Check out "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society," it's a book by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman that explores the psychology of the act of killing and the military establishment's attempt to understand and deal with the consequences of killing.
It breaks down how soldiers barriers are broken down, so they'll kill in combat. His research showed that most men in a combat situation had a strong aversion to killing, and that they had an innate sense that it was wrong.
Originally posted by chithappens
Slave masters did not give a damn about dehumanizing a slave,but you never heard of any black man touching a railroad track. Know why? Cause slaves were worth too much money. That is not a moral thought, that is a business thought.*This happens to be an example from American history but this could be applied in many eras of history and many locations
Should it have been wrong morally? Yes. Did they give a damn? Apparently not. Maybe slave masters happened to all be agnostic until right before they die, then they tell Jesus they are sorry and go to heaven. 💃
A person should NOT put the reasoning of the masses as their #1 reason for certain morality (not saying Samura does that; just saying...). I don't give a damn what people thought and have "developed" because when the shit hits the fan, all that goes out the window, ALL OF IT.
I try my best to live as a man I will respect tomorrow. That is as complex as my morality goes.
Although history hasn't shown it to be nearly as black and white. Which is where the "growing human understanding and respect" - that is empathy and altruism - come into it.
Plenty of slave masters where religious people, plenty or religious people justified slavery and religious influence into other cultures as a duty of their's - to bring the heathen out of the darkness. "Blacks live in mud huts and wear little, we take them over here and they have homes and jobs and the chance to save their souls."
Hypocrisy? Certainly seems that way. Slavery became more and more of a moral issue as more and more people with empathy for slaves put their rights above economic interests and outdated religious concepts. Which is a complex interplay compared to say, Sparta, with its attitudes for slavery, or any ancient nation.
You can break morality down to something really simple but in practice it is a complex system being influenced by various aspects of society, by education, by perception of self and of others, by law, by tradition, by religion, by class divides.
And besides you forget that people can make moral issues about things that don't affect them directly - morality influencing decisions on stem cells, abortion, gay marriage, death penalty, war, the place religion should have in society and so on. Do unto others is a fine place to start, but it is far to simple to deal with the extensive difference people may have when it comes to certain issues and opinions.
Holy wars? None. But Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Polpot were all atheists.Hitler and Stalin; two individuals, who combined, are responsible for tens of millions of human deaths, why? Because they arbitrarily made up their own morals.....
Hitler and his cronies where a mess of psuedo-history, mysticism, psuedo-religion and twisted evolutionary theory. To say Hitler is an Atheist isn't anymore accurate then saying he was a devout Christian. He toed an odd-line between the two. There has been an increasing amount of scholarism on that subject recently - The Master Plan by Heather Pringle is an interesting read as it shows the madness behind so many of the Nazi party theories on race and religion.
Stalin was a confirmed athiest and he's responsible for way more death than Hitler. His lack of belief in any god had a lot to do with his motivations.
Actually his actions are more separate from religion/Atheism and are political in nature. He didn't go around saying "Bwaaahh! I am an Atheist, I kill you all because I am an Atheist!!!" it was more "Bwaaah! I perceive you as a threat, I kill you because you are all a threat".
Now you could say something like "well, maybe if he had been religious he wouldn't have done it" but I don't buy that. Once again - as history shows if a person wants to do something they will find a way to justify it with or without religion.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Although history hasn't shown it to be nearly as black and white. Which is where the "growing human understanding and respect" - that is empathy and altruism - come into it.Plenty of slave masters where religious people, plenty or religious people justified slavery and religious influence into other cultures as a duty of their's - to bring the heathen out of the darkness. "Blacks live in mud huts and wear little, we take them over here and they have homes and jobs and the chance to save their souls."
Hypocrisy? Certainly seems that way. Slavery became more and more of a moral issue as more and more people with empathy for slaves put their rights above economic interests and outdated religious concepts. Which is a complex interplay compared to say, Sparta, with its attitudes for slavery, or any ancient nation.
You can break morality down to something really simple but in practice it is a complex system being influenced by various aspects of society, by education, by perception of self and of others, by law, by tradition, by religion, by class divides.
Hitler and his cronies where a mess of psuedo-history, mysticism, psuedo-religion and twisted evolutionary theory. To say Hitler is an Atheist isn't anymore accurate then saying he was a devout Christian. He toed an odd-line between the two. There has been an increasing amount of scholarism on that subject recently - The Master Plan by Heather Pringle is an interesting read as it shows the madness behind so many of the Nazi party theories on race and religion.
Actually his actions are more separate from religion/Atheism and are political in nature. He didn't go around saying "Bwaaahh! I am an Atheist, I kill you all because I am an Atheist!!!" it was more "Bwaaah! I perceive you as a threat, I kill you because you are all a threat".
Now you could say something like "well, maybe if he had been religious he wouldn't have done it" but I don't buy that. Once again - as history shows if a person wants to do something they will find a way to justify it with or without religion
Great post.
I still argue that if individuals took accountability for themselves that morality would work a lot better on a macro level. That is what is missing from the broad picture.
I am not optimistic enough to think that is possible for people, as a majority, to do so but I have always though the issue of politics was with the people, not the system. Even dictatorships would work DECENTLY if the ruler actually cared for his people.
*Oh and I like the sig Bitchiness 😆