I didn't see the end coming

[andrewducker]

Actually, this doesn't just cover the past - it covers large chunks of the world now.  And it's the main reason why I get _so_ fed up with people who seem to think that because someone has an opinion they don't like it must mean the person is eeeevil.

Comments

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

But everyone who disagrees with me, even on the smallest point, is by definition eeeeeeeeeeeeevil -- someone who seekritly worships Santa and who tries to pass off domestic salmon as imported to kittens.

[seph-hazard.livejournal.com]

Well, if someone has an opinion that was Wrong because they were raised by Wrong people in a Wrong society surrounded by nothing but Wrong, then they merely need patience and education. If somebody is Wrong while they are surrounded by Right people and in full possession of all the Right facts, they are either too stupid to have any hope for or, you know, eeeevil...

(PS and as of course you know, Wrong people most certainly go to heaven just so long as they've got the whole 'died for your sins' part down. And then once they get there, they are Right about everything because they have new bodies and and new minds and oneness with God and all that shit.)

[andrewducker]

If they have new minds, are they still the people they were beforehand?

[seph-hazard.livejournal.com]

New minds isn't actually in the Bible, it's just what my addled mind brainfarted into the comment box while trying to explain [blush] New bodies and oneness with God is the deal, though. That ought to correct any residual Wrongness well enough :-)

[robhu.livejournal.com]

This is particularly apropos in church history. People in the church (who care about it's history) tend to venerate the people of the past, and assume that along with whatever good theological ideas they had (which we'd now think were a good thing) that they also must have had similar moral ideas (because today the people that follow in their theological footsteps are such pretty nice chaps).

Take the great reformation leader Martin Luther for instance, who is (in as much as you can pick anyone out in this sense) responsible for modern protestant Christianity, and a good deal of the reform that has occurred in the Roman Catholic church.

He wrote On the Jews and their Lies which included such gems as the following eight point plan:

1. "First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. ..."
2. "Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. ..."
3. "Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. ..."
4. "Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. ..."
5. "Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. ..."
6. "Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them. ... Such money should now be used in ... the following [way]... Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed [a certain amount]..."
7. "Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow... For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants."
8. "If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews' blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country" and "we must drive them out like mad dogs."

Now obviously I think he's a grade A dick head for writing something like that, but by the standards of the day his views weren't as obviously outrageous as we know they are today (insert assumption about modern ideas necessarily being more 'objectively correct' here).

I've read about other great figures in history like Winston Churchill who were complete bastards by today's standards as well. I think the only fair thing to do is to judge people (in this sense) by looking at how their views differed from the cultural milieu in which they existed.

Oh, and in terms of T-Rex's question -- I think there are a whole bunch of racists who went to heaven because I think people get to heaven on the basis of what Jesus was like, not what they were like, AND I think that we're transformed during this process so all the crappiness about us is taken away (the Bible talks about 'being refined by fire' in the way that 'gold, purest gold' is so that all the impurities are removed [personally I'm hoping that bit is not particularly literal!]).

Congrats on using Dinosaur Comics BTW, it's got to be my favourite web comic.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

I wonder how future people will judge us and the moral decisions we've made. Probably similarly to how we judge those of the past.

Also - there is an underlying assumption today that as time goes on society makes moral progress, but this may well not be the case, and in the future things that we think are very morally good might then be thought to be very morally bad.

Of course (as argued ad infinitum elsewhere) if there's no absolute morality it's all meaningless to talk in these terms anyway. All we can really say is that someone's views are inline or out of line with the current majority view (or one's personal view).

[andrewducker]

Of course (as argued ad infinitum elsewhere) if there's no absolute morality it's all meaningless to talk in these terms anyway. All we can really say is that someone's views are inline or out of line with the current majority view (or one's personal view).

Exactly - I _prefer_ the morality that's around now, and I do think that it's more "reasonable" - insofar as it doesn't oppress people for things that don't hurt other people (being a particular gender, race, or sexuality) - but I have no idea what the opinions of people will be 50 years in the future.

They'll probably find us disgusting for killing animals and eating them.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

They might find is to be disgusting for not oppressing and hurting and killing other people.

[scribb1e.livejournal.com]

Being *able* to practice certain kinds of morality safely depends on your society too.

If you believe that killing animals is wrong, but you live somewhere where there are insufficient sources of plant protein, you'll have to eat animals or die.

If you believe that killing humans is wrong, but you live in a violent society, you might have to have weapons and be prepared to use them in order to defend yourself.

If you believe that war is wrong, but another country invades yours and starts killing or enslaving your people, would you fight back?

If you believe that racial segregation is wrong, and you run a school for one race in a segregated society, should you admit a member of another race to that school, knowing the likely results (everyone else withdraws their children, bankruptcy, child you admitted still fails to get an education).

Some people manage to go against the tide of their society, but a lot of people go along with it EVEN IF they believe it is wrong.

[aliiis.livejournal.com]

I don't have a dinosaur comics icon :(
(BUT I do have an email from my fellow linguist Ryan North :) (*high five*))
BUT can I just say I'm really sad that 'overwhelmingly' has a typo here?!
(also dinosaur comics is clearly amazing and yaaaaassss)