Historical Ethical Standards of Society

Remove all ads!

Throughout the history of humankind, societies have had practices which we now universally see as deplorable or disgusting. Laws that were unjust, slavery, gender discrimination, even genocide. These things were commonplace and, sadly, still are. Yet, when we ask about these "horrors of our past" there is also a wave of apologists explaining that slavery worked when we did it.....society is different now (even though there is still a lot of slavery in the world even today) or that women didn't really WANT to be given equal treatment, equal rights and equal representation. My question is a global one. We all know that the world was different in the past, and had a lot to do with many of the injustices of our history. The question in my mind, however, is does that excuse the sins of our past? Does that make it right? Does the fact that we can UNDERSTAND or RATIONALISE why a certain law or practice existed make the practice excusable?

 

No.

Why should it? Being able to explain something doesn't mean you want to excuse it. Knowledge of what wrongs were done helps to prevent that similar things happen in the future.

 

There's a basic mistake in your reasoning. You are viewing the whole of history from the position of a person living in the modern era of democracy, complex civil rights and all sorts of rights mainly serving to provide suing grounds and silence all opposition with a court verdict (and, consequently, the rubber friends of big fat cops who stand behind courts) like it was in the past by getting the shaman or priest or chieftain or some sort of patriarchs or elders to your side. Things haven't changed so much per se, maybe methods or even simply tools.

It's not true that all those modern rights benefit all people, let alone all people equally. There is no slavery (incidentally, it would also be good to refer to historical sources instead of seeing slavery the way it was shown in political propaganda) of the old kind in the civilised world - but as you say, it exists outside and you probably included human trade such as kidnapping women for brothels in that. But let's not forget the huge unemployment problems pushing people into working for minimal wage and either becoming militant lefties or falling into the other extreme and being euphorically happy because some greedy capitalist wow! can you imagine? employed them for minimal wage! Eh. Or how much do you own? Everything is owned by banks or licensed.

Slavery is often associated with lack of access to basic aminities, facilities, hygiene, good food and drink, culture, information... And how much of it can you get for a minimal wage? What kind of junk do people eat? Hygiene and public healthcare or less than snooby eateries... errr... Right. And culture? Idiotic organisations like RIAA are pushing us back on the tree. Information is a bit laughable, even given the sheer amount of lies and bogus crap that one medium calls another one on after finding evidence. And even without concrete evidence, lots of the crap from TV is evident bogus, anyway, if you just listen a bit more deeply.

I'm not saying that modern life of average citizen is more or less correspondent with the predominant image of slavery, but there were slaves and slaves. Ever heard anything of the aristocrats complaining of the libertini (liberated slaves) governing the Roman Empire in the time of the emperors? Some slaves ran their more or less own (legally separated from the master's property, if still revocable -- under the same rules as for the master's children's property) big enterprises and dressing in clothes many a citizen didn't even get to see often... or being sent to Greece for complex education so they would educate spoilt rich brats back in Rome. Those slaves might well escape to freedom but did they really want? Slavery can't be that bad if you can send your slave with a shipful of your own goods to a different country and he comes back. Heck, actually, slaves were liberated so often that the emperors had to limit the number of slaves able to gain freedom in the master's last will or families would go bankrupt. IIRC in ancient Egypt they had a slave uprising... when they wanted to abolish slavery. Because those people would have been far from better off on their own.

I could go on and on like that but some people will still cling to the images from books and films (which were actually true in many, many cases -- let's not jump into the other naive extreme, which would be praising slavery now), others will say whatever, civil rights are teh powah!!!11, and inevitably someone will chime in with slavery in the Bible.

The point is, while rights exist in abundance the modern society, practice is not as sweet as theory (the most democratic consitution ever has probably been Stalin's USSR one... just look at the application part), but do they make difference? Does the fact you can vote change your influence on the governing of the country significantly? One should take a deeper look at history, one not constrained by a fervent fanatic belief in the modern political vocabulary. Let's look at the real difference rather than the shape of the laws then in power, which are always interpreted from a modern perspective, anyway (which is something professional lawyers should be whacked on the head with a brick for -- taking laws out of the context and sticking to the letter which can't even be translated unambiguously).

So yes, I probably arrive at the conclusion you made, that not so much has changed. But I see it differently: talking has changed more than doing. It's not just old ways of naming things having survived here and there. It's more or less the same kind of social structure surviving under different labels and being modified by inevitable general progress.

Speaking of progress, everything evolves. This includes countries, laws, religions, philosophical systems, education. Good old Cicero (who was not so good as he claimed to be, anyway) said that not to know history was always to remain a boy (child). That's correct. But one can't live in the past and spend his life doing penance for the sins of the past generations... Especially if they aren't even clearly known, let alone understood. Things are evolving, progressing, and if now is better than before (which shouldn't really be assumed just like that), it means it's working like intended.

It's good to have a complex understanding of human condition, dignity, necessities, maybe even rights, but the sins of our fathers are not our sins and the fathers did what their times showed them as a possibility, basing on the reality they had back then. You can't really blame Hammurabi or Moses for not coming up with tens of thousands of equity precedents or tons of civil codes continental style, and you can't blame Alexander, Julius Caesar or Charlemagne for not bringing democracy, free elections and MacDonald's on the tips of their swords to the whole known world.

No offence, but the dwelling on the sins of the fathers sounds like feeling guilty for being white and feeling personally responsible for some slave master who hit some slave hundreds of years ago. You aren't responsible for the kid filching the old lady's purse two streets away and you aren't responsible for chavs wreaking havoc in a suburb and you aren't responsible for a bloody dictator's lackey breaking someone's legs in an interrogation room on a different continent, in any personal sense. It's all a part of the paradigm we live in, and we are collectively responsible for the whole of it and what we make of it, so we can't say we have nothing to do with hungry children in Africa or ecological destruction in Amazonia, but what people do or have done is not the same what we do with our own hands.

 

/me looks around for an impending cataclysm

Thanks for saving me the effort of typing, Chev.

Drew, instead of focusing on what was wrong with the past, maybe you should look for the things that went right and how past events - for good or for ill, by either modern or ancient standards - led to where we find ourselves and our societies today. Also, you might want to keep in mind that someone 2000 years from now will be looking back at our era with the same smug regret that you're applying to the ancient world.

 

Aren't you clever.

Why don't you people answer the actual question of the thread, instead of making assumptions about how Drew views "the whole of history?"

My answer is no. Of course it's always good to know the context of things, but historical figures really shouldn't be put on a pedestal if they've done something deplorable by today's standards. Things can be rationalised, we can for example consider racist people ignorant instead of plain evil. What I find very strange is that while some religious folks are so very absolute with their ideas of right and wrong, the second the historic figures significant to them appear to have done or supported things we condemn today, moral becomes relative and tied to its specific time and place.

This being news to whom? Hopefully so, I say. Hopefully the world will be a better place then, if humans are even around. What I don't get is where this "smug regret" idea comes from. My smugometer didn't register anything.

 

Frankly I considered Julius Caesar to be a very upright and moral man by even todays standards. Sure, he overthrew a republic (i.e. democracy) and became an emperor but frankly it was the best thing to happen to Rome since the defeat of Carthage. He was true to his friends, forgave them for even openly opposing him and was angry beyond belief when he heard of Pompey's death.

And if in 2000 years we're looking back to see how horrible we are today... well this future probably won't have a concept of violence. Remember that the dark ages were more 'immoral' than the time of the Roman Empire. So to say that humanity is progressively becoming more moral isn't true.

 

Yeah, humanity isn't progressively becoming more moral. But nowadays there is a serious discrepancy between traditional morality and modern ethics, things like people's rights categorised as their own rights (as opposed to what action they are entitled to (Roman style) or the general morality and moral obligations for everyone (Christian style) are being viewed as a sign of progress. Perhaps not so much moral as philosophical, finding old things like slavery inconsistent with certain higher values but still not always seing rampant liberal capitalism as something wrong. For instance. It's a social process more than moral, but the judgement of slavery is a social occurence, as I am trying to show. Especially because most of the people who talk about slavery haven't really had any experience, personal or social or historical or legal with it.

