I uhh, I don’t think my comment is in agreement with your statement.
I feel like “it should be considered in historical context, with an understanding of the prevailing norms of the time” is generally a pretty reasonable attitude to be honest.
Were the Maori’s “brutal savages” because they engaged in cannibalism of conquered rival clansman, or were they “noble warriors” engaging in a cultural norm pushed upon them by the harsh conditions of their society at the time?
Most would say that anyone engaging in cannibalism today is a murderous psychopat. Do we then judge everyone in the last hundred years the same? 200? Where’s the line? What about an uncontacted tribe we discover tomorrow that still engages in cannibalism - do we consider the context of the society and environ they live in, like an anthropologist would, or just label… ‘Nup, savages’.
I don’t agree with the premise that all cannibals are murderous psychopaths. Humans are incapable of living without harming other organisms, so context matters when it comes to evaluating specific forms of harm. I struggle to think of a situation which would justify rape or slavery as necessary to continue one’s life or wellbeing.
Edit: I should clarify that I don’t have a problem with people eating each other at all. It’s the killing of someone else that I take issue with, and killing other people is often understandable or justifiable, depending on circumstances. What you do with your murder victim matters little to me next to the murder.
Murder: some issues, but it’s “often understandable or justifiable”.
I live in a society where killing someone is extremely rarely understandable or justifiable, and that is the prevailing attitude worldwide. Maybe you can clarify.
“Humans are incapable of living without harming other organisms”.
Entirely false premise. We can live very healthy as frugivores, nothing at all needs to die.
Drawing an equivalence between cannibalism and ‘people gotta eat bro’ with a “context matters” is wild. We’re discussing the consumption of enemy flesh as a strengthening exercise - absorbing their spirit’s life-force, and the life force of their ancestors that’s the context of past Maori cannibalism we were diacussing, not eating for sustenance or out of a dire emergency.
I don’t base my moral judgements on whether something is recommendable. Skydiving, a sedentary lifestyle, and smoking are all things that I won’t do for health and safety reasons, but I don’t think they’re unethical, and I don’t judge people who engage in them.
I live in a society where killing someone is extremely rarely understandable or justifiable, and that is the prevailing attitude worldwide.
That isn’t the case worldwide at all. Many countries have a death penalty for various crimes, and I get the impression that most people are okay with killing in self-defense or in a context of war or law-enforcement. I can understand thinking killing is never excusable if one is a true pacifist, but I am not.
We can live very healthy as frugivores, nothing at all needs to die.
We cannot. Please provide a credible medical source which claims fruitarianism is a healthful way for a human to live their whole life. Even the animals we categorize frugivores eat insects.
Speaking specifically about the Maori, I’d have to actually know what I’m talking about in some detail to pass moral judgements about them. I will assume the reason enemy combatants exist in the first place is struggles over limited resources. I think that kind of war should be avoided, but if killing someone else is necessary for your own survival then I’m not going to judge you for it. It has nothing to do with society’s attitudes about killing at the time, and everything to do with the practicality of the situation.
So you have an enemy who is either dead or who you intend to kill. Why does it matter whether you eat him? If they ate him alive or something that falls under torture, and I will judge them and anyone else for it regardless of context.
Meanwhile, there are authors from not actually that long ago who’ve written a bunch of misogynist and racist garbage, but I’m told I can’t judge them because “it was a different time.” I’ve been told I’d probably support slavery if I’d lived in the US prior to emancipation. Being an asshole is wrong regardless of what year it is or what everyone else thinks. If there are 10 nazis at the table, I don’t have to be the 11th because it’s what all the cool kids are doing. That this guy was able to interact with POCs and see human beings makes it all the more damning that other people didn’t. People should choose to be better when given the opportunity.
This kind of thing is why “It was a different time,” is such an absolutely worthless defense of harmful behavior.
I uhh, I don’t think my comment is in agreement with your statement.
I feel like “it should be considered in historical context, with an understanding of the prevailing norms of the time” is generally a pretty reasonable attitude to be honest.
Were the Maori’s “brutal savages” because they engaged in cannibalism of conquered rival clansman, or were they “noble warriors” engaging in a cultural norm pushed upon them by the harsh conditions of their society at the time?
Most would say that anyone engaging in cannibalism today is a murderous psychopat. Do we then judge everyone in the last hundred years the same? 200? Where’s the line? What about an uncontacted tribe we discover tomorrow that still engages in cannibalism - do we consider the context of the society and environ they live in, like an anthropologist would, or just label… ‘Nup, savages’.
I don’t agree with the premise that all cannibals are murderous psychopaths. Humans are incapable of living without harming other organisms, so context matters when it comes to evaluating specific forms of harm. I struggle to think of a situation which would justify rape or slavery as necessary to continue one’s life or wellbeing.
Edit: I should clarify that I don’t have a problem with people eating each other at all. It’s the killing of someone else that I take issue with, and killing other people is often understandable or justifiable, depending on circumstances. What you do with your murder victim matters little to me next to the murder.
What an odd moral framework you have scaffolded.
Terrible idea. Learn about prions.
I live in a society where killing someone is extremely rarely understandable or justifiable, and that is the prevailing attitude worldwide. Maybe you can clarify.
Entirely false premise. We can live very healthy as frugivores, nothing at all needs to die.
Drawing an equivalence between cannibalism and ‘people gotta eat bro’ with a “context matters” is wild. We’re discussing the consumption of enemy flesh as a strengthening exercise - absorbing their spirit’s life-force, and the life force of their ancestors that’s the context of past Maori cannibalism we were diacussing, not eating for sustenance or out of a dire emergency.
I don’t base my moral judgements on whether something is recommendable. Skydiving, a sedentary lifestyle, and smoking are all things that I won’t do for health and safety reasons, but I don’t think they’re unethical, and I don’t judge people who engage in them.
That isn’t the case worldwide at all. Many countries have a death penalty for various crimes, and I get the impression that most people are okay with killing in self-defense or in a context of war or law-enforcement. I can understand thinking killing is never excusable if one is a true pacifist, but I am not.
We cannot. Please provide a credible medical source which claims fruitarianism is a healthful way for a human to live their whole life. Even the animals we categorize frugivores eat insects.
Speaking specifically about the Maori, I’d have to actually know what I’m talking about in some detail to pass moral judgements about them. I will assume the reason enemy combatants exist in the first place is struggles over limited resources. I think that kind of war should be avoided, but if killing someone else is necessary for your own survival then I’m not going to judge you for it. It has nothing to do with society’s attitudes about killing at the time, and everything to do with the practicality of the situation.
So you have an enemy who is either dead or who you intend to kill. Why does it matter whether you eat him? If they ate him alive or something that falls under torture, and I will judge them and anyone else for it regardless of context.
Meanwhile, there are authors from not actually that long ago who’ve written a bunch of misogynist and racist garbage, but I’m told I can’t judge them because “it was a different time.” I’ve been told I’d probably support slavery if I’d lived in the US prior to emancipation. Being an asshole is wrong regardless of what year it is or what everyone else thinks. If there are 10 nazis at the table, I don’t have to be the 11th because it’s what all the cool kids are doing. That this guy was able to interact with POCs and see human beings makes it all the more damning that other people didn’t. People should choose to be better when given the opportunity.