Is no person beyond redemption?

Mr Manifesto

Illuminator
M
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
4,815
It seems a lot of Americans are obsessed in the idea of revenge. For example the notion of the death penalty, that you should kill anyone who harms, tries to harm, or may in the future harm you, and things like that. This seems to say that there are those who feel that absolutely no one can be redeemed.

What I am wondering is in the context of Christianity is no one beyond redemption? Get the most evil person you can imagine- perhaps Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Gacy, Bundy, Manson (Charles, that is) or the most vile multiple child-killer/rapist. Are these people absolutely beyond redemption?

Does anyone know what Jesus had to say about redemption? Was He of the opinion that there were those who could not be redeemed? What does the Bible say about Redemption in general?

This is just an open discussion. I have no opinion myself on this subject.
 
Mr Manifesto said:

What I am wondering is in the context of Christianity is no one beyond redemption?
Click to expand...

Apparently Jesus thought that there was at least one act that could put you beyond redemption:

Mark 3:28-29 (NIV)
I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.

On the other hand, the apostle Paul wrote this:

Romans 8:38-39 (NIV)
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
 
It seems to me that the message of " no one is beyond redemption " is a theme among most Christian denominations.

It is also one of the reasons I consider Christian based philosophy to be flawed. The idea that a person can commit any number of evil acts throughout their life, then gain redemption on their deathbead and join all the 'good' people in heaven, is laughable and a clue to the true nature of the God that supposededly administers this justice.

Not to mention a monumental insult to all the 'good' people in heaven.
 
It is my understanding that most conventional Christians (i.e. people who are only nominally a member of the religion) do think that some people are beyond redemption. However, the hardcore Christians will tell that no one is beyond redemption and anyone who accepts Jesus before death will get into heaven.
 
Diogenes wrote:
It seems to me that the message of " no one is beyond redemption " is a theme among most Christian denominations.

It is also one of the reasons I consider Christian based philosophy to be flawed. The idea that a person can commit any number of evil acts throughout their life, then gain redemption on their deathbead and join all the 'good' people in heaven, is laughable and a clue to the true nature of the God that supposededly administers this justice.

Not to mention a monumental insult to all the 'good' people in heaven.

Have you ever considered the anthropological angle. It would point out that you are a *good* person based on the progression of the totallity of the elements that have made you what you are today.

So, to an anthropologist you are no better *qualitatively* than a canibal. And remember, a cannibal eats lots of people. Are you better than a cannibal?

What if you could live the life of vile people, see the misery through their eyes?

Why not consider yourself fortune that you have the luxury of your moral superiority?
 
Christian said:
Diogenes wrote:
It seems to me that the message of " no one is beyond redemption " is a theme among most Christian denominations.

It is also one of the reasons I consider Christian based philosophy to be flawed. The idea that a person can commit any number of evil acts throughout their life, then gain redemption on their deathbead and join all the 'good' people in heaven, is laughable and a clue to the true nature of the God that supposededly administers this justice.

Not to mention a monumental insult to all the 'good' people in heaven.

Have you ever considered the anthropological angle. It would point out that you are a *good* person based on the progression of the totallity of the elements that have made you what you are today.

So, to an anthropologist you are no better *qualitatively* than a canibal. And remember, a cannibal eats lots of people. Are you better than a cannibal?

 I certainly would not make that assumption..

What if you could live the life of vile people, see the misery through their eyes?

 What if pigs could fly? I'll pass on seeing life through the eyes of a vile person..

Why not consider yourself fortune that you have the luxury of your moral superiority?

Feeling judged, because I pointed out a flaw in Christian philosophy?

Try refuting my observation instead of trying to insult me.
Click to expand...
 
Diogenes wrote:
What if pigs could fly? I'll pass on seeing life through the eyes of a vile person..

So you consider the study on the psychology of criminals a futile endevour.

Feeling judged, because I pointed out a flaw in Christian philosophy?

Try refuting my observation instead of trying to insult me.

I thought I did. And, why do you feel insulted? Did I assume wrong when I concluded that you feel morally superior to criminals?


My point is simple. I see causality and you must believe it at the macrolevel (e.g. evolution). The only logical conclusion is that it is not the fault of the entity. The entity has no choice. Can a spider not act like a spider. Can a lion not hunt and kill?

Criminals are the product of causality. Why would we feel any better *qualitatively* then they.

The conclusion to this understanding is that because we are no different qualitatively, we all have an equal chance of redemption regardless of the elements that made us what we are.


