Who believes that the morality..........

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Slartibartfast, Aug 15, 2018.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,509
    Depends on what how we define "applicable". For instance, I don't find the ignorance of hatemongers applicable to anything useful in the twenty-first century, so I certainly wouldn't trust their ridiculous pretenses about morality.

    Ask me about getting a tattoo the next time we're lost in a desert, together. Practicality is one thing, but I don't know, if the kids are going all goth and everything, y'know, 'cause flails are sexy, maybe people without scientific equipment like electron microscopes will go with morality instead of microbiology.

    Besides, when did telling the kids it's dangerous ever stop them?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Slartibartfast Registered Member

    Messages:
    51
    It would seem that your grasp of the English language and indeed reality is somewhat tenuous. I might wait until your released, although I do hope that is not imminent.
    Thanks. Bye for now. Keep eyes down back away slowly.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,867
    Sometimes it does take a champ just to quit.

    http://gawker.com/what-happened-to-the-runner-who-shit-himself-during-a-h-1681442684

    In a post-race interview, a reporter asked him, "Did you ever consider stopping to clean off?"

    "No, I'd lose time," he explained, "If you quit once, it's easy to do it again and again and again. It becomes a habit."
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Slartibartfast Registered Member

    Messages:
    51
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,509
    That we live in a period when people need that shit explained to them.
     
  9. Slartibartfast Registered Member

    Messages:
    51
    Good to see you don't. Not that it really makes any difference
     
  10. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,867
     
  11. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,202
    But there's no need to assume that civilized is better than savage.
     
    sculptor likes this.
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,183
    I can't imagine how that could be true (that there's no need to assume it).
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,509
    History demonstrates.

    Try it this way:

    • I know a man, and he's just one example, but he does, in fact, think he is civilized, and for the most part, sure, he seems to be. But he also has this weird vulnerability. We can both agree, for instance, that sexual harassment is not civil, but his way around it is that he, in approaching a woman, gets to decide what sexual harassment is, such that he gets angry to the point of prim at the notion that she gets to perceive for herself and respond for herself: How dare she have a different opinion than him.

    • Similarly, in my society we spent nearly a quarter century having a fight including the incivility of women having sex without including men.

    ↳ There is no need to assume "civilized" is better; if the sum effect is that lesbians are savage, an orgiastic heap of consenting savagery is a far more civilized iteration than my acquaintance's sense of civilization.​

    Or we could mutter something about syphilis, but that also gets into a larger history of the economics of civilization, and trying to quantify behavior people refuse to acknowledge is a practice fraught with hazard. But there is a point in the Euro-American arc of history at which part of the reason Europeans have filthy cities for syphilis to flourish and evolve before making the return trip to the Americas has to do with simple greed. How about black plague? Instead of building bonfires and singing ring around the rosy, people should have been fleeing cities and spreading out, but even if they knew enough about biology to figure that out, would they? It would have been bad for the economy, and the job creators would have complained. And therein we might encounter a not entirely trivial question about Lord Byron and technology.
     
  14. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,202
    You're looking at it from a civilized point of view and assuming that your point of view is best.
     
  15. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,142
    You can have a "civilized" holocaust, or you can have "savages" living sustainably in harmony with nature.
     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,183
    Oh, you mean not objectively, quantifiably better - as opposed to subjectively.
    Agree.
     
  17. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,202
    "Better" is not something that is easily quantifiable.
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,183
    Exactly.
     
  19. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    They aren't , but tradition says they are
     
  20. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,163
    We're less civilized, and people of the past are less stupid, than we think we/they are.
    That said, what do you mean by "the morality of [savages]"? Even ignoring the fact that the concept of "the savage" is a culturally chauvinistic bordering on racist...do you think that the basics of societal cooperation, compassion, and reciprocity are somehow less relevant now than they were two to ten thousand years ago?
     
  21. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,506
    Which codes of morality are you referring to? There were and have been many.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,444
    I agree. The use of the term "savage" loads the question from the start, because the implication is that the morality of "savages" is undesirable.

    It's better to talk specifically about particular moral precepts or frameworks that existed in the past. Depending on which particular "savages" you look at, the answer as to whether their morality was any "good" to or not varies. Morality isn't just one rule (or even a bunch of rules) anyway. It's usually an entire collection of behaviours in response to different circumstances and situations.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2018
    sculptor likes this.
  23. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,506
    Were the Buddhists savages, Hindus, Romans, Christians?
     

Share This Page