice of the day and age. <font color="red"> DVaut interjection: Notice that Washington subdues the mutiny, disbands most of the mutineers, thereby removing the immediate threat -- then has his soldiers fire a couple of rounds into the brains of two mutiny leaders who were already apprehended as 'an example'. So much for the claim that the mutineers posed a threat and might kill the commanders.</font>

A few hundred years from, there may well be things that you or I routinely do today, and think little of, at which the people of the future would be aghast. Just a little food for thought, such as it may be.

I think there is a difference between being evil, and being unenlightened.

Thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is abject moral relativism at its worst. You understand that, right? It's the exact, textbook definition of moral relativism: "Don't judge those guys, they had historical, cultural and societal circumstances that prevent us from applying our normative moral standards to them".

Never again do I want to hear right-wingers proclaim it's liberals who embrace moral relativism while they simultaneously claim we can't judge slave-owning and murder because of historical context or extenuating circumstance. It's nothing more than hypocrisy.

As a side note, of course Jefferson and Washington knew how despicable slavery was. That's why they freed all of their slaves -- or should I say, that's why they freed them in their wills after they themselves died, of course. Because it's obviously hard to profit off of your slaves from a coffin, once you're done profiting from the humans you own due to your own life expiring, you may as well let your slaves go. But yeah, it's contemporary liberals who's morality we should question, and it's the Founding Fathers' "Judeo-Chrisitian values" who we should use as a "cornerstone" for our society.

What a crock. Some of you people frighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying we shouldn't judge: we should judge that slavery is wrong. Yet we cannot hold people of ages past fully to standards that weren't even invented yet, or were just beginning to change, can we? That's why I'm saying there is a difference between being evil and being unenlightened.

Also, I'm not saying that entirely excuses everything, either. I'm saying we cannot well judge the extent to which they should be blamed for acting in a manner consistent with the practices of the time.

The example of soldiers deserting, or mutinies, is general: the point about Washington executing them after the mutiny had been put down, I had not gone back and read elsewhere in the thread: yet even so, it was not uncommon for militaries to make examples out of soldiers.

I'm also not even addressing the argument about contemporary liberals - I'm just saying that applying today's standards to the past isn't a really fully fair way of judging the moral character of those people. That doesn't mean those people aren't to blame at all, or that certain things weren't also wrong in the past: we just have a hard time guessing to what extent those people might have been acting immorally taking into account the standards of the age.

Do you not suppose that there might be any things you or I do, or accept, that people of the future will be shocked at, and think wrong - yet you think little about today? Times change and standards change. Maybe some day people will think we were all grossly and horribly immoral for eating animals in the 21st century. Does that make you and I evil persons, and of terrible moral character?

Once upon a time a great many people thought it was fine to burn witches at the stake. Were they all evil - or were they just misguided - or were they just unenlightened - or some combination of the above? Once upon a time, conquering armies routinely pillaged towns, raped the women, killed all the men, and burnt the towns after stealing all they could - after perhaps taking slaves. That was fairly standard, par for the course - did people then think it was morally wrong?

I think you may not realize just how much standards have changed over the ages, and what was once accepted is now shunned. If we were to apply today's standards in judging morals, probably every fighter in Attila the Hun's armies would be deemed immoral and or irremedial character. But is that really so? People generally believe what they have been taught, and accept the status quo as normal. That doesn't make their actions OK from our perspective, but it does mean that they perhaps weren't as bad as we think they were.

I don't see how you can apply future moral standards to the present, in judging the character of a person. Can you imagine any way to do this without a time-machine? I think not, because we don't know in advance what those future moral standards will be. We can't foresee the future hundreds oif years from now. We cannot judge the present based on the future - it is a cosmological impossibility. So if we cannot do that, then how can we apply present moral standards to the past, in judging the character of a person? The accepted moral standards may have been bad back then (and I believe they were) but that doesn't necessarily mean the people were really bad.

Thanks for reading and thanks for responding to my post.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying we shouldn't judge: we should judge that slavery is wrong. Yet we cannot hold people of ages past fully to standards that weren't even invented yet, or were just beginning to change, can we? That's why I'm saying there is a difference between being evil and being unenlightened.

