The morality of the rulers or the morality of the oppressed? Believe it or not, if there were slave revolts 2-3k years ago the morality didn't change so much that oppressed accept oppression.
Word. When they say "people back then didn't think this was wrong" they're implicitly denying the humanity of the oppressed and enslaved. Abolitionism is born the moment a person is put I shackles, the first time whip meets another's back.
If you watch a mother cry out for her stolen children, a man plead for a moment of respite from back braking labour , a child beg for more food, and you don't see that slavery is wrong then you're a monster.
I mean, that's not wrong. Of course, 'what is (im)moral' is specific to a specific culture in time. For the nazis it wasn't just legal to kill Jews, it was the moral thing to do; protecting the race/country n shit.
That is to say that morals just aren't the perfect compass some like to believe they are. Morals function as a navigational tool within a culture - but quickly seize to work that way, once we're talking about larger scale issues.
No, it wasn't. Just cause the fascist state tells you something doesn't make it moral. Why else would've been my great uncle have been in a concentration camp (most of my older ancestor were not cool, though)?
Besides that, it really isn't ideal to take the Nazis and Shoa to draw examples from, cause details matter.
Though I get an angle you come from which is that for certain cultural community goals they become norms.
Just cause the fascist state tells you something doesn’t make it moral.
The fascist state didn't have to tell people shit, it emerged from what people thought was moral in the first place. Nazi soldiers weren't acting in the full knowledge of being 'the baddies' - in their worldview they were the 'good guys', the moral defenders of the German Volk. That's what's so insidious about morals in the first place, they do get constructed and warped through socialization
Edit: if you hate the nazi example, think of cultures where religious human sacrifice was regarded as moral
in their worldview they were the ‘good guys’, the moral defenders of the German Volk
No, this is not factual accurate. This is also doing psychological farseeing about the content of million's heads and doesn't meet up with historical understanding of the time - neither from Marxist historical, nor orthodox perspective.
The fascist state didn’t have to tell people shit
One reason more that one shouldn't use the Nazi's as general example, when one isn't specific.
The morality of the rulers or the morality of the oppressed? Believe it or not, if there were slave revolts 2-3k years ago the morality didn't change so much that oppressed accept oppression.
Word. When they say "people back then didn't think this was wrong" they're implicitly denying the humanity of the oppressed and enslaved. Abolitionism is born the moment a person is put I shackles, the first time whip meets another's back.
If you watch a mother cry out for her stolen children, a man plead for a moment of respite from back braking labour , a child beg for more food, and you don't see that slavery is wrong then you're a monster.
GREAT way of putting it, comrade
Just point them to the famous slave rebellion in the bible and watch their head spin
which one is that?
Egyptian Jews?
Well the classic one is when Moses led the slaves out of Egypt. Christians love that shit.
oh yeah forgot abt that lol
No, when smooth brains say “u can’t judge morality if it happened in the past” like there’s a statute of limitations for morals and ethics.
There is a conception that morality is basically a social convention that is spatially and temporally local like fashion or something.
I mean, that's not wrong. Of course, 'what is (im)moral' is specific to a specific culture in time. For the nazis it wasn't just legal to kill Jews, it was the moral thing to do; protecting the race/country n shit.
That is to say that morals just aren't the perfect compass some like to believe they are. Morals function as a navigational tool within a culture - but quickly seize to work that way, once we're talking about larger scale issues.
No, it wasn't. Just cause the fascist state tells you something doesn't make it moral. Why else would've been my great uncle have been in a concentration camp (most of my older ancestor were not cool, though)?
Besides that, it really isn't ideal to take the Nazis and Shoa to draw examples from, cause details matter.
Though I get an angle you come from which is that for certain cultural community goals they become norms.
The fascist state didn't have to tell people shit, it emerged from what people thought was moral in the first place. Nazi soldiers weren't acting in the full knowledge of being 'the baddies' - in their worldview they were the 'good guys', the moral defenders of the German Volk. That's what's so insidious about morals in the first place, they do get constructed and warped through socialization
Edit: if you hate the nazi example, think of cultures where religious human sacrifice was regarded as moral
No, this is not factual accurate. This is also doing psychological farseeing about the content of million's heads and doesn't meet up with historical understanding of the time - neither from Marxist historical, nor orthodox perspective.
One reason more that one shouldn't use the Nazi's as general example, when one isn't specific.
I don't understand that sentence, sorry. Also, I'm not sure what understanding of the time you are alluding to; care to elaborate?
Slap them and say they can't do anything against it, cause it was in the past.
"I thought it was ok 5 seconds ago, don't judge me by your new morality"