Sylvianus wrote...
Laws against slavery, human'rights they didn't exist in Caesar's time. How could I say this guy was bad because of human rights and there are laws against that today ? He should have forbidden slaves or avoid them etc etc.
Well, let's suppose one does judge it in that manner. What is the issue? One doesn't contradict the other, because the standards are different. And, in any case, you're presupposing a few things: that laws then were universal (in the sense that everyone agreed to them), and that laws are a reflection of everyone's morality, in the sense that they were equitable (equally good or equally bad) to all. There were perhaps, even at Caesar's time those who disagreed with or even rebelled against what was happening. Since that apparently ties in with your notion of a "modern" standard, does that invalidate their actions, too?
From his war victories against the barbarians ( who also love killed the weak people ), he has transformed thousands of people as slaves, including women and children. So he is bad, because of human' rights today. But that was normal at the time.
Well, forcefully spreading "civilizaiton" in this manner is a an extremely debatable and an arguably despicable thing. I suppose that is what we should be arguing about. One group's notion of what is "civil" which is forcefully imposed upon another group, whether those at the receiving end desire it or not - like the Qunari or the Chantry does in Thedas. This is a problem with "group" mentality - our ideas are holier than yours.
But what is not so despicable is judging actions individually and determining that they're right or wrong, according to whatever standards of morality one might take. So the notion of robbery is deplorable now as it was deplorable then. And the actions of Meredith was deplorable there, as it would be certainly deplorable here. (Even Cassandra finds fault with Meredith.) Whether if Meredith had survived she'd have been executed is unknown, but her actions weren't condoned.
But you're commiting an error in judgment when you say that Caesar's conquest was "normal" at that time. Normal by what standard? And you're also equating normal to acceptable. Acceptable for a conquering "hero"? Perhaps. Acceptable for the warriors who perhaps were forcefully conscripted? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. And defintiely not acceptable to those who were enslaved, unless their conditions improved somehow, and they felt it to be so.
And yet, Caesar was pretty good with his own slaves.
Even if so, it must have been only to some and only to a degree. As one example, there were still the arenas where barbarians were forced to fight in a circus.
Other often poorly treated their slavesHe has lived since he was born in this, his society was based on that, for him it was normal.
From that point in time to now things have drastically changed, as perhaps from some distant time in the past to Ceaser's time things had changed. It is the notion of change that you're ignoring. Change is dynamic - it is enforced by things that cause inconvenience to some. That is what is normal.
How can I allow myself to judge him with concepts he doesn't know, and in addition concepts appeared only less than 100 years. ( and for many laws we couldn't have them without fight and blood )
Again, how can you not? Are you suggesting that the notion of freedom from slavery sprang forth after the events of Rome? Then why were all those slave rebelling on the Roman Empire? That idea was already there, but it simply wasn't the dominant one. And not being dominant, doesn't automatically make any slave aspiring for freedom, or even feeling bad about it, wrong. And by extention the same applies to anyone, who is neither conquerer nor slave, to have an opinion about it, and who decides to do something about that particular situation.
We see here, that, we need our own judgments, yes, modern if you wish, but objective at least, with a personal look at another world. That's important.
I say there is nothing wrong in carrying forth one's notions in life on earth into a game world. The writers are going to confine us to what they think is permissible - that will ultimately shackle us, in the end. Not some pre-notion of this or that idea not belonging to that world.
You can't say, the International Court allows to disobey a wrong order today. So the officer of dragon age ( fantasy world )that is more likely to be tortured or executed because he doesn't obey, is a bad person, who deliberately decided to commit genocide.
Clearly Cullen disobeys a direct order, and in another case expresses his dissent. Does that count for nothing? Clearly then the guy who unquestioningly obeyed the order is an immoral one - one who for his own personal safety decided to do something wrong, a notion definitely not alien there.
I'm not talking necessarily about Meredith or something else, it's just that I find this logic flawed and that launch the debate in the wrong direction, which is almost always the case in my opinion about the Templars and the Mages.
Ok, in your opinion which is the "correct" direction that every mage-templar debate should take?
Retour en haut
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
