Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No. Women had lesser rights. The Romans enslaved their own people also. In India today, low caste Hindus are discriminated against. What you've wrote is still *******s, since you seemingly cannot accept that humans aren't always nice and that humane actions cannot be seen as good if inhumane actions are widely condoned.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Philosopher-of-sorts)
    ................................ ..........
    ................................ ..........
    ................................ ..........
    ................................ ..........

    You just decided to completely ignore what I wrote and take out of context the part you could respond to didn't you? You really need to work on actually reading arguments before responding, if you want to be taken at all seriously.
    Oh, the irony...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamix)
    No. Women had lesser rights. The Romans enslaved their own people also. In India today, low caste Hindus are discriminated against. What you've wrote is still *******s, since you seemingly cannot accept that humans aren't always nice and that humane actions cannot be seen as good if inhumane actions are widely condoned.
    I'll conceed the point on women to an extent, although you can't really conflate inhumane actions and lesser rights--they are often found together but are not the same. Where women are concerned it is worth looking at the male-dominated cultures which have made women seem 'less than men' or otherwise 'different to men' in such a way as to justify or warrant differences in rights, in the minds of the citizens of those societies.

    As to lower caste Hindus, again I don't see that discrimination can be conflated with inhumane actions, although of course in some cases they can be found together (I'd say "most inhumane actions involve discrimination but few cases of discrimination involve inhumane actions"). I would suggest that where real inhumanity has taken place it is likely to have been perpetrated by people who have managed, in one way or another, to dehumanise the targets in their mind.

    As to Rome, that's not accurate. See the Twelve Tables-- the Romans refused to enslave Roman citizens, except in the case of debtors who could not pay up, and even in the case of debtors, they refused to sell them into slavery within Rome but rather sent them "across the Tiber" to be sold in non-Roman lands. Of course this is still inhumane treatment but it is evidence that the Romans found it distasteful and an unfortunate necessity for this to be done in order for debts to be paid.

    I don't see where you could have gotten from my posts that I think human beings are always nice. In fact, I think you have totally misinterpreted what I was saying. I didn't pick up on it at first, but you mentioned "do not hurt others" being "primary". I was quite clear that it wasn't. It was contingent upon self-interest.

    Let me go back to my initial point, in response to your question "Why are humane actions seen as right?", that people expanded from "I don't want to get hurt" to "Do not hurt others in your society." The key here is that this is not an instinct of niceness. This is an instinct of self-preservation. People realise it is in their best interest, if they want to live peacefully, if they forego killing or hurting others in their immediate society and demand the same self-restraint by others in that society. Morality is almost always a cover--consciously or unconsciously--for self-interest: if we don't complain about x murdering y then z might decide there is nothing against him murdering us. The point of bringing the idea of societies into it is that such acts against people from other societies are distanced from us. We can think (consciously or unconsciously) "Oh, it's OK to do it to people a, as that doesn't set a precedent that it can be done to us, since we're people b, and we're entirely different." We're able to block out the thought of it being done to us. The point about bringing dehumanising into it is that certain acts are such that we don't feel this boundary is enough. We want a boundary that transcends something small like nationality, something bigger that makes us seem a completely different species to the victims. Thus in order to get German citizens to do what was done to the Jews, Hitler and Goebbels had to present images of them as rats and monsters.

    Perhaps you meant your question in a different way to how I interpreted it--perhaps you were asking for some sort of moral reason why. I am simply providing a very human, psychological reason why, since morality is (I believe) simply a product of human psychology.

    (Original post by User722716)
    Oh, the irony...
    I'm not sure where you are coming from here.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Philosopher-of-sorts)
    I'm not sure where you are coming from here.
    Pretty simply really. You failed to read his post properly. You then went off on one about not reading properly making people look stupid.

    I needed a chuckle, thankyou.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by User722716)
    Pretty simply really. You failed to read his post properly. You then went off on one about not reading properly making people look stupid.

    I needed a chuckle, thankyou.
    You haven't explained what I 'misread', and I think it was fairly obvious that this was what I was asking for. So, here comes the roundabout again. I needed a chuckle, thanks.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Philosopher-of-sorts)
    You haven't explained what I 'misread', and I think it was fairly obvious that this was what I was asking for. So, here comes the roundabout again. I needed a chuckle, thanks.
    No, I was going to earlier but the other guy already had. But I felt like sticking my oar in, so I did.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by User722716)
    No, I was going to earlier but the other guy already had. But I felt like sticking my oar in, so I did.
    K. Your contribution was appreciated.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Philosopher-of-sorts)
    I'll conceed the point on women to an extent, although you can't really conflate inhumane actions and lesser rights--they are often found together but are not the same. Where women are concerned it is worth looking at the male-dominated cultures which have made women seem 'less than men' or otherwise 'different to men' in such a way as to justify or warrant differences in rights, in the minds of the citizens of those societies.

    As to lower caste Hindus, again I don't see that discrimination can be conflated with inhumane actions, although of course in some cases they can be found together (I'd say "most inhumane actions involve discrimination but few cases of discrimination involve inhumane actions"). I would suggest that where real inhumanity has taken place it is likely to have been perpetrated by people who have managed, in one way or another, to dehumanise the targets in their mind.

    As to Rome, that's not accurate. See the Twelve Tables-- the Romans refused to enslave Roman citizens, except in the case of debtors who could not pay up, and even in the case of debtors, they refused to sell them into slavery within Rome but rather sent them "across the Tiber" to be sold in non-Roman lands. Of course this is still inhumane treatment but it is evidence that the Romans found it distasteful and an unfortunate necessity for this to be done in order for debts to be paid.

    I don't see where you could have gotten from my posts that I think human beings are always nice. In fact, I think you have totally misinterpreted what I was saying. I didn't pick up on it at first, but you mentioned "do not hurt others" being "primary". I was quite clear that it wasn't. It was contingent upon self-interest.

    Let me go back to my initial point, in response to your question "Why are humane actions seen as right?", that people expanded from "I don't want to get hurt" to "Do not hurt others in your society." The key here is that this is not an instinct of niceness. This is an instinct of self-preservation. People realise it is in their best interest, if they want to live peacefully, if they forego killing or hurting others in their immediate society and demand the same self-restraint by others in that society. Morality is almost always a cover--consciously or unconsciously--for self-interest: if we don't complain about x murdering y then z might decide there is nothing against him murdering us. The point of bringing the idea of societies into it is that such acts against people from other societies are distanced from us. We can think (consciously or unconsciously) "Oh, it's OK to do it to people a, as that doesn't set a precedent that it can be done to us, since we're people b, and we're entirely different." We're able to block out the thought of it being done to us. The point about bringing dehumanising into it is that certain acts are such that we don't feel this boundary is enough. We want a boundary that transcends something small like nationality, something bigger that makes us seem a completely different species to the victims. Thus in order to get German citizens to do what was done to the Jews, Hitler and Goebbels had to present images of them as rats and monsters.

    Perhaps you meant your question in a different way to how I interpreted it--perhaps you were asking for some sort of moral reason why. I am simply providing a very human, psychological reason why, since morality is (I believe) simply a product of human psychology.


    I'm not sure where you are coming from here.
    lol... no. There is no reason why other than the liberal media saying so. Morality is about co-operation and basic social norms for the benefit of the group. self-interest is by the by. The fact is most people universally are taught that "nice" moral actions are best, but this is a fallacy. If this were the case, then "bad" moral actions wouldn't exist.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.