Well. I'll admit I might have misinterpreted what you said. If your point was entirely that such-and-such a law/system exists in modern day earth (like, let's say, a system like democracy), and we should not blindly apply that to Thedas, then we agree, somewhat, anyway, depending on what law/system it was, depending on its applicability, on people's general likes/dislikes, etc.
Anyway, since I don't leave anything unanswered as a rule, see below...
[quote]Sylvianus wrote...
How could I say this guy was bad because of human rights and there are laws against that today ?
I don't see your point with what I mean here in this quote. Someone is bad in the old age, because today there are laws against something in our society; That's not like that you learn to study the history. The argument is flawled. That's just what I say here. [/quote]
We need to be clear about one thing. A law exists (in some age and place) merely because the idea that it tends to uphold is a dominant one, in that day and age. So, let's say that some medieval law said that holding and maintaing slaves was "legal." So, in strictly legal terms, and that too, the laws of the land of that time, it isn't a "violation" to hold a slave. Obviously, goes without saying actually.
But we will get into issues when we start qualifying the holding of a slave with terms like "bad" or "good" because these are not universal concepts and certainly not necessarily "legal" ones, with a police/military force enforcing it. These are terms that an individual uses to gauge/judge things. So, I could always say that holding slaves (against their will) was morally unjust - and this idea of "injustice done to slaves" existed during the days of ancient Rome also. It is just that the law at that time didn't recognize the injustice. And, if you're using Caesar as an example (however valid or othewise in this context), probably he didn't think beyond the law itself - in fact he was protected by it.
So one can always question that law itself, based on one's own morality, now, and even during those days. It is absurd to suggest that one should not do so, which is what I was saying.
[quote]
But you can say with you modern standard, that he is wrong, you don't like his thoughts, you don't like its personal opinions and, etc etc. I never said otherwise.[/quote]
You're speaking about someone's morality here, when you say "he is wrong." And I never expressed an opinion about anything regarding him other than about his conquests and his holding of slaves.
[quote]
Did you really read?[/quote]
Of course, I did. It's bad enough as it is that some sentences can be misinterpreted, considering also on the volume of things that get typed here, and worse even to be accused of not being able to read...
[quote]
But you can't say someone is " bad " because today there are laws against that, it offers no intelligent concept and no intelligent answer to a reflection on the study of history and men in the past.[/quote]
And study of history is going to enlighten us about what exactly? That at one time it was okay to hold slaves because there were laws protecting that principle? Yes. What history is going to tell us also is, although the idea of freedom had grass-roots much further back, it just wasn't a dominant idea at the time; the law makers were the conquerers. Just because a law exists doesn't automatically make it just for everyone concerned, even during the times. You're bringing in history to discuss a law, and yet to are asking me not to judge it morally. I believe that is an absurd thing to ask.
.
[quote]
So ? when I say that, that means it's more complicated than the idea of good and evil and that's not how we should study history. Take into account all the factors, social, societal, environmental, etc etc, before giving an opinion.[/quote]
Yeah, yeah. But how are societal and environmental factors going to help us with the particular thing we're discussing. What the study of history might tell us is, as a fact, is about some this conquest or that, and this law or that. It's up to us to judge it, if we wish. That judgment will still happen. What is it that some people say, "study history so that we won't commit the same mistakes all over again." What do you think that means?
[quote]
And especially before to say that someone is evil.[/quote]
One has to be careful in not jumping to conclusions, yes.
[quote]
With my example, we see, that Caesar isn't " evil or necessairly bad " because today there are real laws against slave. He is a man, and we can judge him without morally fall in the " he was evil because today blah blah blah " [/quote]
Let's just put that into perspective. Caesar isn't evil or necessarily bad compared to what? And Caesar wasn't bad or necessarily evil to whom? I'm sure those barbarians had opposite perceptions than a Roman citizen. Really, the debate isn't about the "law." We all know such and such laws existed, and they protected Caesar's actions, at least in Rome, and Caesar himself might have thought he was following the "law." But why should that prevent us from us interpreting anything? One only has to step into the shoes of the slave to empathize. One doesn't need modern laws to tell us anything.
[quote]
It is foolish in my opinion to judge men with concepts like evil or bad for something they do not realize it's wrong[/quote]
And yet some did realize that what he did was wrong, some in other times stood up against slavery, and said, "hey, buddy, hold up for a sec. What you're doing won't sit well with us." They did rebel, change did come about. And yet you accuse me of being foolish for judging it, when people at that very time were doing just that - judging it and declaring it to be wrong. How absurd is that?
[quote]
It took centuries to reach the point where we are today, think about that.[/quote]
I never denied that. All I said was the thing that brought it about, the change, was the "normal" part of it, not the law itself. Yet, you take a particular law at a particular time, and think that was "normal" and that nobody at that time was thinking whether that law should/should not have been there, and were happily following it, whether they were oppressed or not.
[quote]
With you modern standard you can think it's wrong, his action is bad, but be smart enough to realize that society today where you live, where you grew up and where you've blossomed is not the same as that of Caesar.[/quote]
Since we've gotten into lecturing mode now: I'd like you to realize also that you're here, all blossomed and all, because people all over the ages were judging stuff, judging laws, thinking whether they really were just, overthrowing stuff that they thought weren't, and finally, over many rebellions, many deaths, were able to narrow down to those which give us our comforts of today. That is also part of history.
I'm sorry. All I can acknowledge is that here was perhaps a law at that time which upheld slavery. Beyond that whether I judge it to be good or not is of my own volition.
[quote]
So ? I don't disagreee here. I don't see the point with what I mean here again. I don't care Cullen, he desobeys, yes, because he thinks it's wrong, a good guy, but, the thing about international court allows today to disobey wrong order in 2011 is still irrelevant as argument. Again, I don't understand. Please tell me.[/quote]
Again, you're bringing laws as justification for your assessment of right/wrongs. Laws only tell us whether something is legal or otherwise, and if a law is unjust to some it tells us that it is protecting the few/many at the expense of others. I'll not argue using the some modern day law to make my case - it is unnecessary - but use the underlying morality of good/evil that the law upholds, which even Cullen is using, to say that the action of Meredith was a deplorable one, one that deserved the strictest punishment of the time.
Retour en haut
