Originally posted by Halitose
Kant called it: the moral law within.

Tell me about the outrage. Moral outrage is the sort of thing that inspires stoning and burning at the stake (among other things).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Tell me about the outrage. Moral outrage is the sort of thing that inspires stoning and burning at the stake (among other things).

For me it encourages the care and protection of AIDS orphans. Since when does outrage have to be resolved in violence?

Originally posted by Halitose
For me it encourages the care and protection of AIDS orphans. Since when does outrage have to be resolved in violence?

I'd put that under empathy and caring--even practical necessity--rather than outrage, but that's just me.

Originally posted by Halitose
...stop blaming society, since we are society.

When I spoke of primitive societies (despite my use of inverted commas*) I certainly wasn't thinking about the basis for our own western society (ancient greek and rome). I was thinking about tribal cultures like the african bushmen in the Kalahari (San or Basarwa) or peaceful indian tribes in america. I never said that all primitive cultures has been peaceful, just that there are people who manages to live in harmony with nature and neighbours. Unfortunately, they tend to be ravaged by violent (or perhaps dominant is a better word) cultures like our own. (Or maybe the social climate gets colder when a society grows and more people has to be able to live on limited resources. Although the san seem to disprove that theory.) I used the example to point out that I don't think humans are by nature evil and violent any more than we are by nature good and compassionate.** We are indoctrinated at a young age to focus more on one than the other and that sets the climate for the society as a whole.

I think in this case the argument has to be circular because the whole chain of events are circular. You are influenced the most while growing up and it affects you in everything you do later in life (unless you're conciously trying to break the patterns - and even then it's hard sometimes).

So, no, I can't stop blaming society since obviously, for anything to change, society must change.

---

* Had no idea they're called that. I thought they were called quotation marks. 🙂 Thanks, you taught me something new there.

** I believe specific individuals can be more or less agressive depending on genetics, but that in itself doesn't make for evil behaviour. Agression is useful many times. It doesn't have to lead to insane massacres or ravaging of other cultures.

Originally posted by stocken
* Had no idea they're called that. I thought they were called quotation marks.

Quotation marks is fine, too.

Speaking of the San--I experience moral outrage at the treatment they are receiving from the Botswana government. Examining this outrage, I find it based on the fear that their culture will vanish. I'm not sure if I actually empathise with their plight, because in the light of my total lack of insight into their traditional lifestyle (beyond some book knowledge) they constitute for me a romanticised Other. My outrage may even be a form of selfishness. I don't know.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'm not sure if I actually empathise with their plight, because in the light of my total lack of insight into their traditional lifestyle (beyond some book knowledge) they constitute for me a romanticised Other.

I find this sentence hard to understand - and pussling. If I read about a people somewhere in the world that are in a tough situation (that I certainly wouldn't want to be in), I can easily empathise with them.

For all I know, they may be held up as closer to my idea of perfection than they actually are, but their current situation is unacceptable in any rate. I suppose that this is analogue to what I keep repeating (like an iterate programmed robotic): that there is no us and them, just a whole lot of us.

Different cultures really doesn't make us different beings.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Getting back to the original theme here, if the JGos is only 1700 years old, then it is contaminated by 300 years of christian reformist history and doesn't seem to me to have much validity. There would have to be a 1900 year old document that verified what the later one said to have any real historical force.

The gospel of judas was first written in 180 AD ca. Then the christian church had a debate about including the gospel in the new testament (finally deciding not to) and it was copied in 220-340 AD. It's that copy everyone is talking about now.

I think it's fair to question, not just the gospel of judas as a historical document, but also the manuscripts included in the new testament. They are all copies from earlier manuscripts and they were all assembled long after the fact.

Right?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'd put that under empathy and caring--even practical necessity--rather than outrage, but that's just me.

Not when it's a little boy of 6 years old getting HIV from an uncle.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage

Does natural selection operate at cultural level?

No, cultural selection operates at a sociological level. Calling it natural is just a strawman and my "survival of the fittest" was an obvious simplification.

How would natural selection account for the difference in warfare as practised by the Romans compared to the Celts?
I assume you mean the Goths. The technique of warfare is just one of the determinants of success in battle. The disintegration brought about by an over-expansion was also a cultural phenomenon. I don't believe the fall of the Roman Empire was due to mainly to military losses. Some economists like Von Mises even say it was a problem of inflation which led to bankruptcy and the inability to pay the military.

Originally posted by Palynka
[b]Does natural selection operate at cultural level?

No, cultural selection operates at a sociological level. Calling it natural is just a strawman and my "survival of the fittest" was an obvious simplification.

How would natural selection account for the difference in warfare as practised by the Romans compared to the Celts?
I assume you m ...[text shortened]... it was a problem of inflation which led to bankruptcy and the inability to pay the military.[/b]

Tell me more about cultural selection--I'm not arguing with you, I'm hoping to learn something.

I meant the Celts--in their style of fighting the emphasis was on the bravery of the individual warrior, the champion (very Homeric)--wars could be decided with relatively low loss of life. The Romans dispensed with the warrior ethos and built a very efficient mass killing machine in which the individual was subordinate to the whole (a regular army in other words). They also practised genocide. You could similarly compare the Native American style of warfare (counting coup more important than killing) to the style of the American army (e.g. Wounded Knee).

The Goths were in the right place at the right time.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You could similarly compare the Native American style of warfare (counting coup more important than killing) to the style of the American army (e.g. Wounded Knee).

Just to clarify for those who are not familiar with the warfare of native americans like the Sioux (massacred at Wounded Knee by the american army).

A coup is when you manage to take something of worth from the enemy with great risk to your own life. It was considered an act of great bravery, and for the most part it showed clearly who was the dominating force in the region. War as in killing each other, raping the enemies women and murdering their children were not really needed. Only on rare ocassions did native indian tribes actually go into full scale war with each other (and taking scalps and horrors like that). When the sioux indians (under the leadership of Sitting Bull) found themselves betrayed by the white army (their land taken and their freedom dictated by Indian Agents) they began mobilising in a desperate attempt to fight their way out of their increasingly bad situation.

They managed to get their hands on rifles and they were encouraged by the Paiute shaman Wovoka to perform the ghost dance (so called by the white army because it involved the idea of ressurection of the dead, and which the sioux warriors believed would protect them from the white man's bullets). When the white army decided to arrest Sitting Bull he was killed in the process. Big Foot was the next in line and he decided to fight back. As the white army decided to take the guns from the sioux warriors and arrest the indian leaders at Wounded Knee a firefight broke out. The massacre lead to over 300 dead Sioux indians (women and children among them) and is a shameful display of authority by the white army.

Although general E. D. Scott blamed the whole affair on the indians:

"[...]The Indians at Wounded Knee brought their own destruction as surely as any people ever did. Their attack on the troops was as treacherous as any in the history of Indian warfare, and that they were under a strange religious hallucination is only an explanation not an excuse."

Completely disregarding the events that lead up to the sioux warriors desperate last fight.

Had the american congress honoured the treaty that had been made between the american congress and the natives (even if it was mostly forced on the indians) things could have ended a lot better. (Of course, there's no way I can know that for sure. I suspect that the american natives back then had something called honour, something the white man obviously lacked completely.)

---

I should point out that I'm certainly not calling the Sioux culture peaceful and without innate problems - but they certainly doesn't appear to me to have been a bunch of raving savages without any form of respect for their enemy. The white army on the other hand...