Moral Judgments

Not sure what your point is here--although the info. was interesting and maybe can used as examples in this discussion.From my own "system," all the actions were bad except the outlawing by the government. But logically I can't judge since I have no grounds for disapproving of revenge and head-shrinking and the commercialization of head-shrinking and the like.Holmes might be able to discuss non-moral concepts about the world as regards this case.

This is sheer beauty, Abshalom. Sheer beauty. Obviously these were normative behaviors within their cultural context. If not, the behaviors would certainly have died out or been proscribed. IOW, as "holmes' law" puts it, they were consistent. And here is where we start getting into the really interesting bits. I would submit that the Europeans were not, in fact, operating in a manner consistent with European (read Judeo-Christian) morality. This type of "murder for profit" would certainly be against their morals in their own culture, therefore the encouraging of this behavior in some other culture is inconsistent. Civil protection has nothing to do with it - we're talking morality here, not laws. Under the original Jivaro morality in which headhunting developed, the new emphasis is inconsistent: profit was not the motive for headhunting. So in that sense, it would be immoral in a Jivaro context. However, morality DOES change over time, and this provides a nice example of why "universal morality" is a nonsense term. I would probably say the new emphasis represented a new normative behavior - hence a new morality paradigm - and would be consistent. Obviously they didn't see anything wrong with the idea...The Europeans are merely compounding their error from point #2 above. Yes. It was consistent with the government's Euro-centric (or at least European-derived) cultural morality. Oddly enough, it appears the Peruvian and Ecuadorian governments were more consistent with Judeo-Christian morality than the European powers who are supposed to be the most civilized (just ask 'em, they'll tell you) nations on Earth.

A few other instances that I would love to see discussed are:

1. the creation of Panama?
2. the specific case "Cherokee Nation vs the State of Georgia?"
3. the Opium Trade?

_{forgot a closing paren}This message has been edited by jar, 01-04-2005 17:07 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

1) Were the original moral concepts behind headhunting and tsante-making valid or justifiable within the Jivaro's traditional culture?yes.2) Were the European tourist and curio merchants morally justified in stimulating shrunken head trade? After all, they were operating within their set of morals that apparently did not consider naked savages morally worthy of civil protection.no. It would be highly inconsistent with most European norms to trade in human goods. Let me put it this way, even if they felt the same as above with regard to protections, they would not have felt it okay to consistently rape or murder them themselves, correct? And if the main product of the culture had been human soup, they would not have been eating it... right?3) Was the escalated headhunting morally corrupt within either the Javoro or the European moral concepts?Yes, it was corrupt in both. The European one for the reasons stated in 2, for the Javoro because the principle of revenge and accumulation of spiritual power had been replaced by blatant commercialism. It might as well have been fishing or trapping. And using guns replaced the more honorable methods of killing another.4) If "yes" to #3, then who were the more corrupt?I don't see how this can be computed and why it is relevant.5) Did the government have "moral" grounds for outlawing tsantsa-making? Whose moral standards did the new laws serve?It did not need moral grounds. A government needs only practical reasons to end the commercial killing of people within its domain.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

So 9-11 and that soldier who fragged his buddies' tent were apparently acting consistently within their moral system. Are we to conclude that murder, as long as it is committed by a true believer of Allah, is fine?

---

Well, Aquinas decreed that a christian can and should commit murder on behalf of the state. Are we therefore to think that murder committed by a christian believer is fine becuase they are acting consistently with their moral system?I find your hypocrisy offensive, HangDawg.

quote:

---

no. It would be highly inconsistent with most European norms to trade in human goods.

---

Clearly false - European states presided over the triangle slave trade, after all. They were quite willing and able to treat non-whites asd non-people.

quote:

---

Let me put it this way, even if they felt the same as above with regard to protections, they would not have felt it okay to consistently rape or murder them themselves, correct?

---

They would and they did in all colonial contexts without exception, as far as I am aware.

quote:

---

And if the main product of the culture had been human soup, they would not have been eating it... right?

---

Probably not but thats a special case. I suspect the injunction against cannibalism develops in the iron age and has been in circulation in the west since that time. I don't think it is related to most other moral questions.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 01-15-2005 00:48 AM

I meant human-made goods. There is a difference between a black slave dressmaker, and a dress made out of a black slave. The latter would have been deemed a bit off. Come on. We can find crime and deviance everywhere, that does not mean that everything is morally acceptable. While there were rapes and murders, they were not morally acceptable to those societies. Nice. So I'm right, but not because I am right. I think that was a very bizarre nitpicking.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Actually in reply to both Holmes and Quetzal, and in regard only to #3 ("Was the escalated headhunting, escalated by the introduction of guns traded for shrunken heads, immoral?"):I'm thinking that at the first instances, the Jivaro's primary stimulus was to acquire a firearm in order to more effectively and efficiently accomplish the blood revenge. Therefore, it would seem within their moral structure to obtain the firearm in trade for a shrunken head. Once the efficiency of guns to effect revenge was proven, the trade escalated respective to the necessity to exact escalated revenge.I think though that it would be outside their moral structure to divest themselves of the shrunken heads as that would make it more likely that the captured enemy spirit might escape while in the hands of White Eyes.However, these are all suppositions on my part. I was not there and am speculating from a great geographic, cultural, and chronologic distance.Let's examine another example more current. Apparently the tsunami in southeast Asia has spawned kidnapping of young white survivors by Thai slavers. Anyway, that is the report this morning on CNN.What should be the response by us "civilized" folk to Thai slavers who are kidnapping children survivors from their hospital beds? Personally, I think wiping them off the face of the earth is appropriate; however, maybe someone closer to the situation culturally can inform us whether "moral customs" in Thailand justify child slavery, pedophelia, etc.

Who is Aquinas again? Is he in my Bible? Well, talk to Brian, he thinks you should be able to sue me.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 01-05-2005 12:56 AM

I don't think the first case would have been problematic, even if the exchange was to acquire a firearm. The problem would come in as obviously the hunt comes for heads to exchange for guns... at least that is the scenario you have presented.You are right that there may be an additional issue of losing the spirit when the head is exchanged. I am unsure what pedophilia has to do with anything, but I believe that while they do allow for child labor (in diverse manners) they don't generally accept kidnapping and slavery per se. That would make the current wave of kidnappings immoral.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

What pedophylia has to do with it is that there is some serious concern that the rash of kidnappings of child survivors of the tsunami in Thailand is directly related to the trade of youngsters for sex slaves (at least that is the substance of CNN's morning report from Thailand).Personally, whether for sex or labor, it won't break my heart or hurt my liberal sensibilities whatever if all kidnappers of children for slavery are summarily executed (along with anyone who trades in slavery for that matter).However, I remain open to discussion of "moral justification" of such cultural depredations as slavery such as is practiced by depraved individuals in certain Third World backwater nations.This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-05-2005 13:35 AM

Uhmmmmm, the concern is about kidnapping for all sorts of reasons including people simply wanting to adopt without going through channels. In any case whether a person would trade in (or use) a child sex slave is not about pedophilia. Unless we'd say whether a person would trade in or use an adult female sex slave is about heterosexuality?I don't know if I'd be for summarily executing anyone (do we really need more death?) but they often shoot looters and I guess this would be a form of looting. I'm unaware of any nation which actually has slavery as an institution anymore. If there was it seems they could have moral justifications for it. What is it the naturally prevents slavery being a moral circumstance? Even the Bible allowed for it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Holmes, you say you're "unaware of any nation which actually has slavery as an institution anymore. If there was it seems they could have moral justifications for it."We aren't confining our debate to "nations" and the moral justifications for their laws. We actually were discussing more along the lines of justification of cultural morality I think.And along those lines we might consider that "Animist tribes in southern Sudan are frequently invaded by Arab militias from the North, who kill the men and enslave the women and children. The Arabs consider it a traditional right to enslave southerners, and to own chattel slaves (slaves owned as personal property)." Human bondage in Africa, Asia, and the Dominican Republic by Ricco Villanueva Siasoco This article was posted on April 18, 2001. Sudanese slaves await redemption in Madhol, Sudan, in December 1997.Maybe someone with more insight into Sudanese Arabs' perceived "traditional right to enslave southerners" can explain these Arabs' moral justification for murder and enslavement of humans. I'd be interested in such an education.So with regard to your statement that "If there (were nations where slavery were still an institution) it seems they could have moral justification for it," just substitute "Arab cultures" for "nations" and enlighten me as to the moral justification you perceive as possible, please.With regard to your "even the Bible allowed for (slavery)," I am not ready at this point in the debate to hold up Biblical rationale for engaging in human depravity just yet.Regards, Abshalom

Yes, cultures can have morals separate from nations. I don't really know about it, so I am not in a position to explain it. From some of the description in the link it appears that it is a combination between their version of Islamic principles and their own regional (tribal) ideology.There was already one inconsistency in that they were said to have hobbled those that refused to convert. That is not a tenet of Islam, though I suppose it could be worked in with nonreligious tenets of what to do with those that are conquered. Its pretty obvious they have a moral justification for it. Whether it holds up to scrutiny is another question, but unless I know more I cannot say.A possible justification is that they are still using an ideology based on pre industrial era economic systems. During those times most cultures used, and almost required, some form of forced or secured labor in order to grow. It was easier for cultures to enslave those of other cultures/lands rather than their own people.Wars were pretty well a constant as well, usually for resources. Wars inherently raise the question of what to do with the vanquished. Slavery answers this as well as the previous question of where to get secured labor.It would be moral within that sort of framework.We can certainly ask if the world has not changed enough that such practices are no longer necessary. Perhaps they would agree and change their current practices if they were shown alternatives that were useful.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

"Fleeing up Sand Creek with his wife, Medicine Woman, Black Kettle heard the mournful strains of the death chant. Medicine Woman was wounded nine times, but managed to survive. Chivington's troops killed and mutilated about 150 Indians, most of them women and children. After gunning down White Antelope, the soldiers celebrated by cutting off his ears and nose. In a final atrocity, they cut off his scrotum to be used as a tobacco pouch. He was 75 years old."

---

Jerry Brewer, "Unto Thy People: The Story of One Southron Family," Copyright 1996, p. 81.Your view is too blanket, holmes. European moral systems include Celtic headhunters too. There is no "european" moral system - there are multiple moral systems that originated in Europe.

quote:

---

Come on. We can find crime and deviance everywhere, that does not mean that everything is morally acceptable. While there were rapes and murders, they were not morally acceptable to those societies.

---

But thats the point - they WERE morally acceptable because of an ideology claiming that the victims were technically not human but lesser beings. This is rose-tinted spectacles stuff, holmes.

quote:

---

Nice. So I'm right, but not because I am right. I think that was a very bizarre nitpicking.

---

Well pardon me for contributing, fuckwit.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-06-2005 10:00 AM