No - not at all ... just acknowledging that our ancestors have been brutal and survivors ...
This means that NO society has a moral high ground based on previous activities.
That's not has hard as you think. And now you're treading on my turf - my academic passion is in Philosophy and I have taught ethics ...I reject that. There are certain things that I absolutely claim the moral high ground on - The ending of Slavery, The ending of Sati (Wife Burning), the Ending of FGM, The ending of HeadHunting etc. These are all things that are a moral absolute.
If you disagree, then by all means - but in order to do so, you have to provide an argument as to why those things can be Moral. I dare you to try it.
All human ethics are a human creation and are, therefore, relative ...
and from that point I would pretty much go into your sentences I have underlined - if we can argue about it then there are no absolutes ..
However, I don't necessarily agree with an argument, just because I can make it ..
I don't disagree ..We can certainly argue about the Means that things were done, we can argue as to what things fall under the auspices of Moral Absolutes and what things don't, We can argue as to whether or not some things went too far (and I'll concede that in almost all instances they probably did)
To sum up - Regardless of what your Culture says, if you think burning someone alive because their spouse died is okay or even Moral, I've got news for you.
You misunderstand - Maori in NZ, Aboriginals in Oz - all still live in a tribal soceity ..Fair point, however most of the Tribal allegiances are voluntary, temporary and sometimes intersecting - for example, someone from Auckland and Wellington join the Tribe of the Blues and Hurricanes for a Super Rugby match and are in opposition to each other, but those same two people join the Tribe of the All Blacks for a Test Match.
IMO - this transient and non-permanent nature is what helps keep our predilection for tribal warfare at bay.
Yes - it's quite hard to go that far away from civilization - a lot harder than most people think.
Many people might say we aren't better off, but how many of them actually act in accordance with what they say? And this is the Crux of my Argument. Regardless of what people say, it's their actions that speak loudest - very few people who have lived under the Western lifestyle (with all it's perks and pitfalls) choose to go back to the aformentioned amazonian lifestyle? There are some people in NZ who choose to live completely off-grid, and again - more power to them, I have the utmost respect for them.
The others, who say a lot and do nothing, however - I have no respect for. Just like all the Celebrities that said they would move to Canada if Trump won - not a single one has moved.
I think there's some misunderstanding here - I've never made the claim that there wasn't good things, ideas, items that were brought back from the Colonies - Hell, I'm British - our National dish is now a Curry! The Maori invented Trench warfare, I've got fond memories of the Divali festival etc.
Linking back to my part about Moral Relativism, that's the thing that is wonderful (IMO) about the British Empire - that for all it's faults, We stopped a number of things that are objectively repugnant, but for everything else that didn't violate those principles, we tended to leave it be (with varying degrees, granted) and so moving forward, we have all of the best, positive bits of all the cultures we've interacted with throughout the world, without any of the bad bits.
I could write a whole list of things the British Empire did, when there was no need - such as active genocide (bounty on American Indians for as start ... )
Given disease-riddled blankets from sick people to Australian Aborigines ..
Suppression of Indigenous languages - Indigenous people who remember being hit for speaking their own language, or whose grandparents told them stories of being hit for speaking their own languages.
Suppression of Indigenous religious beliefs ..
Two or three examples ..
Indigenous people around the world would either laugh hilariously at your point of view - or be very angry ..
Yes, the British Empire brought some positive benefits - and some negative things ... where you stand, what your family history is, depends on how you see that - in balance or tipped one way or the other ..
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
On some issues, I contend that they absolutely do. Both from a purely abstract perspective and also from the Historical record.
Why don't you agree with it then?
There's a simple test - Do you submit yourself to the same judgement? Because that is where the Rubber meets the Road - you may be able to construct a relativistic argument that Slavery is acceptable (again, for reference, I reject that notion), But I highly doubt you'd consent to having that argument applied to you - namely being forced into slavery.
And your objection to Britain Colonial past is a testament to that fact.
Didn't think you would :P The point was that we both agree (at least I hope we do) that some things are absolutely bad (Slavery etc.) and we both agree that somethings are absolutely awesome (Suzuki's wonderful line of Sport-Touring motorcycles for example), accepting those two premises, our disagreement is not whether or not there is a line, but only where the line is.
Yes and No, I think we may have talked passed each other here. The old Tribal demarcation points, which were once very hard and clearly defined are now much more abstract and transient. You may have a membership to a tribe, but you aren't necessarily living in that Tribe's geographic area, or within their Pā, you may not wear your ancestral/Tribal Tā moko.
Furthermore Your allegiance to that Tribe does not disqualify you from adopting other 'tribal-esque' allegiances (Sport being a notable example) - It's this ability to be members of multiple different tribes simultaneously is what allows us to satiate our desire for togetherness but also prevents us from descending into war.
But it is possible.
And if it is hard, that begs the question: If it is harder to do than living in a Western civilization, which option is preferable, and again, I refer to people who vote with their actions as opposed to their words.
And I'd concede just about every act that you could list, without contest and agreeing that it was wrong.