Again, will you argue you are qualitatively better (superior) than a petty thief in the streets of San Salvador? Maybe if he lived in a country like yours, he would not be one.


You see, as I have said many time, there are implications to your position that you cannot escape. Once you begin condemning other human beings on the basis of their behavior, then you become that which you say does not exist (God).

Please don't confuse this type of condemnation with the legal system. It only deals with privileges, not the qualitatively values of a human being.
 
Greetings.

I agree with Christian as to this. The quote at the bottom of my post

"If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility."...H.W.Longfellow
Click to expand...

Is one of my favorites. All things are the result of causes and conditions. We look to quickly at many times at many things and wish to see only black and white, that is not the case.

Allow me 2 examples if you I use this first one with people debating their pro death/execution beliefs.


There was a man several years up for parole and it was at that time I heard his story.

Part one: This man was convicted or kidnapping several woman, beating, raping and then killing and mutilating them.

I ask the pro death/execution friend is this man should be executed. The response is always yes.

Part 2, as they say the rest of the story.

This man was kidnapped as a child ( at 5) he was used in child porn movies, raped, beaten and tortured on film and as part of his day. Passed around for most of his life, a drug addict and alcoholic by the time he was an early teen.

I ask again should this man be executed? Some do not answer, a few say no some say yes.

What else could this man be but what he was? Was any of what he did well and right? NO but
"If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility."...H.W.Longfellow
Click to expand...

This last war, Saddam ‘s 2 sons. They are beasts that is fact. But they have also known nothing else. By 12 each HAD to shoot and kill prisoners and were made to watch and then be involved in torture from young childhood. Their powerful father telling them over and over “it is kill or be killed”.

Was any of what he did well and right? NO but
"If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility."...H.W.Longfellow
Click to expand...

Just what I believe
 
Pahansiri said:
Greetings.

.


There was a man several years up for parole and it was at that time I heard his story.

Part one: This man was convicted or kidnapping several woman, beating, raping and then killing and mutilating them.

I ask the pro death/execution friend is this man should be executed. The response is always yes.

Part 2, as they say the rest of the story.

This man was kidnapped as a child ( at 5) he was used in child porn movies, raped, beaten and tortured on film and as part of his day. Passed around for most of his life, a drug addict and alcoholic by the time he was an early teen.

I ask again should this man be executed? Some do not answer, a few say no some say yes.
Click to expand...

I would still say yes... And the people who mistreated him should be punished as well..


Have you ever heard: " Two wrongs do not make a right .."


Showing that an evil person is a victim, does not make them less evil.. It just shows they are not alone..
 
Christian said:
Diogenes wrote:


if he lived in a country like yours, he would not be one.


You see, as I have said many time, there are implications to your position that you cannot escape. Once you begin condemning other human beings on the basis of their behavior, then you become that which you say does not exist (God).
Click to expand...


But I don't condemn anyone!

It is your God and your religion that does this..

Your God creates an evil being, and then punishes it for doing what comes naturally...:rolleyes: ( Remember the Garden of Eden?)

If there is no condemnation ( for acts beyond ones control ... your beggar in SanSalvador..), then their is no need for redemption..
 
Diogenes said:


I would still say yes... And the people who mistreated him should be punished as well..


Have you ever heard: " Two wrongs do not make a right .."


Showing that an evil person is a victim, does not make them less evil.. It just shows they are not alone..
Click to expand...

Hello Diogenes I respect your belief or right to it.


You say
Have you ever heard: " Two wrongs do not make a right .."
Click to expand...

Remember I did not say what he did was right but clearly it had a cause one he was powerless at the time to stop it when it happened.

Also you believe he was wrong yet you wish to kill him, that makes your statment Hypocrisy and by such illogical.


I do not believe in "sins" or people are evil I believe they, and you and I do evil things at times. You can not say it is wrong to kill then kill someone.

By the way as to that case he asked to never be let out, I forgot to add that.

One last thing if he was your child, taken from you at 5, years later you find him after this would you sit in that court and say kill him?
Just what I believe, be well.
 
Pahansiri,

When I said ' Yes' after hearing part 2, of your story above, it was with the assumption that I had said yes to capital punishment with regard to part one, without knowing about part 2..


My point was, that if he deserved to die because of what he did, what was done to him wouldn't change that..

If he had killed his abusers, I'm sure I would not consider execution as a fitting punishment.

I think I could kill under certain circumstances, and I would be wrong if I did so.

I can't imagine killing my son, but I cannot imagine him doing something for which I would feel compelled to kill him.

But would also have to say I'm a bit biased in that regard...

I have a problem with capital punishment due to the potential and apparent misapplication of it. I would be satisfied with unqualified isolation of capital offenders from the rest of society.

I would have to stop short of trying to find any justification for their deeds..
 
Thank you for answering Diogenes


My point was, that if he deserved to die because of what he did, what was done to him wouldn't change that..
Click to expand...

But what is deserving to die? What happened to him had a great deal to do with that. The chances that he would have done what he did if he were raised in a loving home would be very low. The law does in fact allow for mental defect, such a life is a cause of mental defect.


You write
I think I could kill under certain circumstances, and I would be wrong if I did so.
Click to expand...

I am Buddhist so of course feel and believe the same. I would kill if I had to, to protect others but know fully all actions have reactions all causes have effects. Now my belief is as to karma as to rebirth but that is my belief and ask no one to believe it. But regardless there will always be an effect.


I can't imagine killing my son, but I cannot imagine him doing something for which I would feel compelled to kill him.

But would also have to say I'm a bit biased in that regard...
Click to expand...

Why not? Because he was raised in a loving home, he did not suffer what this child did?


I would have to stop short of trying to find any justification for their deeds..
Click to expand...

I do not justify it at all, I explain causes and conditions behind it. But with respect may I again ask you to answer the question.


Would you say “Yes my child should be executed” If you had the vote to break the tie what would it be?

If this man were killed what would be changed or gained?

[quote[I have a problem with capital punishment due to the potential and apparent misapplication of it. I would be satisfied with unqualified isolation of capital offenders from the rest of society.[/quote]

And it has been and often. What of the people who did not do what they were killed for? What of their loved ones do we just say “oops”. I know you do not believe in it for these reasons also. When a court system kills a being who did not do anything, should they not then be seen as killers?


How can we look into the eyes of our children and say “ killing is never right don’t kill” then we kill.

Just what I believe.
 
Pahansiri wrote:
Greetings.

I agree with Christian as to this.


I think Pahansiri has explained it much better than I. I don't think I need to add anything more.
 
Greetings my friend Christian how are the twins? Start saving for their future yet? I mean the future phone bills, twin teen girls!!!! school, 2 weddings OH MY!!! lol:eek:
 
Pahansiri said:
Thank you for answering Diogenes




But what is deserving to die? What happened to him had a great deal to do with that. The chances that he would have done what he did if he were raised in a loving home would be very low. The law does in fact allow for mental defect, such a life is a cause of mental defect.


 It is not that he deserves to die, but that the rest of society deserves to be free from his possible further evil deeds. As in my reasoning regarding redemption. I do not believe it is fair to the just, to let the unjust go unpunished.

Why not? Because he was raised in a loving home, he did not suffer what this child did?

 This would be part of it. Perhaps a great deal of it. Everyone is good or evil, for a reason

I do not justify it at all, I explain causes and conditions behind it. But with respect may I again ask you to answer the question.

Would you say “Yes my child should be executed” If you had the vote to break the tie what would it be?

 The right thing to do would be to say yes, and to kill myself as well, because I would share his guilt. I do not believe I have the courage to do that..

If this man were killed what would be changed or gained?

As mentioned before. Society would be free of the threat he presented..

Just what I believe, as well.



How can we look into the eyes of our children and say “ killing is never right don’t kill” then we kill.

Just what I believe.
Click to expand...
 
Christian,

The only logical conclusion is that it is not the fault of the entity. The entity has no choice.
Click to expand...
You have a very poor understanding of the issues, Christian. Causality does *not* remove responsibility, it explains it. But explaining this would be yet another derailment of a thread into a libertarian versus compatibilist discussion - and there have been plenty of those. I strongly suggest you need to read and understand the compatibilist position before you continue to run with the simplistic Franko position of "TLOP controls YOU! You have no Free Will !" You've been sold a lemon by Franko, and you need to realise it doesn't lead where you think it does.

Back on topic - is no person beyond redemption? If there is an afterlife, then perhaps anyone could be redeemed. Certainly, the catholics like to offer every possibility for this, while still demanding some sort of restitution. The Protestants seem wildly erratic.
 
Diogenes

It is not that he deserves to die, but that the rest of society deserves to be free from his possible further evil deeds. As in my reasoning regarding redemption. I do not believe it is fair to the just, to let the unjust go unpunished.
Click to expand...

