Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6187960" data-attributes="member: 4937">That's a different question.  You are asking if I believe modern people are moral even by their own standards.  That's unrelated to what they believe morality to be.  The question of morality is, "Do you really believe that in the modern world someone would believe one ought to release a prisoner so he can visit his dying mother far away, relying only on his word of honor that he return, and do you also believe that the prisoner, having pledged his word ought to return?"The answer to that question is, "I believe someone could believe that because I myself do believe those things."  Indeed, the very fact that you recognize the behavior as moral, honorable, and something you approve of proves that morality hasn't changed.Whether there exists specific examples of people who share that morality and act on it isn't really relevant.  All that matters is whether I believe conventional modern morality approves of those things.   That is to say, in reading the story would we expect the reader to get the sense that the actors in the story were living up to a heroic idea?  If the answer is, "Yes", then morality hasn't changed, but our expectation of how common place it is may have.So what you are saying is that modern people are less moral?I almost hesitate to touch the Guantanamo example, but try to follow this line of reasoning:a) It would be immoral to release a prisoner if the person was imprisoned for a crime rather than a virtue.   In the case of the Kaiser, did he believe the prisoner was imprisoned on account of a crime or on account of a virtue?b) It would be immoral to release a prisoner if the jailor could not be certain that the prisoner would return.  In the case of the Kaiser, the Kaiser had reason to believe that the prisoner and himself had a shared sense of what is right and wrong and therefore that an oath by the prisoner would be honest and be fulfilled.  In a real sense, WWI is a war between two factions that largely share a common culture.  In the case Guantanamo what evidence is there that the prisoner shares the same sense of morality that the jailor has?   In fact, I would argue that there is a shared sense by the two factions in the war Guantanamo is a symbol of that the other has no morality as the other understands it, and therefore has no obligation to the other much less cause for mutual trust.   This renders it a far different case than say the American Civil War or even WWII - both of which we could use to site equivalent matters of trust between enemies.  So it doesn't really prove that modern morality has changed, since it would be equally possible to find cases in the 19th century or earlier where the sort of trust that allows the WWII prisoner exchange doesn't exist.   I could get it even more basic in to the specific belief that allows trust between enemies, and how it is definitely not present in both parties in the Gitmo case, but we'd get the thread closed.I could also potentially site a case in the referenced modern war of the trust existing because the specific beliefs that allow for it are present on both sides, but really, let's get off of controversial topics.Now, it an example of morality changing would be to examine the case of the released prisoner and his return and be appalled by the moral code that was on display.   If for example your moral code is something like, "Crush your enemies and see them driven before you.", then the mercy and foolishness on display is appalling to you.   Why did the victor not vanquish his foe when he had the chance?  And why did the prisoner, upon learning his enemy was a weak fool not use the opportunity to avenge himself on the enemy rather than foolishly and weakly replacing himself in the power of his enemy?   There are societies out there whose basic moral code is, "Do it to them before they do it to us!", or "If your enemy strikes you, hit him back twice as hard!", or "If they put one of ours in the hospital, we put one of theirs in the morgue."   Under those terms, they would see the story you sight as an example of 'honor' as being an example of folly and indeed evil.  Afterall, they themselves would not do it, nor would they approve of their neighbors acting in this manner.   That would be two different moral codes.Other moral codes might be, "Don't get involved.", or "Never miss an opportunity to assert your control over others."   Under those terms, again the story of the trusting enemies is appalling.   But this is entirely different than saying we believe that modern society believes the story is appalling.  Yet, since all the above moral codes are ancient, can we say that they've really changed?  And has our assessment of which is 'right' significantly changed?</blockquote>

Verification