The question to those Indigenous people however is simple - Do they choose to go back to their old ways, when you confirm it IS an option, or is it that it is so much harder to do than it is to live in the Western world, and therefore - for all the ills and historic injustices, their continued presence and participation in said society confirms it to be the superior choice, given that everyday, they continue to choose it.
Combine that with the fact that most of the most vocal opponents of said system have not experienced anything else - It's easy to rail about how bad Colonialism is/was when you've not experienced the alternative.
Where it gets interesting is when you talk to people who have experienced both systems, they almost always state something along the lines of 'for all the problems, at least everything was well-run'. Which is something you have to seriously contend with.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Because there is no 'purely abstract' point of view - there is only a moment in history - clearly slavery - your example - was once regarded as ethical
No - I can't and won't construct a relativist argument for slavery - that is impossible. But slavery was once regarded as the norm - and ethical. This is what makes ethics relativist - not any argument.There's a simple test - Do you submit yourself to the same judgement? Because that is where the Rubber meets the Road - you may be able to construct a relativistic argument that Slavery is acceptable (again, for reference, I reject that notion), But I highly doubt you'd consent to having that argument applied to you - namely being forced into slavery.
Part of the argument is that at the time colonization was occurring there were voices saying that this was unethical ... those voices were not listened to by the colonizers ..And your objection to Britain Colonial past is a testament to that fact.
I do wonder what things we are doing today people in the future will think were completely unethical - the argument over Climate Change may well be one example - and there are voices saying that what we are doing to our planet is unethical ... not within the confines of the argument over Climate Change - but in the wider argument about pollution ...Didn't think you would :P The point was that we both agree (at least I hope we do) that some things are absolutely bad (Slavery etc.) and we both agree that somethings are absolutely awesome (Suzuki's wonderful line of Sport-Touring motorcycles for example), accepting those two premises, our disagreement is not whether or not there is a line, but only where the line is.
As above - ethics have changed and today we say that slavery is unethical ... absolutes cannot change - the fact that ethics do change show there are no absolutes.
Love your example of the Suzukis. But that is a value judgement .. and an individual one at that - there are people in this forum who would not agree ..
And finally - we are arguing over where the line is - maybe - but the point is if it was an absolute we would not be arguing.
From inside it looks different .. especially as I work in a Maori education institute - and tribal membership is very obvious and a major part of people's lives.Yes and No, I think we may have talked passed each other here. The old Tribal demarcation points, which were once very hard and clearly defined are now much more abstract and transient. You may have a membership to a tribe, but you aren't necessarily living in that Tribe's geographic area, or within their Pā, you may not wear your ancestral/Tribal Tā moko.
Yes, we may or may not live in our tribal areas (I don't) - that is why I said in a contemporary context. It is certainly important at work that I do have tribal affiliations .. it makes me an insider. We have people on staff here who are Pakeha - and they feel and react differently to the rest of us. We make space for them - but it's a relationship with tensions 0- because they think differently.
I agree - but you are using the word "tribal" in a different way - with expanded contexts, than I am.Furthermore Your allegiance to that Tribe does not disqualify you from adopting other 'tribal-esque' allegiances (Sport being a notable example) - It's this ability to be members of multiple different tribes simultaneously is what allows us to satiate our desire for togetherness but also prevents us from descending into war.
It is hard because most people do not know how to live outside our civilization - they have romantic notions of what "living off the land" actually entails - such as hard work. Growing your own food is harder than walking to the corner store ... setting up a water supply is harder than turning on a tap .. Been there - done that ..And if it is hard, that begs the question: If it is harder to do than living in a Western civilization, which option is preferable, and again, I refer to people who vote with their actions as opposed to their words.
Which option is preferable? Having experienced both I would choose living off the land. But I'm old and don't have children and grandchildren to do it for me .. At my age (and somewhat broken condition) it's practicably easier not to - but I still live rurally, so I grow food and don't rely on a piped water supply .. but my knees certainly feel it when I climb the hill for maintenance on our spring.
Obviously my answers to the above suggest what my answer is ...
And I'd concede just about every act that you could list, without contest and agreeing that it was wrong.
The question to those Indigenous people however is simple - Do they choose to go back to their old ways, when you confirm it IS an option, or is it that it is so much harder to do than it is to live in the Western world, and therefore - for all the ills and historic injustices, their continued presence and participation in said society confirms it to be the superior choice, given that everyday, they continue to choose it.
Part of the answer is what you say - they have never experienced anything else and they romanticize the life style.
Combine that with the fact that most of the most vocal opponents of said system have not experienced anything else - It's easy to rail about how bad Colonialism is/was when you've not experienced the alternative.
Having experienced both I would go with a rejection of contemporary civilization .. I would have gone even further than I did - if I had the resources to do so .. gone total self-sufficiency ..Where it gets interesting is when you talk to people who have experienced both systems, they almost always state something along the lines of 'for all the problems, at least everything was well-run'. Which is something you have to seriously contend with.
Many people I know who do that say they would never go back.
But I think we are talking about two slightly different things - a return to the basic life style happens on an individual level.
