Man of his time.

[Slizor]

Is it right to judge people in history by modern standards? Say if someone was racist, or owned slaves, are they to be judged by our standards now?

Note: this is a leading question and this topic does have a point.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 6/7/03 09:59 AM, Slizor wrote: Is it right to judge people

Wouldn't you first have to answer this?

[Slizor]

Is it right to judge people

Wouldn't you first have to answer this?

Is it right to judge people? Why not? If we were to say that it is not right to judge people....what would happen to society? We would have no rules, no laws. A complete breakdown of society. For the purely pragmatic reason then, of not wanting the breakdown of society (I want the reconstitution of society) I would have to say it is right to judge people. I use pragmatic reasons because I'm not going into oral philosophy, mainly because I did an exam on it yesterday.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 6/7/03 10:37 AM, Slizor wrote:

Is it right to judge people

Wouldn't you first have to answer this?

Is it right to judge people? Why not? If we were to say that it is not right to judge people....what would happen to society? We would have no rules, no laws. A complete breakdown of society. For the purely pragmatic reason then, of not wanting the breakdown of society (I want the reconstitution of society) I would have to say it is right to judge people. I use pragmatic reasons because I'm not going into oral philosophy, mainly because I did an exam on it yesterday.

Alright fair enough. Some people believe in definite morality, I.E. you, and some don't, I.E. Guess who. Let's go on the basis that there is a right and a wrong and it's okay to judge people for it. You would have to define what right and wrong is.

Is it wrong to harm someone? Most people would say yes it is wrong, that's probably the premise you're going for. Let's just pick slavery. It is wrong to enslave someone. if you disagree with anything then tell me but if not I will assume that

I. There is a right and wrong.

II. Slavery is wrong.

So how could time effect what right and wrong is? Back in 1700 slavery was popular so does that make it right? Does the popular voice of society make morality or is morality a definitite created by a force either human or non which is not the majority opinon of society. If you belive in god (which Slizwhore doesn't) then you'd probably say there is a definitite right and wrong and slavery is always wrong, but if you think that morality is subject to opinon then the general opinon was that slavery was not wrong. Now the general opinon is that slavery is wrong.

If morality is definitite then people should be judged the same way regardless of time/culture/any other variable, but if you think morality is created by man and is the majority opinon or a individual creation then right and wrong may only be judged in context of the person who commited whatever act you judge.

But that breads a question who makes morality? Does the majority work their ways on the minority? Or what about a minority in power? Was it morale for the Taliban to control Afganistan when they were a minority or was is it morale for kshatriyahs and vishyahs to lead however they chose? That's not really a question I can answer, and I doubt anyone here can.

If we can make laws, how and why? Is a law morale because a majority of people agree that it is? Or because it's the way God says it is? Or because those in power are doing what's best for everyone? Or is a law something that is a concept that is backwards at it's core. A law implies that it's infalible but obviously not everyone agrees on it's morality. Maybe a law doesn't exist and there are no absolutes.

[bumcheekcity]

I think it's fine to judge people, but I don't quite understand what you're asking, Slizor.

It may just be that ive woke up (at 4pm UK time) but I find your question a bit confusing.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

Dear god I meant DEFINITE

D E F I N I T E

not definitite or whatever I typed

[Nirvana13666]

well, I have never thought of it this way. I guess we live in a different times now and in some cases it would be wrong to judge people of the past. But I don't think it is was ever right or will ever be right to own another human being. Slavery is wrong even if it might have made our country what it is today. No one in the existence has the right to control another person's life unless it is something that person wants. Nothing can ever justify slavery.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 6/7/03 11:42 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote: well, I have never thought of it this way. I guess we live in a different times now and in some cases it would be wrong to judge people of the past. But I don't think it is was ever right or will ever be right to own another human being. Slavery is wrong even if it might have made our country what it is today. No one in the existence has the right to control another person's life unless it is something that person wants. Nothing can ever justify slavery.

So you think that but what makes your opinon more valid or morale than a person who thinks the exact opposite? Why is your reason right and someone who thinks diffrently wrong?

[Alejandro1]

At 6/7/03 10:51 AM, AnRkeyPenguin wrote: But that breads a question who makes morality?

Men with power make the morals for the society, but individuals tend to establish their own morals. Heres an example:

During the 1400-1500's, the church was probably the highest power in Europe; the church made up their own morals, many of which are believed in today's society as morally wrong (ex. paying the church to pardon you for your sins). However, Martin Luther, who was just a small individual at the time, established his own morals and spread them to others, getting himself in trouble with the authority in the process.

Does the majority work their ways on the minority?

Absolutely. In all societies, if your opinion differs from the majority, you will estranged from the rest of society.

Or what about a minority in power? Was it morale for the Taliban to control Afganistan when they were a minority

This question does not relate to morals, but rather to human nature itself. As human beings, we were created with flaws; men will always be power hungry, there's nothing that's going to change that; men will always grab power if the oppertune moment arrives.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 6/7/03 12:48 PM, alejandro1 wrote:

At 6/7/03 10:51 AM, AnRkeyPenguin wrote: But that breads a question who makes morality?

Men with power make the morals for the society, but individuals tend to establish their own morals. Heres an example:

During the 1400-1500's, the church was probably the highest power in Europe; the church made up their own morals, many of which are believed in today's society as morally wrong

So then if morality is what men with power make then power makes morality. If a greater degree of power dictates what is and isn't morale then personal ideas are really worthless if they're not the majority.

Does the majority work their ways on the minority?

Absolutely. In all societies, if your opinion differs from the majority, you will estranged from the rest of society.

Perhaps I didn't specify, what I was refering to is if this is morale. If the majority creates morality then if they deam it morale to inslave persons, or kill a miniority it is. If a majority makes morality then it was morale for Hitler to kill the jews.

Or what about a minority in power? Was it morale for the Taliban to control Afganistan when they were a minority

This question does not relate to morals, but rather to human nature itself. As human beings, we were created with flaws; men will always be power hungry, there's nothing that's going to change that; men will always grab power if the oppertune moment arrives.

No my question did related to morality, perhaps I did not specify, as your answer did not relate to my question. The question was, if majority does not hold the majority of power, but the minority holds the majority of power then is what they deam morale, morale? Was it morale for the minority groups I.E. taliban in afganistan to take control of the nation because they had the majority of power and they said that it was moral? If power makes morality, and the minority group in Afganistan had the majority of power, then the Taliban was morale.

[Taxman2A]

At 6/7/03 09:59 AM, Slizor wrote: Is it right to judge people in history by modern standards? Say if someone was racist, or owned slaves, are they to be judged by our standards now?

Note: this is a leading question and this topic does have a point.

That's a really good question. It is clear that "times have changed", and I think we all could agree that someone presented with different circumstances would have acted differently.- Here's the dichotomy.

Part of me wants to say "We should not judge people of another time by our standards". It is clear that subject A- let's say John Williamson from the year 1790, was a slave owner. While owning slaves is now considered immoral, John was a product of his environment, and was just being an enterprising businessman within the confines of the law. If he would have been born in 1970, he would have grown up to be an ethical businessman.

After all, 1000 years from now, it may very well be found that it is immoral to kill animals, as they have senses and emotions just like humans. How would you feel being resurrected in the year 3090 and prosecuted for your heinous crimes against humanity you commit every supper time (assuming you aren't a vegan)? "You bastard, you should have known it was wrong!!! Just because it was accepted doesn't excuse you!"

An appealing line of reason. The problem with this is that it presents an obvious slippery slope. If we can't judge people from an era because they were the "product of their environment", then doesn't this quickly flush the entire legal system down the toilet? Let's take subject B- John Jackson, who rapes a girl down the street. This is a terrible crime, no doubt, but what about the factor of his environment? Sure, just because he grew up poor doesn't excuse him, but what if he was beaten as a young boy? What if he was raped? What if he was forced to watch his mother die at the hands of a killer? Clearly, if Mr. Jackson had the priveledge of growing up in a suburb of the same city he would have gone on to college and someday been a renowned neurosurgeon. Do we let him off the hook?

Both people here are "products of their environments". We tend to let off those who were products of larger environments though. As you can see, when we look at Mr. Williamson, we understand that he thought slavery was acceptable, because everyone around him thought it was acceptable. But Mr. Jackson thought rape was acceptable, because he came from a turbulent little microenvironment.

[Slizor]

Now I'd like to introduce another idea in to this (I would again like to stress I am moralitied out and am only seeking to facilitate debate.) As Taxman was talking about environment, what if we bring in other cultures/nationalities viewpoints in on this? Like the repression of women? Are we right to condemn other cultures?

[Nirvana13666]

At 6/7/03 12:09 PM, AnRkeyPenguin wrote:

At 6/7/03 11:42 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote:

So you think that but what makes your opinon more valid or morale than a person who thinks the exact opposite? Why is your reason right and someone who thinks diffrently wrong?

It is a birth right to have freedom. This is my opinion and I never stated it as a fact or said it was more valid than the opposed view.

[Alejandro1]

At 6/7/03 01:34 PM, AnRkeyPenguin wrote: So then if morality is what men with power make then power makes morality. If a greater degree of power dictates what is and isn't morale then personal ideas are really worthless if they're not the majority.

Good job. I think you pretty much hit it on the spot. The ideas of a small group are outweighed by the majority in almost any society.

Perhaps I didn't specify, what I was refering to is if this is morale. If the majority creates morality then if they deam it morale to inslave persons, or kill a miniority it is. If a majority makes morality then it was morale for Hitler to kill the jews.

It was morally acceptable for the people IN germany to kill the Jews. The thing is, morality is a point of view, whether it is a single person, a small group, or the majority of the population, it is a point of view about a subject that is thought to be right or wrong. In the 1940's America, almost everyone could agree that killing the Jews was wrong because that's how the grand majority felt in America. What I mean to say here is, people in different parts of the world with different cultures and different religions may believe in different morals; whether or not you believe it's right, that all depends on the morals you were brought up with.

No my question did related to morality, perhaps I did not specify, as your answer did not relate to my question. The question was, if majority does not hold the majority of power, but the minority holds the majority of power then is what they deam morale, morale? Was it morale for the minority groups I.E. taliban in afganistan to take control of the nation because they had the majority of power and they said that it was moral? If power makes morality, and the minority group in Afganistan had the majority of power, then the Taliban was morale.

In this scenario, I wouldn't say that what the minority says is moral is moral. A lot of times, when the government determines what morality is, that is opression. Unless the majority of the population actually truely believed in what the Taliban wanted, the Taliban morals would be immoral. When I said men of power, I meant more along the lines of the Church, not the government.

When a government makes laws, its generally to protect the morals of the majority (ex. Most people think its wrong to steal or kill; the government made laws so if you steal or kill, you will go to jail). If the Taliban makes laws which do not protect the morals of the majority of the people, it is immoral.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 6/7/03 06:30 PM, alejandro1 wrote:
It was morally acceptable for the people IN germany to kill the Jews. The thing is, morality is a point of view, whether it is a single person, a small group, or the majority of the population, it is a point of view about a subject that is thought to be right or wrong. In the 1940's America, almost everyone could agree that killing the Jews was wrong because that's how the grand majority felt in America. What I mean to say here is, people in different parts of the world with different cultures and different religions may believe in different morals; whether or not you believe it's right, that all depends on the morals you were brought up with.

In this scenario, I wouldn't say that what the minority says is moral is moral. A lot of times, when the government determines what morality is, that is opression. Unless the majority of the population actually truely believed in what the Taliban wanted, the Taliban morals would be immoral. When I said men of power, I meant more along the lines of the Church, not the government.

When a government makes laws, its generally to protect the morals of the majority (ex. Most people think its wrong to steal or kill; the government made laws so if you steal or kill, you will go to jail). If the Taliban makes laws which do not protect the morals of the majority of the people, it is immoral.

Going by your definition of morality, the majority opinon or a minority with majority power who acts in the intrest of the majority creates morality. If that's true, then if two people find it moral to kill another person then it is moral. But if there are five people and three think that it is immoral and two think that it is moral then it is immoral. Obviously this could be applied to any situation, city wide, state wide, nation wide, the majority opinon creates morality. If that's the case then morality is arbitrary and only a representation of the opinons of the majority.

If morality is what is right and ethical, and the majority creates morality then the majority opinon is right and ethical. If the majority of people in the world think that christians should all be killed, then it is moral. If the majority of people think that people should be enslaved becuase they are black, then it is moral. If the majority of people think that repressing someones beliefs or ideas is moral, then it is.

Is this to you what Morality is?

[mysecondstar]

At 6/7/03 09:59 AM, Slizor wrote: Is it right to judge people in history by modern standards? Say if someone was racist, or owned slaves, are they to be judged by our standards now?

it is never right to judge regardless of what time we are living in today.

let he without sin cast the first stone.

the reason we learn history is to learn what to replicate and what not to do in the future. times change. people change. life is a never-ending quest to better ourselves and society any which way we can. those who had slaves or were racist would probably not act the same way they did if they were alive today. this alone makes it unfair to pass judgement.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 6/8/03 05:33 AM, mysecondstar wrote:

At 6/7/03 09:59 AM, Slizor wrote: Is it right to judge people in history by modern standards? Say if someone was racist, or owned slaves, are they to be judged by our standards now?

it is never right to judge regardless of what time we are living in today.

let he without sin cast the first stone.

You judge someone no matter what you do, and judging doesn't mean that you act on your judgement. If you hear that someone used to be a slave owner you don't think of that completly imbiasedly. Everyone has a bias, everyone who is capable of opinon has a bias.

The question of this thread, is if it is fair to judge someone according to your context of judgement or theirs.

the reason we learn history is to learn what to replicate and what not to do in the future. times change. people change. life is a never-ending quest to better ourselves and society any which way we can. those who had slaves or were racist would probably not act the same way they did if they were alive today. this alone makes it unfair to pass judgement.

Maybe they wouldn't if they were alive today, but if something is wrong is it always wrong? What makes something wrong and does time or popular opinon make it's definition maleable?

[TheTio]

At 6/7/03 10:51 AM, AnRkeyPenguin wrote:

The question was, if majority does not hold the majority of power, but the minority holds the majority of power then is what they deam morale, morale?

Theres one Minority that will always rule, the rich
You could say that the rich could control morality, as they own all but two mediums of distributing their ideas

Word of mouth and the Net are the only places not dominated by the rich

OK, back to the topic, I dont think we should judge the actions of those before us on our idea of morality, morality fluctuates as has already been said

However, even when slavery was common people knew it was wrong, there were those that fought against it, yeah, historical links would help, but I really dont have time