Of course social harmony is the purpose of mores; what other goal could they have? — Janus
Can you give an example of a society that valued mores that were designed to promote disharmony? — Janus
What do you think the purpose of ethical and moral teachings in general could be? — Janus
when I say things that are more or less established general informed opinion such as that individualism as we moderns understand it, is not emphasized or even existent in primitive and ancient cultures, and that the idea evolved out of conceptions that are more or less unique to Western culture, — Janus
ince there is no judiciary and no other strong checks on "executive" power, what power there is can be arbitrarily applied, unless there are strong social rules against this. And such rules are usually religious. — Echarmion
Well, any goal whatsoever. You've not provided a mechanism by which they would be restricted to social harmony. — Isaac
Nazi Germany. — Isaac
To get people to conform to whatever set of behaviors the ruling elite think will be in their best interests. — Isaac
It's to do with perpetuating this dangerous myth that tribal cultures are barely thinking brutes compared to the enlightened westerners who will come and save them from themselves. — Isaac
This is the bit I'm asking you for evidence for. That such rules are usually religious. — Isaac
Give an actual example of an alternative goal if you want me to take your answer seriously. — Janus
So, you claim that Nazi Germany promoted social mores designed to produce internal disharmony? — Janus
So, you think that, for example, the paradigm ethical teaching of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is designed to "get people to conform to whatever set of behaviours the ruling elite think will be in their best interests"? Are you serious? — Janus
I said that the evidence suggests that ancient and primitive cultures did not have an idea of individual entitlement comparable to the modern Western conception — Janus
No, it isn't. And yet I'm still waiting for any evidence at all to support your assertion that tribal cultures do not think the latter. — Isaac
I am not an anthropologist. But you can probably look at every culture on earth and find strong, usually conceptually unalterable, social rules based on religion. Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, the ancestor worship of China or various Micronesian tribes. All these contain such social rules. Is that somehow not evidence?
If you want to say that this correlation does not amount to causation, you need to show examples of secular unalterable rules forming. — Echarmion
Since the orthodox opinion is, as far as I am aware, that they don't think that way; the burden is on you to provide evidence that they do. As far as I am aware in tribal communities individuals are understood predominately in terms of the social roles, and what they would be entitled to would vary according to their roles (and their attendant importance to the community). — Janus
You think the mores promoted by Nazi Germany were aimed a social harmony? — Isaac
Just name a source, a pedagogic source from which we 'learn' 'do unto others...' that does not then go on to teach entirely culturally manipulative objectives like religion, individualism, property rights etc. — Isaac
Your claim is that moral law is necessarily contained within religious law. — Isaac
You should have some evidence for this to hand. — Isaac
Theories by actual experts (I know, unpopular round here) as to how Hunter-Gatherers maintained their egalitarian societies broadly fall into three camps. Richard Lee's and Christopher Boehm's concept of 'reverse dominance' where the majority act in unison to diminish even the slightest air of superiority a single individual might have, and thereby socially 'nipping dominance in the bud'. Then there's Peter Gray's Ideas about childhood freedom to play allowing a greater social exploration, or Elizabeth Thomas's ideas about the effect of indulgent parenting providing emotional support missing in later cultures. None mention religion even once. — Isaac
they did not promote mores such as their own people lying to one another, or murdering, raping and torturing one another. — Janus
if the people were unhappy to significant degree there would have been unrest and revolt against the regime. — Janus
What? What do you think went on in Nazi Germany? They promoted mores which encouraged people to think of Jews as lesser humans — Isaac
No, it's not. You're welcome to provide evidence for this claim, if you have it. — Echarmion
what power there is can be arbitrarily applied, unless there are strong social rules against this. And such rules are usually religious. — Echarmion
most ideas of inalienable rights and equality are, at least historically, connected to religious ideas. — Echarmion
This is especially true for ideas like inalienable human rights, since this implies an absolute limit to the use of force. Historically, such limits to power were almost always religious. — Echarmion
There are now three people in this thread who you misrepresent. I suggest you take a step back and look at what was actually written. — Echarmion
I just gave you a bunch of evidence. What's wrong with that? — Echarmion
I did not argue that religion was necessary to "maintain an egalitarian hunter-gatherer society". — Echarmion
what power there is can be arbitrarily applied, unless there are strong social rules against this. And such rules are usually religious. — Echarmion
most ideas of inalienable rights and equality are, at least historically, connected to religious ideas. — Echarmion
This is especially true for ideas like inalienable human rights, since this implies an absolute limit to the use of force. Historically, such limits to power were almost always religious. — Echarmion
The Jews were not considered to be their own people. How many times do I have to explain what I mean? — Janus
I've outlined it for Echarmion above. — Isaac
Theories by actual experts (I know, unpopular round here) as to how Hunter-Gatherers maintained their egalitarian societies broadly fall into three camps. Richard Lee's and Christopher Boehm's concept of 'reverse dominance' where the majority act in unison to diminish even the slightest air of superiority a single individual might have, and thereby socially 'nipping dominance in the bud'. Then there's Peter Gray's Ideas about childhood freedom to play allowing a greater social exploration, or Elizabeth Thomas's ideas about the effect of indulgent parenting providing emotional support missing in later cultures. None mention religion even once. — Isaac
What there could be interpreted any other way than to suggest that people could do any action 'use of force' etc in the absence of religious laws? — Isaac
What I read when I take a step back is three people furiously back-peddling from blatantly lazy colonialist ideas about the 'backward natives' by gradually refining their arguments to increasingly specific correlations. What started off as suggesting that people could arbitrarily apply power before religion, has now become "well, tribes don't have a written bill of rights like we do". — Isaac
That's not evidence, it's stuff you reckon. evidence is the theory of experts in the field based on empirical study. — Isaac
How do you marry 'egalitarian society' with one in which the strong have no checks as to the arbitrary application of force over the weak? — Isaac
Yes, and the idea of Jews not being part of 'their people' was a social more which caused disharmony. — Isaac
So, individualism is suppressed by "reverse dominance". Where is the notion of "rights of the individual" in that? I haven't said their societies were not in any practical sense egalitarian. — Janus
Do you really expect me to take your claim that these three represent the orthodox idea of the history of the development of the idea of individual rights seriously? — Janus
I was referring not to individual use of force, but use of force by the tribal community, the chief, the king, the state etc. Something we might call "political power". I wasn't referring to just any and all behaviour. Sorry if that wasn't clear. — Echarmion
Are you claiming that what I wrote is factually wrong? — Echarmion
Egalitarian refers to the relative distribution of power and resources. Not to the limits on the application of said power and resources. — Echarmion
You said "and what they would be entitled to would vary according to their roles (and their attendant importance to the community)" was the orthodox view. Varying entitlements is not egalitarianism is it? — Isaac
Well, why don't you tell me what sort of evidence you've used to decide what you think is the orthodox view and I'll try to match that? — Isaac
You know as well as I do what the orthodox view is. — Janus
The problem is how we get from an objective descriptive fact to an objective normative rule. — Echarmion
I would think that we look for an objective standard in order to justify applying that standard to others. If we regard moral propositions as purely subjective, enforcing law and order amounts to nothing more than 'might makes right', right? — JosephS
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.