[ March 30, 2006, 20:00: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

To make the question more specific. We used to practice slavery. It was considered normal and acceptable, even by the Christian church at that time. Does the fact that society was different then excuse this? Slavery is just one example, but since people are apparently trying to encapsulate my entire worldview from a simple question I felt a more direct example was in order.

I strongly disagree with the assertion that society isn't getting more tolerant and "moral" since I place personal freedom on a much higher pedestal than "morality". Morality is subjective and changes from person to person. Personal freedom is an easilly defined concept, and vicariously enforces a standard of morality. My freedom should end before it injures someone else. However, if there is no victim, there is no crime. The idea of equal rights without regard to race, gender, religion or credo is a new one. It also hasn't fully taken root yet. On the other hands we have had at least 5 large scale attempts at genocide in the last 100 years or so.....so I readilly admit we have a long way to go. Morality, which I equate with religion (non-religious standards of proper behaviour fall under the category of ethics.....ethics and morality are not the same thing), was the cause of most of these attempts at Genocide. 3 of the 5 attempts were based on religion. The other 2 I'm thinking of are tribal.

No, I can't. I can however blame Ceasar for ruthlessly ceasing control of the republic for himself and killing anyone in his way to do it. On the other hand this was never about blame, to begin with. Jefferson wasn't a bad man for having slaves, but having slaves was a bad thing. Just because I think something is/was bad doesn't mean that I think the person that did that thing was a bad person. I am, however, perfectly entitled to the opinion that the person did something bad.


@Rallymama: I do appreciate the good things from our past....since we bring them with us into modern society. My negative statements about our history stems from my optimism about our future. My parents raised me to be a more open and tolerant person than they were....and I look forward to the day when my sons are more open and tolerant than me. I do, however, get tired of people who talk about returning to the "old" values, since women's liberation, religious freedom, economic equality, and freedom from enslavement were not on the list of "old" values. I feel we have kept what was good and thrown away what is bad and feel that we will continue to do this as we learn from our mistakes and throw away those things that are detrimental.

[ March 31, 2006, 02:28: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

This may sound a bit eh, "hand washed"? but those sins of the past you mention where commited by other people. Now, our duty as human beings is to learn from what we now think of as "mistakes" and get on with our lives. It's been 30 years since our last dictatorship, and we have a saying "Nunca más" (Nevermore, like that famous raven!). We know we must remember what happened; we learned not to take sides and look at it as objectively as possible. We're still trying to destroy a bunch of prejudices from that time. We, I think, understand why it happened and there's no way anyone here could think it was excusable (bah, probably some people would).
So that's my point. I've heard many historians (correct word?) saying not to look at things as "it was excusable" or "it wasn't".
This question could have another approach, one which I don't feel like analizing right now, but here's something for you to think: was it excusable THEN? Probably it was, humans have this tendency to create ermmm theories to legitimize their behaviour.

 

Of course it was. The danger, however, is that we often use that fact as an excuse to avoid examining the issue close enough and learn the right lessons. Personally, I think that arguing that slavery was historically different than it is now just cheapens the issue. Yes, yes, I know that not all slaves were given nothing but scraps to subsist on........most people know that. Slavery still wouldn't be OK with a benevolent master because, no matter how you view the issue, a slave is a slave. He has no freedom. No choice about what he can do with his life. He was born into your service, and he will die there.....unless he is sold to someone else. He has no hope of every realising his dreams. Hope is what keeps us going. We live for our dreams. When you deprive a man of his hopes and dreams you kill his spirit. That is bad enough.

 

You're very selective about citing the old testament, Drew. This wasn't the case with slaves held by Jews.

