Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 5, 2018 23:30:03 GMT
I'm especially interested in how Christians feel about this.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 6, 2018 1:26:31 GMT
I'm especially interested in how Christians feel about this. Not wrong, just fairly pointless. Sorry I am not of the Christian persuasion.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 6, 2018 2:05:34 GMT
I'm especially interested in how Christians feel about this. Not wrong, just fairly pointless. Sorry I am not of the Christian persuasion. Why "pointless"?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 6, 2018 2:21:17 GMT
Not wrong, just fairly pointless. Sorry I am not of the Christian persuasion. Why "pointless"? Well, it sounds trite, butt you are not comparing apples and oranges, owing to the fact that morality is subjective and changing not only over time, butt over different cultures, hence there is not a meaningful comparison.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 6, 2018 3:30:11 GMT
Not sure why this would matter for Christians since they're top moral standard (There are a few) should be the same as the one adhered to by 1st century Christians.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 6, 2018 3:46:01 GMT
Not sure why this would matter for Christians since they're top moral standard (There are a few) should be the same as the one adhered to by 1st century Christians. What about other cultures and periods throughout history? Should be 'judge' cannibals? Should we judge Sth Americans in past centuries who did child sacrifices? Egyptians who married their close relatives? Surely if you believe in a God given set of absolute objective morals, we should do so?
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 6, 2018 5:05:42 GMT
Well, it sounds trite, butt you are not comparing apples and oranges, owing to the fact that morality is subjective and changing not only over time, butt over different cultures, hence there is not a meaningful comparison. The issue comes up quite often. Do you agree that it is important to study history and learn from past mistakes? One way of informing/reminding present and future generations of history is through the veneration of historical figures. This often takes such forms as displaying statues of them, telling their stories in films/television/plays/novels, naming buildings or awards after them, or putting their faces on postage stamps. Recently, there has been quite a bit of controversy in the US over whether to continue to celebrate famous Americans of history who, in addition to their positive contributions to society, also did things that would be considered immoral if someone today were to behave as they did then. Such as being a slaveholder, or being racist or antisemitic. Even if morality is relative, those who are examining the behavior of past figures could use the morality of their own time as the relational basis for the judgment.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 6, 2018 5:15:59 GMT
Well, it sounds trite, butt you are not comparing apples and oranges, owing to the fact that morality is subjective and changing not only over time, butt over different cultures, hence there is not a meaningful comparison. The issue comes up quite often. Do you agree that it is important to study history and learn from past mistakes? One way of informing/reminding present and future generations of history is through the veneration of historical figures. This often takes such forms as displaying statues of them, telling their stories in films/television/plays/novels, naming buildings or awards after them, or putting their faces on postage stamps. Recently, there has been quite a bit of controversy in the US over whether to continue to celebrate famous Americans of history who, in addition to their positive contributions to society, also did things that would be considered immoral if someone today were to behave as they did then. Such as being a slaveholder, or being racist or antisemitic. Even if morality is relative, those who are examining the behavior of past figures could use the morality of their own time as the relational basis for the judgment. OK, I see where you are going with this as even an ignorant Aussie has heard of the controversy over civil war statues, flags and slavery issues in the USA. I still stick with my statement that it is pointless, however if comparisons have to be made, as in the areas I suggested, I think it is important to understand the historical context. As a history buff, I am absolutely convinced that each era should NOT be viewed through a modern 'lense' though it can often be interesting to superimpose knowledge that we have now on historical scenarios of the past as a kind of 'what if'. Therefore I would come down on the side of letting the events of history speak for themselves in their own time and their own voice. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Most people in history did the best they could with what knowledge and technology they had.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 6, 2018 6:11:15 GMT
Yes.
Because 'cultural context'.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 6, 2018 6:17:51 GMT
Yes. Because 'cultural context'. Are you a Christian?
