Who believes that the morality..........

Slartibartfast said:
of long dead ignorant savages are applicable today, in the 21st century.
Click to expand...

Depends on what how we define "applicable". For instance, I don't find the ignorance of hatemongers applicable to anything useful in the twenty-first century, so I certainly wouldn't trust their ridiculous pretenses about morality.

Ask me about getting a tattoo the next time we're lost in a desert, together. Practicality is one thing, but I don't know, if the kids are going all goth and everything, y'know, 'cause flails are sexy, maybe people without scientific equipment like electron microscopes will go with morality instead of microbiology.

Besides, when did telling the kids it's dangerous ever stop them?
 
Tiassa said:
Depends on what how we define "applicable". For instance, I don't find the ignorance of hatemongers applicable to anything useful in the twenty-first century, so I certainly wouldn't trust their ridiculous pretenses about morality.

Ask me about getting a tattoo the next time we're lost in a desert, together. Practicality is one thing, but I don't know, if the kids are going all goth and everything, y'know, 'cause flails are sexy, maybe people without scientific equipment like electron microscopes will go with morality instead of microbiology.

Besides, when did telling the kids it's dangerous ever stop them?
Click to expand...
It would seem that your grasp of the English language and indeed reality is somewhat tenuous. I might wait until your released, although I do hope that is not imminent.
Thanks. Bye for now. Keep eyes down back away slowly.
 
Slartibartfast said:
It would seem that your grasp of the English language and indeed reality is somewhat tenuous. I might wait until your released, although I do hope that is not imminent.
Thanks. Bye for now. Keep eyes down back away slowly.
Click to expand...
Sometimes it does take a champ just to quit.

http://gawker.com/what-happened-to-the-runner-who-shit-himself-during-a-h-1681442684

In a post-race interview, a reporter asked him, "Did you ever consider stopping to clean off?"

"No, I'd lose time," he explained, "If you quit once, it's easy to do it again and again and again. It becomes a habit."
 
DaveC426913 said:
I can't imagine how that could be true (that there's no need to assume it).
Click to expand...

History demonstrates.

Try it this way:

• I know a man, and he's just one example, but he does, in fact, think he is civilized, and for the most part, sure, he seems to be. But he also has this weird vulnerability. We can both agree, for instance, that sexual harassment is not civil, but his way around it is that he, in approaching a woman, gets to decide what sexual harassment is, such that he gets angry to the point of prim at the notion that she gets to perceive for herself and respond for herself: How dare she have a different opinion than him.

• Similarly, in my society we spent nearly a quarter century having a fight including the incivility of women having sex without including men.

↳ There is no need to assume "civilized" is better; if the sum effect is that lesbians are savage, an orgiastic heap of consenting savagery is a far more civilized iteration than my acquaintance's sense of civilization.​

Or we could mutter something about syphilis, but that also gets into a larger history of the economics of civilization, and trying to quantify behavior people refuse to acknowledge is a practice fraught with hazard. But there is a point in the Euro-American arc of history at which part of the reason Europeans have filthy cities for syphilis to flourish and evolve before making the return trip to the Americas has to do with simple greed. How about black plague? Instead of building bonfires and singing ring around the rosy, people should have been fleeing cities and spreading out, but even if they knew enough about biology to figure that out, would they? It would have been bad for the economy, and the job creators would have complained. And therein we might encounter a not entirely trivial question about Lord Byron and technology.
 
Slartibartfast said:
of long dead ignorant savages are applicable today, in the 21st century.
Click to expand...
We're less civilized, and people of the past are less stupid, than we think we/they are.
That said, what do you mean by "the morality of [savages]"? Even ignoring the fact that the concept of "the savage" is a culturally chauvinistic bordering on racist...do you think that the basics of societal cooperation, compassion, and reciprocity are somehow less relevant now than they were two to ten thousand years ago?
 
Bowser said:
Which codes of morality are you referring to? There were and have been many.
Click to expand...
I agree. The use of the term "savage" loads the question from the start, because the implication is that the morality of "savages" is undesirable.

It's better to talk specifically about particular moral precepts or frameworks that existed in the past. Depending on which particular "savages" you look at, the answer as to whether their morality was any "good" to or not varies. Morality isn't just one rule (or even a bunch of rules) anyway. It's usually an entire collection of behaviours in response to different circumstances and situations.
 
Last edited:
James R said:
I agree. The use of the term "savage" loads the question from the start, because the implication is that the morality of "savages" is undesirable.
Click to expand...
Were the Buddhists savages, Hindus, Romans, Christians?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top