 

Re: the initial question - No, it does not. Everything that has happened has played a part in bringing us to this point - our economic, political and social order is a consequence of what has gone before. While we may be able to rationalise or explain the actions of our predecessors, that is not to say that they were necessarily justified or even excusable. The issue of descendant responsibility is where the line really gets blurry for me, but that's a little off-topic.

For example - in Australia, the policy of forcible removal of part-Aboriginal children from their families during parts of the 20th century was seen by many as a benevolent act; the Aboriginal race was in decline, they thought, and it was only through removal that these children could be saved. I see that view being grounded in racist determinism and essentialism, which is why I believe the "but we meant well" argument holds little water.

Today, the developed nations are fortunate enough to have conquered the basic elements of survival (in the main). Most people have food, shelter and a means of support. It would be unwise to forget exactly how that was achieved - to do so would be to disown one's heritage. However, by conveniently forgetting the more brutal and grim aspects of history, we run the risk of succumbing to the same vanities and evils that served as an underpinning for the growth of nations, but in a subtler form.

For anyone who's interested, Norbert Elias' The Civilising Process is a decent if overly thorough examination of the phenomenon of changing societal values as a consequence of evolving sensitivities and the important assigned to particular acts and omissions. His argument is not that it is necessarily a good or bad thing, but rather that it is inevitable and observable.

 

Uh....I wasn't quoting from the old testament, here. Jews weren't the only people on the planet, you know. While the Jews did practice slavery, so did everyone else.....and in most cultures that practiced slavery a slaves children were born into slavery. Since you brought it up, are you saying that it would be OK to go back to slavery as long as we do so using the standards outlined in the Old Testament? I'm quite at a loss for why you would even bring it up. Slavery is never defensible. Slaves are slaves. They aren't free. That is bad enough. No matter how well you treat him, you are robbing a man of his most precious asset when you enslave him.....his freedom.

 

I believe that human rights are learned behaviour. While yes, those things in our past range from distasteful to outright horriffic, they were necessary to learn from them and progress. The problem is that not all social change is actually progress. There are ills today that we will learn from and make a future society different for the change...

 

Try "do unto others as you would be done unto". Should be a very easy moral to live by, been around for awhile but practiced by these great and mighty historical figures extremely seldomly. I disagree that they were "necessary" to learn from. Just think about how you would react/feel if someone tried to do it to you and you get a very simple answer of "BAD".

I doubt anyone will disagree with that, just exactly what constitutes those "ills" and how society will change because of them. My own thoughts are probably significantly different to yours and revolve around individual freedom, so long as that doesn't impinge on someone elses.
Oh yes, and it's kind of implicit that the person who tries to take other peoples rights away, forfeits their own. Active vs Reactive.

 

Perhaps not, but human societies, on the whole, are.

Pick a developed nation. Go back a few hundred years in its history. If you can argue the society is not "more moral" than it used to be--without laughing--I'll be very impressed.

 

The problem is that when they disagree, there are people that don't want you doing unto them as they would do unto you. If I was seriously straying downt he path of sin, I would want correction, but only from those that understand my beliefs. I really don't want a Muslim cleric telling me my faith is but a more experiences LDS member or priesthood leader, I would welcome, and I try to do that for others, even though they don't always welcome it...

That's the point, we only learned from mistakes by actually making them...

Again, it's our turn to learn what's best for society. About 150 years ago, it was slavery, 50 years ago it was civil rights for minorities, now it might be about balance between the individual and the collective...

Every society has had to under go a learning process, some have even faced wars of revolution and attepmts at secession as part of that progression...

 

Sorry Gnarf, I don't mean to pick on you, it just seems we post at similar times & I don't have time to go back through the whole thread. You've just proven my point entirely though - you don't follow the simple rule. You don't want other people telling you your faith is wrong, but have no compunction about doing the same to other people.

 

Maybe we should go back to the originally version of the Golden Rule. About 500 years before Christ was preaching, the great sage Hillel summed up the Torah by saying "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you."

The difference may seem subtle, but think about it for a while. Which allows for greater tolerance of individual liberties and differences of opinion?

 

One could argue that the positive version of this saying is Kant's Categorical Imperative: