Following rules: inherently a virtue?

[BenitoChavez]

Some might think if you sent them home they'd be back next season. I would love to hear alternate solution proposed.

They attacked you for a reason so try to come up with a mutual agreement that resolves their problem without attacking you. It's easier said than done but it seems morally better than slavery or death.

 

[rah]

Well, there was a time when the ethical options included a good maiming and sending them on their way...

I guess the level of maiming would have to considered in the morality equation.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't think you can overstate how evil the circa 1840 was, but I think we can definitely understate the ancient evil of kill the babies, kill the old, work the men, and rape the women. Oh, our rape children can be members of society mostly as per normal, so it's kewl. Glory to Rome!

Evil is almost always a product of evolution. When "kill the babies, kill the old, work the men, and rape the women" was the newly evolved alternative to "kill the neighboring tribe and eat them" it wasn't likely to be seen as evil. When it was the practice of a few backwards barbarians it was certainly viewed as the evil alternative by those who had evolved.

 

[rah]

They attacked you for a reason so try to come up with a mutual agreement that resolves their problem without attacking you. It's easier said than done but it seems morally better than slavery or death.

In many times they attacked you because they desired something you had. So I guess it would matter what they wanted. If it was a daughter to be one of their slave wives, there really wouldn't be much bargaining room. But yes, if some type of agreement could be made that would be a superior solution.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But yes if some type of agreement could be made that would be a superior solution.

Only if there is mutual trust that said agreement will be binding. In short, that never works.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In many times they attacked you because they desired something you had. So I guess it would matter what they wanted. If it was a daughter to be one of their slave wives, there really wouldn't be much bargaining room. But yes, if some type of agreement could be made that would be a superior solution.

The time for that solution is before they attacked. If they're willing to use lethal force, I see no coherent moral argument that rejects holding them to their own standards. Perhaps one might still be presented, however.

 

[rah]

Only if there is mutual trust that said agreement will be binding. In short, that never works.

Yeah, I guess if they attacked you in the first place, lack of trust would probably be a show stopper. DOH.

 

[Farm Boy]

Evil is almost always a product of evolution. When "kill the babies, kill the old, work the men, and rape the women" was the newly evolved alternative to "kill the neighboring tribe and eat them" it wasn't likely to be seen as evil. When it was the practice of a few backwards barbarians it was certainly viewed as the evil alternative by those who had evolved.

I disagree. Eating the neighbors was and is a function of hunger. Raping and enslaving their women is more about opportunity. Full bellies help, there.

Full told? The former may be evil, but is most definitely desperate. Other things are preferable to hunt for food. The latter is nothing but pure, unadulterated, evil is its purest sense.

 

[Truthy]

The liberals and the Enlightenment got this one right. Individuals are capable of using reason to critique society's received wisdom and propose improvements. We are all better off because of this.

Mostly agree, but don't think they got it completely right (you've seen me argue this before).

There's the notion, shared among anthropologists and reactionaries, that cultural evolution is not arbitrary; it optimizes for something. And so we should often deploy the Chesterton's fence heuristic when critiquing received wisdom. And you know, there is a reason (beyond "that's racist") anthropologists are skeptical of Western "civilizing" logic--their field teaches them that important knowledge is tied up in culture and individual reason is not as good at outsmarting that as we'd like to think. Some anthropologists will take this argument to the extreme and argue individual reason is actually pretty much useless compared to cultural evolution (I disagree with this, but you get the point).

There are a lot of examples. Many agrarian societies developed the practice of consuming carbs with fats/oils, which turns out to be very healthy because it reduces glycemic response--even though no one had any idea what blood sugar was and no Enlightenment thinker was going to figure that out through reason. Many spices have anti-microbial properties and spices are more common in areas with more pathogens (areas closer to the equator). No one survives in the arctic or the desert without culture. I recently read about an Indonesian farming ritual that incidentally controlled pests, but it was abandoned at the urging of the government, which caused crop losses because the insect population surged.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I disagree. Eating the neighbors was and is a function of hunger. Raping and enslaving their women is more about opportunity. Full bellies help, there.

I doubt that cannibalism would very often be driven by hunger. Other food sources, more easily obtained, would almost always be available. Cannibalism is a conquest rite, generally, therefore I think the "progression" to enslavement can be presented as a positive...in terms of conquest rites.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think the "kill and eat for fun" and "kill and rape and enslave for fun" crowds probably have approximately 100% overlap in practice. More a question of technical capacity to keep docile individuals who would have motivation to harm/run and if they can be put to desirable use past becoming feces.

 

[Lexicus]

Mostly agree, but don't think they got it completely right (you've seen me argue this before).

There's the notion, shared among anthropologists and reactionaries, that cultural evolution is not arbitrary; it optimizes for something. And so we should often deploy the Chesterton's fence heuristic when critiquing received wisdom. And you probably know, there is a reason (beyond "that's racist") anthropologists are skeptical of Western "civilizing" logic--their field teaches them that important knowledge is tied up in culture and individual reason is not as good at outsmarting that as we'd like to think. Some anthropologists will take this argument to the extreme and argue individual reason is actually pretty much useless compared to cultural evolution (I disagree with this, but you get the point).