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 6, 2018 6:26:05 GMT
Yes. Because 'cultural context'. Are you a Christian? Depends on what you mean by 'Christian'.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jul 6, 2018 8:44:19 GMT
Only the primitive people who held humanity back from progress.
👍
Everyone else gets a free pass.
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Jul 6, 2018 8:45:10 GMT
Judge away. They're all mostly dead
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 6, 2018 9:43:12 GMT
Is it wrong to judge the behaviour of people in non-modern western societies by standards of modern western societies?
My opinion: It's ok to judge them, if their country signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and if their society violates them.
However, in the past, there was no Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So judging them is more difficult. But some people did it anyway. Nuremberg trials anyone?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 6, 2018 10:27:32 GMT
Not sure why this would matter for Christians since they're top moral standard (There are a few) should be the same as the one adhered to by 1st century Christians. What about other cultures and periods throughout history? Should be 'judge' cannibals? Should we judge Sth Americans in past centuries who did child sacrifices? Egyptians who married their close relatives? Surely if you believe in a God given set of absolute objective morals, we should do so? I in no way said that there is only one set of absolute morals. I literally said in the statement you quoted that there are a few moral standards. The OP made it clear that there are differing moral standards, so not sure why you even wasted time bringing it up.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 6, 2018 10:30:02 GMT
Judgements on the past (or present) are merely opinions. Our "judgements " have no effect on past actions.
I would say it is largely pointless to be angry about the past actions of others.
It's also rather pointless to focus too much on the actions of the present unless they are in direct conflict of the legal standards (Just another moral standard enforced by government) today.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 6, 2018 11:02:33 GMT
Judgements on the past (or present) are merely opinions. Our "judgements " have no effect on past actions. I would say it is largely pointless to be angry about the past actions of others. Another consideration is the way that writers of the past are used to judge those of us today, for which the same arguments, pro- and anti would seem to apply. Like when today's modern societies are held to account based on the proscriptions of ancient writings, and the inspirations drawn from gods of way back. Or supposing us all us 'guilty' of crimes perceived long before we were born.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 6, 2018 11:07:13 GMT
Judgements on the past (or present) are merely opinions. Our "judgements " have no effect on past actions. I would say it is largely pointless to be angry about the past actions of others. Another consideration is the way that writers of the past are used to judge those of us today, for which the same arguments, pro- and anti would seem to apply. Like when today's modern societies are held to account based on the proscriptions of ancient writings, and the inspirations drawn from gods of way back. Or supposing us all us 'guilty' of crimes perceived long before we were born. The "judgement", which again is largely an opinion anyway, is a current moral standard people choose to adhere to rather than a past one. I suppose some think that creating a new morality every fifty years for freshness' sake is a god idea, although that seems kinda stupid to me. Nopw if you want to waste time arguing the notion of God's existence, that seems to be a different topic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2018 11:09:25 GMT
In most cases i would say no. But in some cases yes
But its pretty pointless to judge the long dead.
I am not a christian but i am answering it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 6, 2018 11:13:21 GMT
Another consideration is the way that writers of the past are used to judge those of us today, for which the same arguments, pro- and anti would seem to apply. Like when today's modern societies are held to account based on the proscriptions of ancient writings, and the inspirations drawn from gods of way back. Or supposing us all us 'guilty' of crimes perceived long before we were born. The "judgement", which again is largely an opinion anyway, is a current moral standard people choose to adhere to rather than a past one. I was thinking specifically of those religious types characteristically judging modern society - and normally finding it lacking - by the standards of previous ages, through their various scriptures. In fact the sight of contemporary faithists railing against the different manifestations of modern living is quite a trope. The argument can be made that, if it is unwise to judge the past through the lens of the present, then the reverse ought also to be the case. I don't think it requires a conscious act, although one can identify notable sea-changes down the years, such as the civil rights movement. And when considering slower changes, the genealogy of morals is a well-established observation. It would be indeed.
|
|