»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
The Temple of Huitzilopochtli
| Philosophy 101 |
|
The Temple of Huitzilopochtli |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
Was the fall of the Aztec empire a good thing? John |
||
| © Copyright 2004 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Yes, it has afterall, paved the way for Walmart expansions.  Good in what way? Expand on your questions please. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Good, in and of itself, being what and how it was. John |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I don't speak Nahuatl too well. Okay, at all. So, yea, since I like to order my pizzas over the phone, the fall of the Atztec empire was a good thing for me.  Whether it was good for you, Raph or Montezuma are different questions entirely. Good, after all, is a fairly subjective term. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“Good, after all, is a fairly subjective term.” So there is no universal good or bad. There then could be arguments that the Aztec world, culture, should have been respected and left alone. John |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Well, theoretically, to be fair the Europeans should have set foot on American soils (North, Central, and South), seen that there were already people there, and said, "Oh, my bad. Didn't mean to trespass. We'll be off now." But history didn't work itself out that way. And I speak English, not Polish. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I'm not so sure that you can easily derive complete subjectivism from what Ron said. Though it's true that a plethora of relatively good and bad things can come from any given historical event, for any given number of individuals, there are still moral questions. Was it right for the invaders to attack the Aztecs? Was it right for the Aztec leaders to do whatever may have instigated such wrath? etc ... These kinds of questions are always there. And they're not always easily answered. But I've found that the ambiguity is often used to say that individual or corporate actions can't be really good or evil ... only perceived as good or evil. But how many people want to seriously suggest that Hitler's treatment of 6 million Jews was not really an evil, atrocious thing to do? Ambiguity I can accept, for I believe God knows what is so ambiguous to us. Complete subjectivism I can't accept, for I believe that all is not ambiguous, in these kinds of questions. One's epistemology should allow for some knowledge in the area of morals, else it's like cutting a hand off and saying it was never any good. It's no use arguing that hands have been used to bludgeon people to death, when they've also been used in so many proper ways too. Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Study what happened, Stephan. It'll show that these questions are the wrong questions to ask. I don't understand why exploration is inherently a bad thing. It is the way the Europeans acted to the 'heathens' that was wrong, not that they went exploring. Small Pox took its unbelievable toll on the population, but how do you get around that? If it wasn't Columbus and Cortez, it would have been someone else. But that doesn't mean you should sell infested blankets to the native population. At the same time, few people realize that the Aztec economy was based on war and the subjugation of neighboring tribes. Is that a good thing? The Spanish had help. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“At the same time, few people realize that the Aztec economy was based on war and the subjugation of neighboring tribes. Is that a good thing?” War and subjugation for the sake of supplying human beings for bloody sacrifice in their thousands every year to an Aztec god. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Oh yeah, that too. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Stephen, Would you argue that, were a people able, once they learned of the Aztec Empire and its practice of human sacrifice, there was a “human” morality that obligated them to act as would bring that empire to its end, (apart from the actual historical motivations, though I’m sure the conquistadors used the end the sacrifice argument to gain their thousands of allies)? John [This message has been edited by Huan Yi (11-05-2004 10:45 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: It seems that you are asking the same questions though, or at least making the same kinds of distinctions. Exploration versus subjugation. Introducing pathogens without intent versus introducing pathogens deliberately. These are moral distinctions. That was my point to John. Just because you can't answer the question "Was the fall of the Atzec empire a good thing"? with a simplistic yes or no, doesn't mean there weren't many many questions surrounding the history which DID have such answers. Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I agree. Was the fall of the Aztec empire a good thing? I'm not sure what to make of that question. Were human sacrifices a good thing during the Aztec empire a good thing even when you know why they did it? Of course not. Were the actions of the conquistadores a good thing even when you know that what the Aztecs were doing. Of course not. I think part of the problem is that we can ask moral questions about historical events, but we tend to confuse the morality with justification, with making excuses. There is no contradiction in the above only a false dichotomy that if one thing is bad its contrary must necessarily by good. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
So the Aztec Empire was not a good thing but the way the conquistadores brought it down was not a good thing, so a not good thing was brought down by not a good way and a good thing happened badly as a consequence. That should make for an interesting parade. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
The temple of Washington DC and its empire. Some say it is evil, an abomination, and must be brought down. Would that be a good thing? Aren't 'they' equally justified, as in 'their' eyes, many of our deeds are evil? Perhaps our own civilization will be such a footnote in some future history books. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
The fall of an empire, whether it be Aztec, Mayan, or American, is of little consequence and, of itself, neither good nor bad. Yes, the Aztec civilization practiced human sacrifice. So, too, did Maya, to a lesser extent, though that culture had much more of it that was good. And America? Did the Aztecs burn witches at the stake, I wonder? Or slaughter whole peoples because their skin wasn't white? There has been death and killing, and not all of it was justifiable. Is any civilization truly innocent? Yet, when was the last time YOU killed someone? Has your son or daughter taken a life yet? Do you think all those Aztec or Mayan families had the blood of human sacrifice still wet on their hands? What the Europeans did to a few Mesoamerican empires matters little. They rise and they fall, they consume or are consumed, becoming little more than stereotypical summaries in the history books. We call this one good, this one bad, forgetting that every civilization was really comprised of people just like you and me, separated only by a given span of technology. Fathers, mothers, children, mixed in with a handful of priests and rulers who defined the culture we would later judge and find wanting. Destroying empires is no big deal. But whether it's yesterday, today or tomorrow, killing people is NEVER a good thing. 'Cause justifications aren't all that hard to find, and you or I just may be next. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Ron, “The fall of an empire, whether it be Aztec, Mayan, or American, is of little consequence and, of itself, neither good nor bad. Yes, the Aztec civilization practiced human sacrifice. So, too, did Maya, to a lesser extent, though that culture had much more of it that was good. And America? Did the Aztecs burn witches at the stake, I wonder? Or slaughter whole peoples because their skin wasn't white? There has been death and killing, and not all of it was justifiable. Is any civilization truly innocent?” So since all empires have at least incidents comparable to the practices of the Aztec, their fall, existence, growth is of little consequence, and, of itself, neither good or bad, which, to me at least, then emasculates any moral argument in favor of defeating any empire in particular. Am I correct? John |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: ABSO-DAMN-LUTELY! |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Interesting that you put "damn" in your answer, which means to curse. Curse is the opposite of blessing, both of which are in God's administration. But the answer to John's question, I think, is Absolutely NOT, from the standpoint of God himself. He brings down one empire and raises up another. And does he consider their moral decadence and/ or moral uprightness in doing so? ... The Bible tells us that he does. And he can use anyone he wishes to accomplish such a revolution. For example: he used a notably amoral peoples, the Assyrians and the Babylonians to chasten his very own chosen, Israel, and send them into exile. And those nations didn't even know that God was using them for this purpose. But knowing this makes the relative moral standing of nations (which tend to supplant each other like the waves of the sea), irrelevant. The redeeming part is knowing that God has a purpose and a plan in it all ... for nations and individuals. Does that mean we should be gung-ho about judging other nations? Not at all. God judged the Assyrians and Babylonians for their own cruelty and mistreatment. I think that's reason enough for caution. That way the "moral argument" as you put it, gets circumcised rather than emasculated. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Damn, as a verb, is a curse, Stephen. But the word isn't always used as a verb. quote: That may be God's role, Stephen, but it isn't ours, a point made repeatedly from Leviticus to Romans. Stopping someone from hurting someone else isn't a moral judgment, but far more importantly, it needn't dehumanize the enemy. Saddam Hussein is evil, therefore we should kill him. These men follow Hussein, so they should be killed, too. These others are of the same color or religion, so they're fair game as well. It's a cycle repeated throughout most of history. When your job is simply to stop someone, it's easier to know when the job is done. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Then why is anyone obliged to stop someone from hurting somone else? Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, I think if you read my earlier post more carefully you might see that I concede much, in agreement with what you've said. Believe it or not, I don't think we should have gone to war in Iraq. But my point to John was that moral judgement (justly or unjustly dealt) has always been a part of national conflict. And also that God always uses such things to mete out his righteous judgements in the world. A more unbiased reading of the Bible from the Pentateuch to Revelation, would not easily give anyone the idea that God didn't use, and even intend to use, groups of men to judge other groups of men. That much is true, in additon to (not in contradiction to) all the exhortations of peace and humility. At least there's enough of that in the text to make it easy for many unbelievers to accuse your God of being a bellicose war-monger. As unfair as that accusation is, it's not based on nothing, textually and historically speaking. Or you're reading a different Bible? As much as you try to divorce morality from worldly maneuvers, I don't think in reality it IS, or ever has been, all that separate. In fact much of the conflict has been out of revenge, which is nothing more than moral outrage gone awry. And while I hear you saying that it OUGHT to be separate, that in itself is a moral judgement and nothing more. It's a platitude, not a description of reality. I just think that there's a balance between saying humans have nothing to do with moral judgement ... and saying that we (insert any nation or individual here) are the national embodiment of that divine right. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: We're not obliged, Stephen. If we were, you and I would be traipsing around the world and back again on a daily basis. It is, however, in everyone's best interest to protect others, in the oft misguided hope we will, in turn, be protected. It's called civilization, I think? quote: But that's exactly the problem, Stephen -- there can be no such balance. Not Biblically, because there are no degrees of sin, and certainly not historically, because no culture has ever escaped its own brand of crusades or inquisitions. How God chooses to use men for His own purposes is entirely irrelevant. Unless you would reject free will? Or would believe God's plans can be thwarted? I believe it IS a description of reality, Stephen, in the same sense that Newton's formulas described gravity. It's the way the Universe works, and the only way the Universe can work. God didn't say you shouldn't float into the heavens and He didn't say you shouldn't judge the moral quality of others. Instead, He simply engineered a Universe where you can't. Does that stop people from jumping off cliffs? Sadly, it doesn't, but it does make the consequences predictable. The results of moral outrage are no less predictable, as five thousand years of laboratory results should show. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Ron/Stephen “The fall of an empire, whether it be Aztec, Mayan, or American, is of little consequence and, of itself, neither good nor bad. Yes, the Aztec civilization practiced human sacrifice. So, too, did Maya, to a lesser extent, though that culture had much more of it that was good. And America? Did the Aztecs burn witches at the stake, I wonder? Or slaughter whole peoples because their skin wasn't white? There has been death and killing, and not all of it was justifiable. Is any civilization truly innocent?” “So since all empires have at least incidents comparable to the practices of the Aztec, their fall, existence, growth is of little consequence, and, of itself, neither good or bad, which, to me at least, then emasculates any moral argument in favor of defeating any empire in particular. Am I correct?” “ABSO-DAMN-LUTELY!” Which brings me back to Hitler and the Nazi Empire, (which I continue to use since it may be the only example where there is a consensus as to it’s character). Seems, under the above, there was no legitimate moral argument supporting Roosevelt’s efforts to involve the United States in that empire’s defeat. Is that correct? John |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Do you need a moral argument to get out of bed in the morning, John? Or will the more pragmatic call of a full bladder usually do the trick? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: The first part is absurd for those who've acutally read the Bible. The second part is absurd for those who've actually observed history and the world around us. How do you sustain these ideas, beyond "Just so"? Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Maybe no moral reason is required to rise, but it usually takes one (or something very kindred to one) to keep you from irresponsibly crawling back in. BTW, John is right ... You're implying that every effort to thwart Hitler was done to save our own skin, and nothing done out of moral indignation about what he was doing to the Jews. Sorry but that's bologna. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: No doubt. But you're leading us to believe that ALL agression has amounted to those kinds of errors. Just Curious ... I know the danger of taking this to the extreme, or imagining to fondly and gleefully that we're the instrument of God's judgement, but what do you make of the Old Testament examples of YHWH commanding the Israelites to warfare? Or does liberal theology do the job for you, and say that's just an fanciful account of something God had little or nothing to do with? (and Yes, I know that theology has been greatly altered for Christians by the coming of the Prince of Peace, and his frowning upon "living by the sword") Stephen (ps ... to the administrative side of you, Ron, I apologize for not putting all that in ONE reply. - I'll try to do better next time)  |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