Also, I'm not saying that entirely excuses everything, either. I'm saying we cannot well judge the extent to which they should be blamed for acting in a manner consistent with the practices of the time.

The example of soldiers deserting, or mutinies, is general: the point about Washington executing them after the mutiny had been put down, I had not gone back and read elsewhere in the thread: yet even so, it was not uncommon for militaries to make examples out of soldiers.

I'm also not even addressing the argument about contemporary liberals - I'm just saying that applying today's standards to the past isn't a really fully fair way of judging the moral character of those people. That doesn't mean those people aren't to blame at all, or that certain things weren't also wrong in the past: we just have a hard time guessing to what extent those people might have been acting immorally taking into account the standards of the age.

Do you not suppose that there might be any things you or I do, or accept, that people of the future will be shocked at, and think wrong - yet you think little about today? Times change and standards change. Maybe some day people will think we were all grossly and horribly immoral for eating animals in the 21st century. Does that make you and I evil persons, and of terrible moral character?

Once upon a time a great many people thought it was fine to burn witches at the stake. Were they all evil - or were they just misguided - or were they just unenlightened - or some combination of the above? Once upon a time, conquering armies routinely pillaged towns, raped the women, killed all the men, and burnt the towns after stealing all they could - after perhaps taking slaves. That was fairly standard, par for the course - did people then think it was morally wrong?

I think you may not realize just how much standards have changed over the ages, and what was once accepted is now shunned. If we were to apply today's standards in judging morals, probably every fighter in Attila the Hun's armies would be deemed immoral and or irremedial character. But is that really so? People generally believe what they have been taught, and accept the status quo as normal. That doesn't make their actions OK from our perspective, but it does mean that they perhaps weren't as bad as we think they were.

I don't see how you can apply future moral standards to the present, in judging the character of a person. Can you imagine any way to do this without a time-machine? I think not, because we don't know in advance what those future moral standards will be. We can't foresee the future hundreds oif years from now. We cannot judge the present based on the future - it is a cosmological impossibility. So if we cannot do that, then how can we apply present moral standards to the past, in judging the character of a person? The accepted moral standards may have been bad back then (and I believe they were) but that doesn't necessarily mean the people were really bad.

Thanks for reading and thanks for responding to my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is nothing but coarse moral relativism. To claim that "slavery is wrong", only to follow that by claiming that standard doesn't or shouldn't apply to the past due to historical context is to contradict the previous claim that slavery is wrong, QED.

If the claim is that we need to hold Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. to some other standard where we consider "the social context of the age", then slavery isn't wrong. Under this paradigm, when asked what to make of slavery, we surely can't say it's wrong. We're forced only to answer "it depends".

I don't believe "it depends". Holding humans as slaves, or murdering and beating soldiers for refusing to fight was as wrong 200 years ago as it is today. To say otherwise is to reject the notion that the behavior is wrong in the first place.

"Moral standards" aren't 'invented'. To claim that we need to "understand the standards of the age" is to imply that morality is somehow mutable. Again, this is nothing more than abject moral relativism, something I thought the right-wing in America was trying to combat, but apparently embraces.

So of course it's fair to hold Washington, Jefferson, et al accountable for their accounts. To say otherwise is to claim that somehow slavery and murder could ever be legitimate. The conduct of General Washington murdering his own soldiers, or of Jefferson owning slaves is clearly and wholly immoral. We need not take into account historical context, because there's no "context" that can change that fact.

To claim that "I think you may not realize just how much standards have changed over the ages, and what was once accepted is now shunned" is nothing more than a return to your old days as MMMMMM, where you hand-wavingly assert no one quite understands history. Yes, I completely understand that what was once accepted as legitimate is now viewed as barbaric, hence the entire [censored] point of this thread. To claim that morals have somehow become degraded over time -- to claim that rap music, condoms in schools, and Eminem threaten our morality is to imply we were once so pious that there was actually something to threaten.

We've went from slave owning, to slaughtering of American indians, to the atrocities of the Civil War, to Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws, to incinerating hundreds of thousands of Japanese, to Tuskegee, to using Agent Orange in Vietnam. But yeah, it's liberal tolerance of gay people and drug users that demands a military coup to save us from moral degeneracy.