| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/22/2010 07:34:35 PM · #376 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
That may be true but that doesn't mean they weren't heavily influenced by western ideals. I think that's undeniable. One can just point to the popular culture in those regions (ex. Anime, Bollywood, etc). |
You could also point to the popularity of Levi's in Saudi Arabia or McDonald's in Beijing as examples of Western influence. Does Western morality follow? |
C'mon, Shannon. The Japanese were a warlike, Samurai culture with a divine emperor. We bombed them into submission, occupied them, rebuilt their economy in the Western mold, and created by FAR the most Westernized society in Asia. Ditto Taiwan, leaving out the war/occupation part; they owe their very existence to American intervention and American support, and they are, for an Eastern country, VERY Westernized.
R. |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 07:38:47 PM · #377 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Rome, maybe not as much, since the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire and begat the Holy Catholic Church and all that good stuff. |
Didn't it take about 75 years longer than the USA has existed before that particular conversion took place? |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 07:43:13 PM · #378 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Rome, maybe not as much, since the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire and begat the Holy Catholic Church and all that good stuff. |
Didn't it take about 75 years longer than the USA has existed before that particular conversion took place? |
Sure. And one could even argue that the fate of the Roman Empire was sealed when it embraced Christianity and become, for all intents and purposes, a theocracy.
R. |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 07:44:43 PM · #379 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A girl doesn't consume more resources or somehow make it harder for the family to survive. |
In a non-mechanized agrarian/militarized society girls certainly did consume more resources and make it harder for the family/city-state to survive. FWIW "deficient" male infants were "discarded" as well. I know infanticide was relatively common in later Sparta, but I'd dipute the contention that it was a "widespread method of birth control" through some hundreds of years of Greek culture. |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 07:45:33 PM · #380 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps this is an example where altruism fails. A letter from a Roman soldier to his wife:
"Know that I am in Alexandria...I ask and beg you to take good care of our baby son, and as soon as I've received payment I shall send it upon you. If you are delivered [before I come home], if it is a boy, keep it, if a girl, discard it."
How does REAL self-interest play to compel this result over altruism? A girl doesn't consume more resources or somehow make it harder for the family to survive. If you make that argument, then I would think an argument supporting burqas would be every bit as compelling. |
Well my first thought is a boy would have offered the father a chance to carry on his name and property and being how women weren't equal to men back then their roles could easily be filled by slaves.
Message edited by author 2010-09-22 19:45:41.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2010 08:04:44 PM · #381 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps this is an example where altruism fails. A letter from a Roman soldier to his wife:
"Know that I am in Alexandria...I ask and beg you to take good care of our baby son, and as soon as I've received payment I shall send it upon you. If you are delivered [before I come home], if it is a boy, keep it, if a girl, discard it."
How does REAL self-interest play to compel this result over altruism? A girl doesn't consume more resources or somehow make it harder for the family to survive. If you make that argument, then I would think an argument supporting burqas would be every bit as compelling. |
Well my first thought is a boy would have offered the father a chance to carry on his name and property and being how women weren't equal to men back then their roles could easily be filled by slaves. |
Except you had to buy your slaves. You got the girls for free.
But here's the point. Even IF we make an argument that self-interest plays a role in infanticide. Does this explain it? or does this defend it? |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 08:12:16 PM · #382 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A girl doesn't consume more resources or somehow make it harder for the family to survive. |
In a non-mechanized agrarian/militarized society girls certainly did consume more resources and make it harder for the family/city-state to survive. FWIW "deficient" male infants were "discarded" as well. I know infanticide was relatively common in later Sparta, but I'd dipute the contention that it was a "widespread method of birth control" through some hundreds of years of Greek culture. |
At the least, wiki does not support you. Infanticide |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 08:46:49 PM · #383 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps this is an example where altruism fails. A letter from a Roman soldier to his wife:
"Know that I am in Alexandria...I ask and beg you to take good care of our baby son, and as soon as I've received payment I shall send it upon you. If you are delivered [before I come home], if it is a boy, keep it, if a girl, discard it."