What you seem to be talking about is a group doing it. But that can only happen in a modern context. It would be impossible and very stupid to ask Indigenous hunters to give up their guns, their utes etc and return to the days of foot hunting with bows and arrows. As it woud be to give up modern cooking technology and return to fire-based cooking .. and most people do not have the knowledge to do that (I do have hunting bows, though they were never used by Maori).
The second issue is how such a society is organised. And it is impossible to return to the old ways of social organisation - our minds are different from the past - so the social organisation can only be on contemporary ways or social organisation.
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Lord Below!
Well I did see the word Suzuki in there as I skimmed so maybe there is some hope of some interesting banter. But guys keep your posts to one or two quotes else you look like Husi.
Feel free to reference each others parentage/ relationship with Satan/ sexual practices with small furry animals as required.
Go!
Don't you look at my accountant.
He's the only one I've got.
This then is our disagreement. And TBH I think it's one that will never be bridged - there are some things that are so abhorrent as to never be acceptable. When you apply the test of 'if this was done to me...' proves it not to be right.
That statement is kinda contradictory. If Ethics is Relativist, then there is an argument that says Slavery was okay, if it's impossible to do so, then Ethics must be grounded in something deeper that itself is not Relativist. Sam Harris and JBP went down a very similar road on the question of Religious Morality vs Secular Morality.
The best I've got at that point (and you will, no doubt, rightfully tear this to shreds) is that Ethics is based on something like Selfish Altruism.
You could probably even go so far as to say that my absolute stance borders on the Religious (and wouldn't that be a fun box to open...)
Definitely, but there were also voices saying it was unethical not to do so. Is it right to turn a blind eye and let people slaughter each other - Men, Women and Children - when you have the power to stop them?
The ultimate Ethical goal for both sides is the reduction of Suffering, the question really is more on the practical application of that goal. Or to quote one of the eternal questions - Does the ends justify the means?
As above, I don't think the Ethics have changed at all - 'reduction in suffering', It's the application of it - one side claims that in order to reduce future suffering, drastic and sweeping changes have to be made now. The other side says that doing so will result in greater suffering as the future predictions have a large margin of error in them.
The difference is, we both know they would be wrong
Not so, we agree there is a line, and we agree that the spectrum upon which it lies is bounded (there are finite ends at both ends), if we was boundless, then it would be truly relativistic.
Now, I'm going to preface this with 'no offence intended' since I have no wish to be seen to trivialize ones Tribal connections:
Would you say that for some people The Tribal Membership is more important than others?
Would you say also that the important that it holds for some is equivalent to the importance that say Rugby holds for a zealous fan?
Or perhaps from my own perspective - one look at me will tell you that I'm an avid Metal fan, in how I look, act etc. There's a culture, a history (although not as long or as rich as any full society) that I belong to etc.
The reason I'm focusing on this is part of a wider thought I've had about western society and how it appears that by being able to inhabit multiple tribes simultaneously, is how we've learned to (mostly) avoid tribal Warfare. For example, we can be disagreeing on this point, each in our tribal camps, yet should we be on a back road somewhere, we are in agreement, from within the same tribal camp.
And yes, I am using it in an expanded context - as I think that is key.
Hence my derision for people who don't practice what they preach and my admiration (though we disagree) for people who do.
What you've described however is one of my key points - you would choose, but you've hit a limitation. And therein lies my critique. By your own admission, the perks of the West, allowing you to live in a modicum of comfort, compared to a subsistence lifestyle - must outweigh the benefits of eschewing it, because you choose not to.
Should probably add, I have no derision aimed at you, at least you've gone as far as you can go and admit where you can't go any further.
The group is made of individuals who make decisions - Collectively most people choose the Western style of life, for all it's ills, because it's a darn-sight easier than the alternative. There are those we both agree that desire to be master of their domain, free from all interference and so choose the harder road - again, nothing but respect from me for them.
That second issue is an interesting one - whilst there are some things in that statement I entirely agree with, I don't think we are all that far removed from the past. The number of post-apocalyptic stories whereby we descend into the warring factions of old tells me that it's still there, bubbling below the surface. When I go to an All Blacks game and see people with their faces painted, just like War Paint, It's still there. When I look at Gangs and Gang culture, there are too many parallels to purely rule it out.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Only a Rat can win a Rat Race!
Look what this ridiculous cunt is up to now! Bullying like an immature schoolkid...
http://nzh.tw/12269277
Only a Rat can win a Rat Race!
That's not like a schoolkid. That's weaponising misinformation and why he is do dangerous. Blatent lies told to people who just want the story will be believed or at least for long enough that they distrust the victim enough not to care as they 'deserve it' . You know, because they love satan. We saw that picture of them standing next to him, at some sort of costume party, but. . . Or the video of them dancing. Or whatever.
Don't you look at my accountant.
He's the only one I've got.
He should be shot with a ball of his own shit!
Only a Rat can win a Rat Race!
I dunno it was hidden in there somewhere demon post but reference to BB post but you can't see it for all those other words.
Don't you look at my accountant.
He's the only one I've got.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks