Moral Judgments

Jivaro Indians felt an obligation to their ancestral lineage to take blood revenge for a murder or a killing during warfare. This moral obligation required the taking and shrinking of heads.If a dead relative were not properly avenged, the dead relative might feel neglected and cause harm or misfortune to fall on the warrior (or his family, crops, etc.) who did not exact proper revenge.When the warrior killed his enemy, he not only avenged his dead relative, but took on the slain opponent's personal power. In order to bring the "arutam" (power) to the victorious warrior, he must properly ensure that the slain opponent's soul or spirit was prevented from entering the afterlife. To do this, the victor decapitated the victim and sewed up and shrank the head thereby sealing in the soul or spirit inside the "tsantsa."All this blood feuding and consequent headhunting was justified within the Jivaro's moral structure. It was simply traditional.The Jivaro moral structure was corrupted in the 19th century by Europeans who encouraged headhunting and head shrinking to provide curios for the tourists and collectors. The market price for a shrunken head was one firearm, a price that made shrunken heads more readily available for the curio trade, thereby stimulating more warfare via blood feuds.Eventually the Peruvian and Ecuadorian governments had to outlaw the trafficking of human heads to prevent total anihilation of tribes in the Jivaro's neighborhood.Forbidden1) Were the original moral concepts behind headhunting and tsante-making valid or justifiable within the Jivaro's traditional culture?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.3) Was the escalated headhunting morally corrupt within either the Javoro or the European moral concepts?4) If "yes" to #3, then who were the more corrupt?5) Did the government have "moral" grounds for outlawing tsantsa-making? Whose moral standards did the new laws serve?

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.

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

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

Mike, in Message 116 you say: " ... but in reality - there simply isn't any other Messiah candidate."By "candidate" do we assume you mean a person who may someday become Messiah, or do you mean someone who already has fullfilled all requirements at this time?Although I am not Jewish either, for a Jewish perspective on criteria for messiahship, may I take the liberty of pasting the following:Messiah Criteria
1) He must be Jewish - "...you may appoint a king over you, whom the L-rd your G-d shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you." (Deuteronomy 17:152) He must be a member of the tribe of Judah - "The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet..." Genesis 49:10)3) He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his son - "And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13)4) He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel -"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)5) He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem - "...and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them.." (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27)6) He will rule at a time of world-wide peace - "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)7) He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's commandments - "My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes." (Ezekiel 37:24)8) He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one G-d - "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the L-rd" (Isaiah 66:23)All of these criteria are best stated in the book of Ezekiel Chapter 37 verses 24-28:And David my servant shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. they shall also follow My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Yaakov my servant, in which your fathers have dwelt and they shall dwell there, they and their children, and their children's children forever; and my servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover, I will make a covenant of peace with them, it shall be an everlasting covenant with them, which I will give them; and I will multiply them and I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them forevermore. And my tabernacle shall be with them: and I will be their G-d and they will be my people. Then the nations shall know that I am the L-rd who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary will be in the midst of them forevermore.
If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah." A careful analysis of these criteria shows us that to date, no one has fulfilled every condition.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/...neral-messiah-criteria.htmlI understand that many have claimed to be Messiah, and that many have claimed that someone has already fullfilled all the criteria for a messiah; however, there you have it.Regards, Abshalom