That is what we have jails for, if a being, say like him who even asked to never be let out must be taken to a place where he can not harm others jail is fine. The killing of a being will not stop others from doing the same.

As Buddhist I do not believe in Redemption in as a God etc that must be pleased etc to receive this redemption I also do not believe to kill someone as a punishment is a redemption for him. No dead person will return because he is killed, no tears for the ones he killed will be erased.

What is this man or another say had a organic mental illness? Should he be killed, as he would be as you say one who would do evil deeds on society.

This would be part of it. Perhaps a great deal of it. Everyone is good or evil, for a reason
Click to expand...

Exactly, that is what I said. Causes and conditions. But I do not believe anyone is evil, we do evil things from a perception that is twisted by many causes and conditions.

But while you have not really yet answered my question I assume the answer is no, you could not vote or stand up and say your child should be killed, so why the child of another.

The right thing to do would be to say yes, and to kill myself as well, because I would share his guilt. I do not believe I have the courage to do that..
Click to expand...

I respect your belief but for me in I can I can in no way see how that is the right thing.

As mentioned before. Society would be free of the threat he presented..
Click to expand...

As to what I believe that is not logical and is an emotional response. Within that thinking we should kill anyone who may kill someone? Should we do some testing that may predict who may kill and pre-kill them? Many countries leaders present a danger to some others, I know George Bush thinks this way sadly but would you just start dropping bombs on everyone now?

Again I just offer my thoughts on topics that are complex.
 
Pahansiri said:


But while you have not really yet answered my question I assume the answer is no, you could not vote or stand up and say your child should be killed, so why the child of another.

Which question was that? Yes, I am biased for my son. If that is wrong, so be it..


As to what I believe that is not logical and is an emotional response. Within that thinking we should kill anyone who may kill someone?


Of course not.. Did I mention, I am not in favor of capital punishment?
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Diogenes Of course not.. Did I mention, I am not in favor of capital punishment?
Click to expand...

You had said you were against it but then you also said
The right thing to do would be to say yes, and to kill myself as well, because I would share his guilt. I do not believe I have the courage to do that..
Click to expand...
and
It is not that he deserves to die, but that the rest of society deserves to be free from his possible further evil deeds. As in my reasoning regarding redemption. I do not believe it is fair to the just, to let the unjust go unpunished.
Click to expand...

But Again you did not answer my Question Could you, would you stand up in a court and either cast the vote to execute your son or say”Yes” he must die” .. I know you are bias about your son but this is a yes or no Question .
 
Let me first say, I don't really understand the thread question, based upon the concept 'redemption'.

Is the question, "Are there some people so bad that they shouldn't be allowed to feel regret for the prior acts and accept their punishment and received something like "absolution" from society (but still be punished) - but we're not discussing eternal life in the thread?"

Or is the question "Is the Xian idea of redemption and receiving eternal life in heaven for all who accept Jesus, no matter what heinous crimes were committed, a logically consistent and ethical standard?"

I have a problem squaring eternal life for a seriel killer, with a death-bed conversion, and eternal punishment for a life-long buddist saint.

The Bible does not, however. And current Xian apologists who deny that eternal punishment is promised by the Bible for life-long saints who happen not to be Xian are simply special pleaders making up their own religion.

------

And as to Pan's query, I can reluctantly accept capital punishment, as applied with the McNaughton rule on sanity. Regardless of your past, if you commit multiple felonies, resulting in death, and you know the consequence of your actions and the difference between 'right and wrong' in our society (i.e. you are not insane) capital punishment is justified.

So, if I were to be the judge of the hypothetical you posed, I would address it as follows:

Q 1: Did the defendant do the heinous crimes he is charged with?

A 1: Absolutely. He was caught in the act, there is no question about his guilt, and he confessed.

**

Q 2: Is he legally insane - in other words, did he know that in our society murder is illegal, that he was intentionally committing murder, and he could control his actions?

A 2: Yes. While he had a horrible upbringing and many terrible crimes inflicted upon him, he was an adult, he had average IQ, he knew that murder is illegal, he knew he was committing murder, and he had full control over his acts.

**

Ruling: As our society has determined that capital punishment is acceptable, I sentence him to death.
 
To clarify the question a bit more- can there be some act which redeems the person who commits the unspeakable act? The Bible, as suggested by those who have replied so far, seems to think so.
 
Greetings Gregor.

I respect your position and belief.