How does REAL self-interest play to compel this result over altruism? A girl doesn't consume more resources or somehow make it harder for the family to survive. If you make that argument, then I would think an argument supporting burqas would be every bit as compelling. |
Well my first thought is a boy would have offered the father a chance to carry on his name and property and being how women weren't equal to men back then their roles could easily be filled by slaves. |
Except you had to buy your slaves. You got the girls for free.
But here's the point. Even IF we make an argument that self-interest plays a role in infanticide. Does this explain it? or does this defend it? |
What do you mean by defend it?
|
|
|
|
09/22/2010 09:14:40 PM · #384 |
Originally posted by yanko:
But here's the point. Even IF we make an argument that self-interest plays a role in infanticide. Does this explain it? or does this defend it? |
What do you mean by defend it? [/quote]
I mean, does it defend the activity as "acceptable" (or "good" or whatever word you want to use)? Infanticide is acceptable because...(insert argument from self-interest). |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 09:39:31 PM · #385 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
C'mon, Shannon. The Japanese were a warlike, Samurai culture with a divine emperor. We bombed them into submission, occupied them, rebuilt their economy in the Western mold, and created by FAR the most Westernized society in Asia. Ditto Taiwan, leaving out the war/occupation part; they owe their very existence to American intervention and American support, and they are, for an Eastern country, VERY Westernized. |
We did the same for South Korea and Afghanistan, but that doesn't make them Western.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Even IF we make an argument that self-interest plays a role in infanticide. Does this explain it? or does this defend it? |
If an infant represents a burden on the parents, then they might well justify infanticide out of self-interest. The Greeks and Romans did so by abandoning the child on the rationalization (there's that word again) that they weren't actually committing murder since the baby could be saved by the gods or a stranger. The practice continued well into the Middle Ages in Christian Europe despite laws passed against it. The development of orphanages and similar avenues finally reduced the practice by eliminating self-interest as an obstacle the more altruistic option. |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 09:58:28 PM · #386 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Even IF we make an argument that self-interest plays a role in infanticide. Does this explain it? or does this defend it? |
If an infant represents a burden on the parents, then they might well justify infanticide out of self-interest. The Greeks and Romans did so by abandoning the child on the rationalization (there's that word again) that they weren't actually committing murder since the baby could be saved by the gods or a stranger. The practice continued well into the Middle Ages in Christian Europe despite laws passed against it. The development of orphanages and similar avenues finally reduced the practice by eliminating self-interest as an obstacle the more altruistic option. |
Except that in Asian countries the practice is still commonly used (combined with abortion) to kill females. So where are we? Western civ has progressed in this regard (thanks to Judeo-Christianity), but the rest of the world, especially that least touched by J-C'ity has not made much progress.
Also, back on the older conversation, how does one determine whether a society should pass laws prohibiting infanticide? We can't use our instincts (because they are neither good or bad), so where do we go?
Message edited by author 2010-09-22 22:00:14. |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 10:12:48 PM · #387 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Except that in Asian countries the practice is still commonly used (combined with abortion) to kill females. So where are we? Western civ has progressed in this regard (thanks to Judeo-Christianity), but the rest of the world, especially that least touched by J-C'ity has not made much progress. |
It's still common in predominantly Christian Benin and South Korea, too, while the U.S. has the 11th highest rate of infanticide (Islamic countries rank among the lowest).
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
how does one determine whether a society should pass laws prohibiting infanticide? We can't use our instincts (because they are neither good or bad), so where do we go? |
Instincts themselves are neither good nor bad, but we certainly do use them. Self-interest comes first, and then altruism. If those in power believe self-interests are threatened by bans on infanticide, they will find some way to justify it. If other options are available to relieve that burden, then no justification is required and we move to the second default of letting others live. |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 10:52:16 PM · #388 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Except that in Asian countries the practice is still commonly used (combined with abortion) to kill females. So where are we? Western civ has progressed in this regard (thanks to Judeo-Christianity), but the rest of the world, especially that least touched by J-C'ity has not made much progress. |
It's still common in predominantly Christian Benin and South Korea, too, while the U.S. has the 11th highest rate of infanticide (Islamic countries rank among the lowest). |
I'm not sure what your point is. First, I was not explicitly including abortion as infanticide (so I wouldn't consider the US to be 11th highest in infanticide). Second, the voice that is loudest against abortion in the US is the J-C one. Third, what are the other top 10 nations, even if we include abortion? I'm guessing they are Asian. So how does it back your point to show that the US has a lower rate than they do? Wasn't your point that once orphanages come around then you don't need stuff like this? It seems like it's still common practice.
But let's not start talking about abortion. Let's talk about infanticide. In the US this is explicitly rare. It makes the news every time we find a baby in a trash can. In Asia, it is common. The point I'm trying to make is to show you that our "march toward equality" isn't as obvious and straightforward as you think. In parts of the world, when it comes to gender equality, we have made little progress from Rome and Greece.
Message edited by author 2010-09-22 22:55:55. |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 11:12:13 PM · #389 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... The point I'm trying to make is to show you that our "march toward equality" isn't as obvious and straightforward as you think. In parts of the world, when it comes to gender equality, we have made little progress from Rome and Greece. |
Who is this We you speak of and why would the said WE want to impart so called "Westerm" standards on others in their own environment.
The "Equality" you speak of would seem to be something that France is striving for in "Their" environment, and which seemingly applies to all, exclusively in France... therein lies some of the difference.
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-09-22 23:12:57. |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 11:32:48 PM · #390 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... The point I'm trying to make is to show you that our "march toward equality" isn't as obvious and straightforward as you think. In parts of the world, when it comes to gender equality, we have made little progress from Rome and Greece. |
Who is this We you speak of and why would the said WE want to impart so called "Westerm" standards on others in their own environment.
The "Equality" you speak of would seem to be something that France is striving for in "Their" environment, and which seemingly applies to all, exclusively in France... therein lies some of the difference.
Ray |
"we" as in humans. Shannon claimed this march, not I. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 01:31:53 AM · #391 |
This quote is too rich to pass up given the current conversation...
"Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly toward a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature."
--Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary Biologist
I know yank is going to bemoan my appeal to authority, but if that isn't a repudiation of this idea that we have a strong altruistic instinct by a source that has no interest in defending anything I stand for, then I don't know what it is. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 01:45:05 AM · #392 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
First, I was not explicitly including abortion as infanticide (so I wouldn't consider the US to be 11th highest in infanticide). ...Let's talk about infanticide. In the US this is explicitly rare. It makes the news every time we find a baby in a trash can. |
I wasn't talking about abortion either. The U.S. ranks 11th for killing infants AFTER they're born (the trash can cases you think are rare). It was listed under "present day" on the page YOU linked.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shannon claimed this march, not I. |
The march I referred to is the inexorable progress toward equality and fairness in the world. It's a simple observation as successive advances mean people aren't forced to serve under divine rulers, women are no longer regarded as property, democracies are formed, speaking out against government isn't treason, slavery is abolished, women can vote, apartheid is banned, etc. Where permitted, each generation adds a few freedoms/protections/rights that weren't available to their predecessors. The fact that some countries are slower than others doesn't change the basic premise. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 01:49:44 AM · #393 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly toward a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature."...if that isn't a repudiation of this idea that we have a strong altruistic instinct by a source that has no interest in defending anything I stand for, then I don't know what it is. |
He's acknowledging that the strongest instinct is self-interest. We must overcome helping ourselves if we are to help each other (be heroic)... exactly as I've been saying all along. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 12:59:42 PM · #394 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly toward a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature."...if that isn't a repudiation of this idea that we have a strong altruistic instinct by a source that has no interest in defending anything I stand for, then I don't know what it is. |
He's acknowledging that the strongest instinct is self-interest. We must overcome helping ourselves if we are to help each other (be heroic)... exactly as I've been saying all along. |
Yes, but I think he would have nothing to support the idea that our instinct to altruism is "strong". In fact, I find very little data anywhere to support that idea. I think, when present, it is strongest (yet still weak compared to self-interest) for family members, and very weak as we move out to strangers. You talk like it's something that moves the world and our culture, but I disagree and find little support among experts for your position. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 01:16:00 PM · #395 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
First, I was not explicitly including abortion as infanticide (so I wouldn't consider the US to be 11th highest in infanticide). ...Let's talk about infanticide. In the US this is explicitly rare. It makes the news every time we find a baby in a trash can. |
I wasn't talking about abortion either. The U.S. ranks 11th for killing infants AFTER they're born (the trash can cases you think are rare). It was listed under "present day" on the page YOU linked.
|
I had not seen that, but I found the journal article and think it muddies the water on two fronts.
1) It's looking at all "homicides" for children under three. Child abuse, accidental homicide (shaken babies), etc. are all included which is not the normal use for the word "infanticide" (although it would technically fit the literal meaning of the word). We are discussing the purposeful killing of a infant because they are unwanted.
2) Even IF we accept these numbers and count the United States as eleventh, the scale is amazingly skewed. I could not find a number from the source article (I only had access to the abstract), but the wiki goes on to use a number of "over 600 children were killed by their parents in 1983". The number of "missing females" in Asian countries is estimated at somewhere between 60 and 100 million. Now, let's be clear that that number includes aborted babies (which is why I mentioned it), but one can make the reasonable assumption that rural China is not having 20 week ultrasounds for millions and millions of parents to determine the sex (especially when such an ultrasound is illegal).
Clearly infanticide is an Asian problem of a massive scale and NOT a Western World problem (even if it occasionally occurs).
Message edited by author 2010-09-23 13:27:29. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 03:47:28 PM · #396 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly toward a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature."...if that isn't a repudiation of this idea that we have a strong altruistic instinct by a source that has no interest in defending anything I stand for, then I don't know what it is. |
He's acknowledging that the strongest instinct is self-interest. We must overcome helping ourselves if we are to help each other (be heroic)... exactly as I've been saying all along. |
Yes, but I think he would have nothing to support the idea that our instinct to altruism is "strong". In fact, I find very little data anywhere to support that idea. I think, when present, it is strongest (yet still weak compared to self-interest) for family members, and very weak as we move out to strangers. You talk like it's something that moves the world and our culture, but I disagree and find little support among experts for your position. |
A further Dawkins quote from The Selfish Gene, "Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense." Dawkins goes on the conclude that we must learn to transcend, not embrace, our genetic inclinations.
Message edited by author 2010-09-23 15:48:05. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 03:59:09 PM · #397 |
| So suddenly Dawkins is an authority with ideas worth citing? I'm sure getting confused. What does any of this to do with the low level of education/knowledge (except about celebrities amd sports) among US residents? |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 04:23:17 PM · #398 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So suddenly Dawkins is an authority with ideas worth citing? I'm sure getting confused. What does any of this to do with the low level of education/knowledge (except about celebrities amd sports) among US residents? |
Jason would sell his soul to the devil if it means winning one of these arguments... Or he could just be filling his daily fallacy quota.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2010 04:28:36 PM · #399 |
Give me some credit guys. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. I'm more than willing to listen to him when he speaks on his area of expertise. He is not a philosopher or theology major. He isn't worth listening to then.
Get a grip Rich. I'm a bit offended by your reply. Of course you are also saying that Dawkins is the devil, which I don't mind you pointing out. But since you guys seem to like the Devil, I thought I'd quote him some. :P
I could quote Edward Wilson instead if you want:
"Let me grant at once that the form and intensity of altrustic acts are to a large extent culturally determined. Human social evolution is obviously more cultural than genetic."
Message edited by author 2010-09-23 16:40:47. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 06:38:06 PM · #400 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Give me some credit guys. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. I'm more than willing to listen to him when he speaks on his area of expertise. He is not a philosopher or theology major. He isn't worth listening to then.
Get a grip Rich. I'm a bit offended by your reply. Of course you are also saying that Dawkins is the devil, which I don't mind you pointing out. But since you guys seem to like the Devil, I thought I'd quote him some. :P
I could quote Edward Wilson instead if you want:
"Let me grant at once that the form and intensity of altrustic acts are to a large extent culturally determined. Human social evolution is obviously more cultural than genetic." |
Holy crap, is this actually bordering on emotional!? From Dr. Robot!? |
|