There are a lot of examples. Many agrarian societies developed the practice of consuming carbs with fats/oils, which turns out to be very healthy because it reduces glycemic response--even though no one had any idea what blood sugar was and no Enlightenment thinker was going to figure that out through reason. Many spices have anti-microbial properties and spices are more common in areas with more pathogens (areas closer to the equator). No one survives in the arctic or the desert without culture. I recently read about an Indonesian farming ritual that incidentally controlled pests, but it was abandoned at the urging of the government, which caused crop losses because the insect population surged.

I think what you're talking about is related to functionalism no? What I think of that is summed up by the observation that one of the most successful civilizations of all time expended enormous labor on giant stone houses for dead guys (Egyptian pyramids). I generally take a dim view of reductive functionalist explanations for cultural phenomena.

But I don't really disagree with the idea that important knowledge can be encoded in culture; note that I said "individuals are capable", not that this is inevitable or even that it happens super-often. I actually think that getting too excited about the capacity of individuals to use reason to critique and improve society can easily lead to Utopian nightmares (liberal capitalism itself being arguably the best example).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think the "kill and eat for fun" and "kill and rape and enslave for fun" crowds probably have approximately 100% overlap in practice. More a question of technical capacity to keep docile individuals who would have motivation to harm/run and if they can be put to desirable use past becoming feces.

Well, the substitution of "for fun" in place of "for conquest" changes the emotional impact to perhaps carry the argument, but from a practical standpoint they aren't the same thing. Conquest isn't an individual effort, and societies very seldom embrace behaviors "for fun." Conquerors always have a "good reason," even if said reason doesn't make any sense to anyone but themselves. They may pay their soldiers in whole or in part with the currency of fun, whether that is participation in the eating of the vanquished in full bellied fraternity with your fellows or participation in the despoiling of the womenfolk of the vanquished or some other individually assessed value.

 

[Farm Boy]

I have absolutely no doubt that going out to kill or die and maybe come back with a weeping woman or two to fat and cook for you communally qualifies as most of the entirety of the "good reason." Whatever the BS justifications happened to be. God wills it. The divine order says so. She's pretty when she cries. All the same but for the window dressing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I have absolutely no doubt that going out to kill or die and maybe come back with a weeping woman or two to fat and cook for you communally qualifies as most of the entirety of the "good reason." Whatever the BS justifications happened to be. God wills it. The divine order says so. She's pretty when she cries. All the same but for the window dressing.

I already said that soldiers can be paid, in whole or in part, in the currency of "fun." But the society as a whole doesn't go conquering "for the fun of it." The WWII "great stand against the tyranny of evil" was made by the nation, and sure the individuals who were on the line making said great stand had individual motives that in many cases were no doubt far less difficult to identify as ignoble.

The opposite can also be true though. I was well paid, in fun and other commodities, for my participation in the destruction of the USSR. My nation certainly wanted to continue employing me in further conquests of dubious moral value, but I made an individual decision to be "better."

 

[Farm Boy]

There are exceptions, sure. I don't think the Civil War was particularly for fun. I don't think World War II was particularly for fun. The destruction of the USSR doesn't fit the mold of "slave-taking conquest" as discussed without major qualifications. Napoleon does. Women leaping from city walls as the Mongolians show up does. US cavalrymen and the Lakota probably does. Post-horse Lakota before the US cavalry and the Comanche land empire probably does. An ancient Greek city state subjugating another one? Persia invading Greece? Alexander the Great? Yeah. Rape Apes. Literally the worst people the species produces, the conquerors.

 

[Commodore]

Some might think if you sent them home they'd be back next season. I would love to hear alternate solution proposed.

That old saying "Those who desire peace, must prepare for war." Send the defeated soldiers home and if you really believe they are going to return with hostile intent, then spend the time before their anticipated return building up defenses to dissuade them from attacking when they do return.

If your village is now a fortress when they return, they are likely to decide you just aren't worth the trouble and go find some other small, weak village to prey upon.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That old saying "Those who desire peace, must prepare for war." Send the defeated soldiers home and if you really believe they are going to return with hostile intent, then spend the time before their anticipated return building up defenses to dissuade them from attacking when they do return.

If your village is now a fortress when they return, they are likely to decide you just aren't worth the trouble and go find some other small, weak village to prey upon.

Problem being that "build up the defenses" is, in fact, fruitless labor...as in it bears no fruit. Redirecting labor into fruitless pursuits doesn't get you ahead. So the really obvious solution is to hold the captured would be conquerors at least long enough for them to do the fortress building for you.

#birth of slavery

 

[rah]

That old saying "Those who desire peace, must prepare for war." Send the defeated soldiers home and if you really believe they are going to return with hostile intent, then spend the time before their anticipated return building up defenses to dissuade them from attacking when they do return.

If your village is now a fortress when they return, they are likely to decide you just aren't worth the trouble and go find some other small, weak village to prey upon.

While I'd normally totally agree with this, desperation can be a great motivator.

 

[Lexicus]

Honestly where did this idea come from that slavery came from the question of what to do with captured attackers? It seems far more likely that the first enslavers were themselves attackers...