You wrote;
Ruling: As our society has determined that capital punishment is acceptable, I sentence him to death.
Click to expand...

What is the parameters of “our society” in fact most Americans and most in the world do not support the death penalty. ( most people also voted for Al Gore but that is another topic lol)

Lets us look at the Taliban in Afghanistan when the were in power, one could say society has determined that stoning woman is acceptable or cutting off hands or Stalin’s Russia , or Pol Pot or Hitler etc.

Allow me to ask you the same question I asked Diogenes.

If the man I spoke of for example was your son, taken from you at 5 and lived what he did. You find him now an adult and at court for what he did. You are asked to stand and cast a vote on him either going to jail for life or having electricity pumped through his body until he was dead.

What would your vote be?
 
Pahansiri
You said:
Part one: This man was convicted or kidnapping several woman, beating, raping and then killing and mutilating them.

I ask the pro death/execution friend is this man should be executed. The response is always yes.
Click to expand...
Yes, I would be in favor of executing this person if his guilt was beyond any shred of doubt. However, due to our inability to implement a flawless system of capital punishment, I oppose capital punishment as part of the justice system.

Then you presented Part 2:
This man was kidnapped as a child ( at 5) he was used in child porn movies, raped, beaten and tortured on film and as part of his day. Passed around for most of his life, a drug addict and alcoholic by the time he was an early teen.
Click to expand...
And asked if my answer would still be yes. .......And I say " Yes"... The way he was treated may be the reason he behaved badly, but it does not justify his actions. I still think he ' deserves ' to die. If we could implement a flawless system of capital punishment, I would have no qualms about voting for his execution.

Then you ask " Would I feel/vote the same if it were my son? "

I believe I can objectively say, my son would 'deserve' to die. However, I would not have the courage or the will to vote 'yes' for his execution.

So, to address your final point:
.....But Again you did not answer my Question Could you, would you stand up in a court and either cast the vote to execute your son or say”Yes” he must die” .. I know you are bias about your son but this is a yes or no Question .
Click to expand...


No.
 
Pahansiri said:
Greetings Gregor.

.............

You are asked to stand and cast a vote on him either going to jail for life or having electricity pumped through his body until he was dead.

What would your vote be?
Click to expand...

Hey!! No fair!! I didn't get this choice.....:(
 
Diogenes said:
Pahansiri
You said:
Yes, I would be in favor of executing this person if his guilt was beyond any shred of doubt. However, due to our inability to implement a flawless system of capital punishment, I oppose capital punishment as part of the justice system.

Then you presented Part 2:
And asked if my answer would still be yes. .......And I say " Yes"... The way he was treated may be the reason he behaved badly, but it does not justify his actions. I still think he ' deserves ' to die. If we could implement a flawless system of capital punishment, I would have no qualms about voting for his execution.

Then you ask " Would I feel/vote the same if it were my son? "

I believe I can objectively say, my son would 'deserve' to die. However, I would not have the courage or the will to vote 'yes' for his execution.

So, to address your final point:



No.
Click to expand...

Diogenes I respect your views and honesty.
 
According to many Christian denominations, suicide is the one thing that puts you beyond redemption. Your last act on earth is to take a life, so there is no chance for you to repent.
 
As we all must concede, one cannot really say what one would do if faced with the choice of life or death for a son. Until that time, it's only gross speculation - but I think I could say 'yes,' although I am not certain. But luckily our government does not require parents to mete out the punishment that society imposes.

A relative cannot act as the judge of a defendant under the US system of law.

But, as I accept capital punishment in theory, wouldn't it be hypocritical for me to say no? Would I regret that the real judge sentenced him to death - absolutely. Would it make me change my view that capital punishment shouldn't be used? No.

And since I do not accept another society's laws (read Afghanistan), I am not obligated to justify them. Since I accept in theory capital punishment, I must defend my belief.
 
Gregor I respect your views and honesty.
There is a flaw as to this
As we all must concede, one cannot really say what one would do if faced with the choice of life or death for a son. Until that time, it's only gross speculation
Click to expand...

As we all must concede, one cannot really say what one would do if faced with the choice of life or death for a son. Until that time, it's only gross speculation

Not really, in fact this is not true as it is too sweeping . I for one would not agree with the execution of my son or yours or Saddam’s or for a person who killed my entire family.

For me I could not be part of taking someone’s life for this reason and situation, for me it would insult the life of my family to act in a way or revenge that does what we felt was wrong.

Gandhi said well “ an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”

Back to my point I can say with confidence there are many who would say no.

Just what I believe
 
Pahansiri wrote:
Greetings my friend Christian how are the twins? Start saving for their future yet? I mean the future phone bills, twin teen girls!!!! school, 2 weddings OH MY!!! Lol

I’m sorry I didn’t respond sooner. Thanks for asking for the twins. They are 8 months old now. (how time flies). Yes, I think I get the short end of the stick here.

Loki wrote:
You have a very poor understanding of the issues, Christian.

Do I?

Causality does *not* remove responsibility, it explains it.

That depend on the type of responsibility you are referring to and of whom or what you are speaking about. You would agree that a lion is not morally responsible for killing a rival lion.

I strongly suggest you need to read and understand the compatibilist position before you continue to run with the simplistic Franko position of "TLOP controls YOU! You have no Free Will !"

Please forget Franko. I would like you to address my points on this specific topic. I think causality can be pretty much demonstrated from this perspective.

You've been sold a lemon by Franko, and you need to realise it doesn't lead where you think it does.

In this topic, it demonstrates (and we find a logical explanation) why God is willing to grant eternal life to mankind not based on their past actions.

Back on topic - is no person beyond redemption? If there is an afterlife, then perhaps anyone could be redeemed. Certainly, the catholics like to offer every possibility for this, while still demanding some sort of restitution. The Protestants seem wildly erratic.

No, no person is beyond redemption.

Back to the causality topic, the whole anthropological study is based on the premise of causality. According to this field, what humans are today is the result of their particular progression. I hope you see the implications of this. To anthropologist, we are not cannibals simply because our distinct progression did not lead us there, but if we had had the same progression, we would have been.

A side note:
Are you still interested in continuing the morality discussion. This week I do have a little more time.
 
Christian,

You would agree that a lion is not morally responsible for killing a rival lion
Click to expand...
You would agree a lion is not a human? Morality exists *only* in the human realm - analogies outside of this have no relevence.

Please forget Franko.
Click to expand...
Happy to!

To anthropologist, we are not cannibals simply because our distinct progression did not lead us there, but if we had had the same progression, we would have been.
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you are saying here - humans are not cannibals because that's not where evolution took us, but we could be cannibals if we "rewound history" and followed the exact same evolutionary path?

Are you still interested in continuing the morality discussion.
Click to expand...
You'll have to refresh my memory - which discussion is that? Where were we up to?
 
Loki wrote:
You would agree a lion is not a human? Morality exists *only* in the human realm - analogies outside of this have no relevence.

Fair enough. Let's try this: insane people are not morally or legally responsible if they killed a person.

I don't understand what you are saying here - humans are not cannibals because that's not where evolution took us, but we could be cannibals if we "rewound history" and followed the exact same evolutionary path?

Anthropologist don't like to use the word evolution anymore because that implies going from a lower plain to a higher one. What they say is that each civilization (society) follows a path to ensure its survival.

Let's use a simpler example. There are tribes of people today that exchange their females for cattle. Are you going to argue that that is morally wrong?

When you say *humans* are not cannibals, the model you have is a western one, that sells the idea that humans evolve from primitive societies to more complex ones. This has been widely refutted by modern anthropologists. Today, the view is of each society following its own path based on the elements that make up their reality. This is where causality comes in.

The predictive power of Anthropology and its depth in understanding the past comes from causality.

You'll have to refresh my memory - which discussion is that? Where were we up to?

On Remorse
 
Christian,

Let's try this: insane people are not morally or legally responsible if they killed a person.
Click to expand...
No, they are not. All causes are not equal. Seawater will cause iron to rust. Seawater does not coerce iron to rust. cause != coerce.

There are tribes of people today that exchange their females for cattle. Are you going to argue that that is morally wrong?
Click to expand...
Perhaps, perhaps not. Context is everything - which is your point, I think. What you seem to be missing is that *not all causes are equal* when we are talking about morality.

...that sells the idea that humans evolve from primitive societies to more complex ones.
Click to expand...
The evolution of human society from primitive to complex is driven primarily by size/expansion. New problems require new solutions. More people = more interation = more complexity. The complexity is not necessarily "good" or "desireable", but "inevitable".

This has been widely refutted by modern anthropologists.
Click to expand...
Can you provide a reference or two? I might agree with this - just haven't done enough reading to have a solid opinion.

And perhaps we should leave the other discussion for now - although you were making an interesting point there, and I'd like to see you expand/defend it sometime!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom