Where is the hope in atheism?

[Ana the Ist]

No, I won't, because what you're asking me to do is as bizarre as explaining the difference between the phenomenal experience of the colors red and blue. It's your position that knowledge must be explicable to be meaningful that I'm challenging as fundamentally flawed.

Then your claim about "if christianity is real..." is empty. Sorry, but it's ridiculous to expect me to just take your word for it that a relationship with god is in some way unexplainable...when every other relationship is.

More or less. If you're neurotic enough, you could get really worked up over if you want to eat the chicken now or save it for later, or which ice cream flavor to pick. If this is what a moral dilemma ultimately amounts to, it's nothing to write home about.

You've already shifted the goalposts...and we're not trying to examine the outliers of individual mental disorders.

I'm asking if you...what I'm assuming is a regular person...are capable of both wanting and not wanting to eat chicken at the same time on no criteria other than emotion?

There you go telling people what they believe again.

Says the person claiming atheists must necessarily be moral nihilists. If I'm wrong about you believing morals are magically external to yourself...explain how? Or is this another thing you simply cannot explain and want everyone to take your word for?

Which apparently sparked outrage throughout Switzerland and the Holy Roman Empire. It was already viewed negatively by that point, so I don't see how it's relevant. No 18th century intellectual needed to go around educating people that there was something wrong with the witchcraft craze. To the degree that they would even have been able to at all given technological limitations.

The point still stands....those burning witches are realists...they believe their actions are factually good for external reasons.

For me, it certainly is. Moral realism is not one thing, so people will prioritize things differently. As long as you think that at least some moral statements have truth value, you are a realist.

I see you dodged another point I made. It would be fun to go back through the pages and make a list of every point you simply chose to dodge instead of addressing....

It's nice to see you acknowledging the subjective nature of your objective morals though. At least the subjective part seems to be true...the objective part, that seems to be fantasy.

In any case, modifying moral codes is more a feature of relativism than realism.

Indeed...which is why I say that relativism is the only accurate description of morals as they exist in reality. Show me someone who's believed in the exact same moral code their whole life and I'll show you a liar....or at the very least someone in denial.

 

[Silmarien]

Then your claim about "if christianity is real..." is empty. Sorry, but it's ridiculous to expect me to just take your word for it that a relationship with god is in some way unexplainable...when every other relationship is.

How are other relationships explicable? How do you quantify them? What do you get out of your relationship with your neighbor Bob that you don't get out of a relationship with your pet dog?

You've already shifted the goalposts...and we're not trying to examine the outliers of individual mental disorders.

I'm asking if you...what I'm assuming is a regular person...are capable of both wanting and not wanting to eat chicken at the same time on no criteria other than emotion?

I'm sure capable of having trouble deciding between ice cream flavors at times. Moral dilemma of the century.

Says the person claiming atheists must necessarily be moral nihilists. If I'm wrong about you believing morals are magically external to yourself...explain how? Or is this another thing you simply cannot explain and want everyone to take your word for?

I have never said that an atheist has to be a moral nihilist. In fact, I've said multiple times that an atheist can be a realist. Please pay attention.

What I don't accept is the sharp distinction between objectivity and subjectivity, since it reeks of Cartesian dualism, and I am pretty fiercely nondual about the mind. I do not believe that morals are "magically external" because I view them as grounded at least partially in biology. What I would deny is some magical subjective realm where value judgments are floating around utterly unmoored to reality.

The point still stands....those burning witches are realists...they believe their actions are factually good for external reasons.

The people who burned witches were generally uneducated and superstitious, acting out of mass hysteria. Hysteria makes people do terrible things--at least if you assume that things can be terrible and that there are better and worse mental states. But then you need an objective standard of what a normal and sane psychological state looks like and are into the realm of the normative again.

I see you dodged another point I made. It would be fun to go back through the pages and make a list of every point you simply chose to dodge instead of addressing....

It's nice to see you acknowledging the subjective nature of your objective morals though. At least the subjective part seems to be true...the objective part, that seems to be fantasy.

I would not be so sure. It seems to me that some degree of objective valuation must exist in reality, or we would never associate pain with "bad" in the first place. If things can be objectively good or bad for us, then it's reasonable to say that complex morality can emerge from these more basic normative building blocks.

I don't believe in moral codes that are externally imposed upon us. I would view morality as an intersubjective endeavor grounded in human nature as a cooperative species capable of rationality. I don't see this as a matter of arbitrary subjective preferences, though. We're mammals, and we can't choose to act like reptiles instead without serious psychological consequences.

Indeed...which is why I say that relativism is the only accurate description of morals as they exist in reality. Show me someone who's believed in the exact same moral code their whole life and I'll show you a liar....or at the very least someone in denial.

I don't see why that has anything to do with relativism. I was a relativist in high school, then a bit of a Nietzschean, before finally ending up as some sort of Aristotelian realist. The fact that I was once a relativist and then rejected it certainly doesn't prove relativism--people can have better or worse approaches to morality at different points of their life. I certainly do not think that Nietzscheanism is as healthy a framework.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How are other relationships explicable? How do you quantify them? What do you get out of your relationship with your neighbor Bob that you don't get out of a relationship with your pet dog?

Sigh, at no point have I asked you to quantify a relationship with god. All I asked you to do is to describe what makes it so unique/special that it gives a christian something a non-christian cannot have. That's your claim.

For example, if I were to describe things about my relationship with my wife that are objectively observable....that aren't observable in your relationship with a god, it wouldn't be very difficult. There's open communication, mutual respect, reciprocity, physicality, and so on.

That's all I'm asking for, I want you to tell me what it is you think comes from a relationship with god that a non-christian cannot get anywhere else.

I'm sure capable of having trouble deciding between ice cream flavors at times. Moral dilemma of the century.

I can only assume by this goalpost shift you realize your mistake now. You can no more want and not want chicken at the same time than you can want and not want chocolate ice cream.

I have never said that an atheist has to be a moral nihilist. In fact, I've said multiple times that an atheist can be a realist. Please pay attention.

Sure.

I do not believe that morals are "magically external" because I view them as grounded at least partially in biology. What I would deny is some magical subjective realm where value judgments are floating around utterly unmoored to reality.

Hey so do I...we agree.

The people who burned witches were generally uneducated and superstitious, acting out of mass hysteria.

Educated and superstitious I'll give you....mass hysteria though, I won't.

Hysteria makes people do terrible things--at least if you assume that things can be terrible and that there are better and worse mental states. But then you need an objective standard of what a normal and sane psychological state looks like and are into the realm of the normative again.

Hysteria didn't convince people for thousands of years that witches were evil and should be killed because it's morally good to do so. That's not even remotely close to how mass hysteria works.

I would not be so sure. It seems to me that some degree of objective valuation must exist in reality, or we would never associate pain with "bad" in the first place.

Not everyone does.

If things can be objectively good or bad for us, then it's reasonable to say that complex morality can emerge from these more basic normative building blocks.

Good or bad in what way?

I'd swear you're about to make the argument I made earlier about a relativistic view being more successful...you just don't realize it's relativistic yet.

I don't believe in moral codes that are externally imposed upon us. I would view morality as an intersubjective endeavor grounded in human nature as a cooperative species capable of rationality. I don't see this as a matter of arbitrary subjective preferences, though. We're mammals, and we can't choose to act like reptiles instead without serious psychological consequences.

Why? Because no human has ever been successful by not cooperating with society?

Suppose there's a new toy out for Christmas and it's super popular. There's only one left in one store. Me and one other guy in my town are headed there along the same route at the same time...each trying to get there first.

I decide the best thing to do is to obey all traffic laws and it's not worth the risk to others to break them. That's a moral decision based on community.

The other guy decides he can get away with risking running a couple of red lights, and speeding, without too much risk to himself or anyone else. He does, and so he gets there first and gets the toy. He is successful where I am not.

True, if he repeatedly engages in this behavior, it could eventually have serious consequences for him...but in this instance at least, he's more successful by disagreeing with the morals of society than I am by agreeing with them.

This sort of thing happens all the time.

I don't see why that has anything to do with relativism. I was a relativist in high school, then a bit of a Nietzschean, before finally ending up as some sort of Aristotelian realist. The fact that I was once a relativist and then rejected it certainly doesn't prove relativism--people can have better or worse approaches to morality at different points of their life. I certainly do not think that Nietzscheanism is as healthy a framework.

People do have different moral approaches at different points in their life....they simply aren't factual.

 

[Silmarien]

Hysteria didn't convince people for thousands of years that witches were evil and should be killed because it's morally good to do so. That's not even remotely close to how mass hysteria works.

You are ignorant of the history of the witch-hunt craze. Wilfully ignorant. If you would like to educate yourself, a good book on the history of witchcraft is Witches & Neighbors: The Social and Cultural Context of European Witchcraft.

The witch-hunt craze was a very complicated social phenomenon, and specifically situated in Early Modern Europe (and North America). It did not go on for "thousands of years," as you erroneously state. People during this time period believed in supernatural warfare, and when faced with crop failure, miscarriages, and so forth and so on, it was very much a matter of mass hysteria taking over and the crowd targeting the outcasts and other suspects. This is not terribly different than any other incident of mass hysteria and lynching that we would recognize now--the metaphysical context was simply different.

The witch-hunts had nothing to do with moral realism. It was all pure irrationalism. Mob mentality, through and through. This is the dark, irrational underside of humanity manifesting itself, not people convincing themselves of their moral superiority. Weirdly enough, many of the witches thought they were witches too.

Not everyone does.

Anyone who thinks that taking a hammer to their own hand is a good thing is going to get weeded out of the genetic pool pretty quickly. So this problem tends to solve itself. If pain were not an objectively bad sensation, then what reason would we have ever had to recognize it as such in the first place?

Good or bad in what way?

Seriously, if you are so irrational that you can't understand why something like anorexia could be considered bad, there is not much more to discuss here.

Why? Because no human has ever been successful by not cooperating with society?

Suppose there's a new toy out for Christmas and it's super popular. There's only one left in one store. Me and one other guy in my town are headed there along the same route at the same time...each trying to get there first.

I decide the best thing to do is to obey all traffic laws and it's not worth the risk to others to break them. That's a moral decision based on community.

The other guy decides he can get away with risking running a couple of red lights, and speeding, without too much risk to himself or anyone else. He does, and so he gets there first and gets the toy. He is successful where I am not.

True, if he repeatedly engages in this behavior, it could eventually have serious consequences for him...but in this instance at least, he's more successful by disagreeing with the morals of society than I am by agreeing with them.

This sort of thing happens all the time.

Who said anything about the morals of society? If you're not putting yourself or anyone else in danger by running a red light, then I would see it as a social violation, not a moral one. If the same person decided to drive drunk instead, automatically putting himself and everyone else at risk, then the situation would certainly be different. Even if there were no serious consequences the first time, the utter disregard for his life and the lives of others is a mentality that is going to cause him problems.

Regardless, I am not saying that acting in a moral manner is a strategy for success that will always lead to positive outcomes. I am saying that cooperative behavior at the very least has been selected for in the evolutionary history of our species, and that it is part of our psychology. If you think that starving yourself to death is just another type of diet, however, I can see how this particular approach might be hard for you to grasp.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are ignorant of the history of the witch-hunt craze. Wilfully ignorant. If you would like to educate yourself, a good book on the history of witchcraft is Witches & Neighbors: The Social and Cultural Context of European Witchcraft.

The witch-hunt craze was a very complicated social phenomenon, and specifically situated in Early Modern Europe (and North America). It did not go on for "thousands of years," as you erroneously state. People during this time period believed in supernatural warfare, and when faced with crop failure, miscarriages, and so forth and so on, it was very much a matter of mass hysteria taking over and the crowd targeting the outcasts and other suspects. This is not terribly different than any other incident of mass hysteria and lynching that we would recognize now--the metaphysical context was simply different.

The witch-hunts had nothing to do with moral realism. It was all pure irrationalism. Mob mentality, through and through. This is the dark, irrational underside of humanity manifesting itself, not people convincing themselves of their moral superiority. Weirdly enough, many of the witches thought they were witches too.

You gave me a link to a book on Amazon lol...do you have any proof that every case of witchcraft was in fact mass hysteria?

Also, sorry, burning witches alive was decreed by the Roman emperor in the 400s...and it lasted till the 1700s...so 1000+ years.

Also, I'm pretty sure the Roman emperor wasn't suffering from mass hysteria at the time he made the decree. He was acting from a position of moral realism...ie witches are evil, so burning them is good.

Anyone who thinks that taking a hammer to their own hand is a good thing is going to get weeded out of the genetic pool pretty quickly. So this problem tends to solve itself. If pain were not an objectively bad sensation, then what reason would we have ever had to recognize it as such in the first place?

Some people are into being whipped, beaten, or choked for sexual gratification....I don't know what to tell you about it. They insist that it hurts and they like it. Welcome to adulthood.

Seriously, if you are so irrational that you can't understand why something like anorexia could be considered bad, there is not much more to discuss here.

Of course I can...but I can also understand the anorexic doesn't necessarily see it that way.

Who said anything about the morals of society?

I thought that was what you were referring to when you said "cooperative species".

If you're not putting yourself or anyone else in danger by running a red light, then I would see it as a social violation, not a moral one. If the same person decided to drive drunk instead, automatically putting himself and everyone else at risk, then the situation would certainly be different. Even if there were no serious consequences the first time, the utter disregard for his life and the lives of others is a mentality that is going to cause him problems.

Being helpful to others is a mentality which can cause problems....I don't see your point.

Regardless, I am not saying that acting in a moral manner is a strategy for success that will always lead to positive outcomes. I am saying that cooperative behavior at the very least has been selected for in the evolutionary history of our species, and that it is part of our psychology. If you think that starving yourself to death is just another type of diet, however, I can see how this particular approach might be hard for you to grasp.

If someone values thinness over personal health...what would be an "good" strategy for that person getting what they want?

 

[Silmarien]

You gave me a link to a book on Amazon lol...do you have any proof that every case of witchcraft was in fact mass hysteria?

Also, sorry, burning witches alive was decreed by the Roman emperor in the 400s...and it lasted till the 1700s...so 1000+ years.

Also, I'm pretty sure the Roman emperor wasn't suffering from mass hysteria at the time he made the decree. He was acting from a position of moral realism...ie witches are evil, so burning them is good.

This is really getting ridiculous. The European witch-hunt craze took place between the 15th and 18th centuries--there was no continuity between that phenomenon and anything that may have been taking place in the year 400. Please stop abusing history in the service of whatever bizarre agenda you have here.

Furthermore, none of this has anything to do with moral realism. A moral relativist could just as easily decide that burning witches is good. You haven't provided any sources on this Roman emperor of yours to know what his motives were in the first place.

Of course I can...but I can also understand the anorexic doesn't necessarily see it that way.

It's called mental illness.

If someone values thinness over personal health...what would be an "good" strategy for that person getting what they want?

Therapy.

Seriously, if you think that anorexics should just keep on doing what they're doing because it subjectively "works" for them, this is why relativism is morally insane. We are talking about something that ruins lives, and no anorexic who is healed of their illness is going to say that anorexia was ever subjectively good for them. For you to suggest otherwise is the height of irresponsibility and, again, quite literally insane.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You gave me a link to a book on Amazon lol...do you have any proof that every case of witchcraft was in fact mass hysteria?

Also, sorry, burning witches alive was decreed by the Roman emperor in the 400s...and it lasted till the 1700s...so 1000+ years.

Also, I'm pretty sure the Roman emperor wasn't suffering from mass hysteria at the time he made the decree. He was acting from a position of moral realism...ie witches are evil, so burning them is

You are woefully ignorant. No Roman Emperor decreed burning witches. There were laws on the books from early Republican days against sorcery and unlawful religious practices, but these were mostly exile or in severe incarnations were essentially bouts of mass hysteria - such as when Livy records a famine in 170s BC that resulted in suspected sorcerers being lynched by mobs. Similarly classical Greece scapegoated a Pharmakos to bear the misfortunes of the populace, in times of strife.

Christianisation of the Empire actually led to the anti-sorcery laws being repealed or not acted upon. The Councils of Elvira, Carthage and Truillo in the fourth and seventh century respectively, called witch-hunting superstitious. Likewise it was outlawed by Charlemagne and Alfred the Great. Throughout the 1000 years you say it was supposed to reign, witches were largely considered superstitious or heretical nonsense - as multiple Popes decreed.

It only came in waves with the breakdown of Ecclesiastical power with the Reformation - and yes, in the form of Mass Hysteria. This is most clear in Matthew Hopkins' trials, the Berwick or Salem trials. It was likely fueled by the printing press that disseminated books like Malleus Maleficarum - that the Church considered Heresy and sought to ban, by the way. Witches were basically the equivalent to those conspiracy theories people peddle in dark corners of the internet,that occasionally in times of strife managed to rear an ugly head. Official support was rare and mostly only for a brief period in the 16th and 17th centuries.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are woefully ignorant. No Roman Emperor decreed burning witches. There were laws on the books from early Republican days against sorcery and unlawful religious practices, but these were mostly exile or in severe incarnations were essentially bouts of mass hysteria - such as when Livy records a famine in 170s BC that resulted in suspected sorcerers being lynched by mobs. Similarly classical Greece scapegoated a Pharmakos to bear the misfortunes of the populace, in times of strife.

Christianisation of the Empire actually led to the anti-sorcery laws being repealed or not acted upon. The Councils of Elvira, Carthage and Truillo in the fourth and seventh century respectively, called witch-hunting superstitious. Likewise it was outlawed by Charlemagne and Alfred the Great. Throughout the 1000 years you say it was supposed to reign, witches were largely considered superstitious or heretical nonsense - as multiple Popes decreed.

It only came in waves with the breakdown of Ecclesiastical power with the Reformation - and yes, in the form of Mass Hysteria. This is most clear in Matthew Hopkins' trials, the Berwick or Salem trials. It was likely fueled by the printing press that disseminated books like Malleus Maleficarum - that the Church considered Heresy and sought to ban, by the way. Witches were basically the equivalent to those conspiracy theories people peddle in dark corners of the internet,that occasionally in times of strife managed to rear an ugly head. Official support was rare and mostly only for a brief period in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Sorry, looked it up and was thinking of justinian 1. Turns out 600s Rome I'd the first written example of burning someone for witchcraft.

As for mass hysteria...no, I'm not woefully ignorant. Mass hysteria might be a suspected cause of cases of witch burning, but it isn't proven...and regardless, it only explains outbursts of unusual behavior in groups of people accused of being witched or being witches....it does not explain the behavior of those who burned them alive. I can only say that if you think mass hysteria explains the behavior of the executioners...you're woefully ignorant of mass hysteria.

That is, however, explained well by moral realism. They viewed witches and witchcraft evil, and sought to do good by burning women and men alive.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is really getting ridiculous. The European witch-hunt craze took place between the 15th and 18th centuries--there was no continuity between that phenomenon and anything that may have been taking place in the year 400. Please stop abusing history in the service of whatever bizarre agenda you have here.

See my correction below. There's record of witch burning from the 600s.

Furthermore, none of this has anything to do with moral realism. A moral relativist could just as easily decide that burning witches is good. You haven't provided any sources on this Roman emperor of yours to know what his motives were in the first place.

I'm pretty sure I know the Holy Roman Emperor wasn't a moral relativist lol.

It's called mental illness.

I like to call it the last bastion of the desperate. Are your only counterpoints going to come from neurosis and mental illness?

Seriously, if you think that anorexics should just keep on doing what they're doing because it subjectively "works" for them, this is why relativism is morally insane. We are talking about something that ruins lives, and no anorexic who is healed of their illness is going to say that anorexia was ever subjectively good for them. For you to suggest otherwise is the height of irresponsibility and, again, quite literally insane.

The point was that one can use objective facts to create subjectively successful morals....even in the case of those mentally ill. Or do you think you get to define what a successful life is for everyone?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are woefully ignorant. No Roman Emperor decreed burning witches. There were laws on the books from early Republican days against sorcery and unlawful religious practices, but these were mostly exile or in severe incarnations were essentially bouts of mass hysteria - such as when Livy records a famine in 170s BC that resulted in suspected sorcerers being lynched by mobs. Similarly classical Greece scapegoated a Pharmakos to bear the misfortunes of the populace, in times of strife.

Christianisation of the Empire actually led to the anti-sorcery laws being repealed or not acted upon. The Councils of Elvira, Carthage and Truillo in the fourth and seventh century respectively, called witch-hunting superstitious. Likewise it was outlawed by Charlemagne and Alfred the Great. Throughout the 1000 years you say it was supposed to reign, witches were largely considered superstitious or heretical nonsense - as multiple Popes decreed.

It only came in waves with the breakdown of Ecclesiastical power with the Reformation - and yes, in the form of Mass Hysteria. This is most clear in Matthew Hopkins' trials, the Berwick or Salem trials. It was likely fueled by the printing press that disseminated books like Malleus Maleficarum - that the Church considered Heresy and sought to ban, by the way. Witches were basically the equivalent to those conspiracy theories people peddle in dark corners of the internet,that occasionally in times of strife managed to rear an ugly head. Official support was rare and mostly only for a brief period in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Here, since both of you don't seem to understand mass hysteria...

Why are Females Prone to Mass Hysteria?

It's a conversion disorder that spreads...a psychosomatic illness. When a group of people present physical symptoms that appear to be mental instead of biological...you have a case of mass hysteria. It could be twitching, holding still, laughing, dancing, meowing, etc.

What it cannot be, is a group of people coming to the conclusion that witches exist amongst them and should be burned. You could make a case for mass delusion....but it's far far more likely that were talking about entirely rational people making what they believe are rational responses.

The link even explains that the term gets occasionally thrown around by people who don't know what they're talking about. You're welcome.

 

[Silmarien]

I'm pretty sure I know the Holy Roman Emperor wasn't a moral relativist lol.

Wow. This is ignorant beyond belief.

1. There is a difference between the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire. The latter was founded by Charlemagne in the year 800 and throughout most of its history was basically Germany and related territories.

2. Justinian I had nothing to do with the Holy Roman Empire, nor with Rome. He was one of the most famous Byzantine emperors.

3. There is no history of witch-hunting in the Byzantine Empire; it was a phenomenon of Western Christianity, not Eastern. I can find no substantiation of your claim that Justinian I made any such decree, and given your insistence that he's from 5th century Rome, I don't expect to. Justinian I did persecute pagans, but that has nothing to do either with witches or with moral realism; it would have more likely been about expanding imperial authority.

4. We're in the realm of the political when dealing with any emperor. You cannot reduce their motives to a metaethical belief about where values come from. It is insane that you would even try to.

What it cannot be, is a group of people coming to the conclusion that witches exist amongst them and should be burned. You could make a case for mass delusion....but it's far far more likely that were talking about entirely rational people making what they believe are rational responses.

The link even explains that the term gets occasionally thrown around by people who don't know what they're talking about. You're welcome.

You are the only person here who does not know what they are talking about. The people involved in witch hunting were not rational at all, they were not making rational responses. Large numbers of people in a group do not act rationally--the World Cup is coming up soon, if you want to see this in action.

If you would look into the scholarship behind the witch craze, you would know that it wasn't about rationality. But your response to a reading recommendation is "lol," so you are clearly not interested in what actual historians have to say.

Furthermore, there are multiple definitions of the word hysteria. It can be used outside of psychiatry and is very much found in history and sociology as well. Two different things, so while the Red Scare or older witch-hunts weren't hysteria in the psychiatric sense, historians will certainly use the word in a different sense. I am finished with this discussion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Wow. This is ignorant beyond belief.

1. There is a difference between the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire. The latter was founded by Charlemagne in the year 800 and throughout most of its history was basically Germany and related territories.

2. Justinian I had nothing to do with the Holy Roman Empire, nor with Rome. He was one of the most famous Byzantine emperors.

3. There is no history of witch-hunting in the Byzantine Empire; it was a phenomenon of Western Christianity, not Eastern. I can find no substantiation of your claim that Justinian I made any such decree, and given your insistence that he's from 5th century Rome, I don't expect to. Justinian I did persecute pagans, but that has nothing to do either with witches or with moral realism; it would have more likely been about expanding imperial authority.

4. We're in the realm of the political when dealing with any emperor. You cannot reduce their motives to a metaethical belief about where values come from. It is insane that you would even try to.

1. True.

2. Well he was a fervently Christian Roman emperor known for butchering non-christians, jews, pagans, apostates, sorcerers, etc., for no other reason than they weren't Christians. Lol I can't imagine why I thought of him.

Justinian I - New World Encyclopedia

Also he conquered Rome.

3. Well he did burn non-christians...so while you may be technically right, the point that he's a fervent moral realist who burns people he considers evil still works in my favor.

Death by burning - Wikipedia

4. Justinian 1's motivations are hardly a matter of contention.

You are the only person here who does not know what they are talking about. The people involved in witch hunting were not rational at all, they were not making rational responses. Large numbers of people in a group do not act rationally--the World Cup is coming up soon, if you want to see this in action.

Wow...so your town, city, state, nation are all incapable of rational behavior?

They acted with the information of their day. We know it's wrong now...but you can't possibly hope to argue that every witch burning was an irrational event....there's nothing to even suggest that.

If you would look into the scholarship behind the witch craze, you would know that it wasn't about rationality. But your response to a reading recommendation is "lol," so you are clearly not interested in what actual historians have to say.

You're only proof was a link to a book on Amazon lol. It was funny that you would suggest I spend money to prove you wrong. Are you willing to spend money to prove me right?

Furthermore, there are multiple definitions of the word hysteria.

True, but there's only one correct understanding of mass hysteria. Quit trying to shift goalposts.

 

[Silmarien]

4. Justinian 1's motivations are hardly a matter of contention.

Haha, cute. From the New World Encyclopedia article that you yourself just quoted:

"Justinian saw himself as the new Constantine. He set out to restore and to revive the glory of the Roman Empire, especially its unity. It is difficult to ascertain whether he was a man of deep personal religious faith or whether religion served only a policing function to help unite his empire."

The whole article is against you, since it makes it clear that his religious policies were in large part politically motivated.

Wow...so your town, city, state, nation are all incapable of rational behavior?

They acted with the information of their day. We know it's wrong now...but you can't possibly hope to argue that every witch burning was an irrational event....there's nothing to even suggest that.

Says the person who refuses to look into the history behind the witch hunts at all. Seriously, you are not remotely credible at this point. You are the one making claims without doing any research, and refusing to hold yourself accountable to the actual history when called out on it.

And unless you consider rioters and stampedes at sporting events to be rational behavior, then it is quite clear that rationality is something that comes and goes.

True, but there's only one correct understanding of mass hysteria. Quit trying to shift goalposts.

You're the one shifting the goalposts by insisting on the psychiatric definition. Historians do use the word "hysteria" in this fashion. If you would prefer "panic," so be it, but it's not a normal, rational state. This is not really a controversial point, except perhaps for you in your bizarre alternate reality of a universe.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Haha, cute. From the New World Encyclopedia article that you yourself just quoted:

"Justinian saw himself as the new Constantine. He set out to restore and to revive the glory of the Roman Empire, especially its unity. It is difficult to ascertain whether he was a man of deep personal religious faith or whether religion served only a policing function to help unite his empire."

The whole article is against you, since it makes it clear that his religious policies were in large part politically motivated.

When I said it's not a matter of contention, I meant for us. Justinian's motivations aren't the claim I originally made...its just a sidetrack.

Says the person who refuses to look into the history behind the witch hunts at all.

Lol how would you know? For all you know, I did my thesis on witch hunts.

You're the one claiming mass hysteria is the cause of all witch burnings when you didn't even know what mass hysteria is.

Try again.

And unless you consider rioters and stampedes at sporting events to be rational behavior, then it is quite clear that rationality is something that comes and goes.

Rioters don't hold trials before they burn buildings down.

Are you even serious at this point?

You're the one shifting the goalposts by insisting on the psychiatric definition.

You're using a term that has a definition...don't get upset with me because you didn't know it and used the term incorrectly.

Historians do use the word "hysteria" in this fashion.

Historians aren't psychologists though...they aren't qualified to speculate on the mindset of historical figures.

That's why you have no argument to make....no evidence to show.

Your claim that everyone was out of their minds during every witch burning is ridiculous. Was the Spanish inquisition temporary insanity as well lol? I suppose every one of the millions of times a Christian slayed another person in the name of good throughout history....it was just a moment of temporary insanity in your eyes?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Sorry, looked it up and was thinking of justinian 1. Turns out 600s Rome I'd the first written example of burning someone for witchcraft.

As for mass hysteria...no, I'm not woefully ignorant. Mass hysteria might be a suspected cause of cases of witch burning, but it isn't proven...and regardless, it only explains outbursts of unusual behavior in groups of people accused of being witched or being witches....it does not explain the behavior of those who burned them alive. I can only say that if you think mass hysteria explains the behavior of the executioners...you're woefully ignorant of mass hysteria.

That is, however, explained well by moral realism. They viewed witches and witchcraft evil, and sought to do good by burning women and men alive.

I think you are very confused, but you do not seem to have read up on this topic at all. Justinian was a Roman Emperor, just an Eastern Roman Emperor after the West had fallen (thus a Byzantine Emperor). He never decreed the burning of witches. You are thinking of Jordanes' account of the burning of a sorcerer amongst the barbarian Goths, which occured about the same time. This is hardly the same as the Romans doing so.

The fact is that Witch Burning is really not allowed by the moral realist position as envisioned by Christian theology or ancient philosophies around Virtue. It was not done under its aegis. When it was done, it was from more visceral models, scapegoating usually. It really has no support on theoretical grounds, nor was there much attempt to. So to blame it on moral realism is really a bit much. I agree though, its practitioners were believing they were doing a 'good thing', but so were the Nazis. If it can't be supported from a viewpoint theoretically, as this cannot as it goes against too many other moral realist positions like Mercy or non-maleficence, than an attempt to do so is merely post-fact rationalisation. There is no causal relationship from one to the other, I am sorry.

Here, since both of you don't seem to understand mass hysteria...

Why are Females Prone to Mass Hysteria?

It's a conversion disorder that spreads...a psychosomatic illness. When a group of people present physical symptoms that appear to be mental instead of biological...you have a case of mass hysteria. It could be twitching, holding still, laughing, dancing, meowing, etc.

What it cannot be, is a group of people coming to the conclusion that witches exist amongst them and should be burned. You could make a case for mass delusion....but it's far far more likely that were talking about entirely rational people making what they believe are rational responses.

The link even explains that the term gets occasionally thrown around by people who don't know what they're talking about. You're welcome.

You are mistaken. For the record, I am a doctor who spent about a year of my medical career admitting the acutely psychotic and suicidal.
Mass Hysteria need not be only coupled to physical manifestations. Though this is really not something Psychiatry can study, as it has to be done retrospectively. So essentially this is just a red herring you have been throwing about. It is not common, nor are Psychiatric definitions clear enough or immune enough from flux, for such a point to be made. There is no current DSM criteria for Hysteria for instance, it is not really a Psychiatric term at all. To couple it to Conversion Disorder and then dismiss its actual continued usage in Psychology, is utterly silly.

Here is a journal article on the ongoing problems in categorising Somatoform disorders and Conversion:
The Classification of Hysteria and Related Disorders: Historical and Phenomenological Considerations

However, if a shared delusion occurs, such as persecutory delusions by evil witches, this also falls within Psychiatric criteria. For instance, a good argument can be made for McCartheyism as a Moral Panic, as a shared delusion psychiatrically, a 'Mass Hysteria' in other words. This would be psychogenic illness. This is only pedantry on my part, as you've set up some false idea of what entails Mass Hysteria psychiatrically and proceeded to argue against its actual legitimate academic usage. You are really parading your ignorance here, while berating @Silmarien for the same. Maybe look up the actual term and its usage?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think you are very confused, but you do not seem to have read up on this topic at all. Justinian was a Roman Emperor, just an Eastern Roman Emperor after the West had fallen (thus a Byzantine Emperor). He never decreed the burning of witches. You are thinking of Jordanes' account of the burning of a sorcerer amongst the barbarian Goths, which occured about the same time. This is hardly the same as the Romans doing so.

I acknowledged the mistake, and I also pointed out it's entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.

The fact is that Witch Burning is really not allowed by the moral realist position as envisioned by Christian theology or ancient philosophies around Virtue. It was not done under its aegis. When it was done, it was from more visceral models, scapegoating usually. It really has no support on theoretical grounds, nor was there much attempt to.

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree there. I don't remember any old testament verses offhand...but I'm fairly certain there are declarations of witchcraft, sorcery, paganism, and various occult practices as being evil. It may not say that people accused of such should be burned specifically...bit that's not the point.

You can argue that their interpretation of scripture was off...that didn't really mean it when he declared such things evil, but that's irrelevant. The point is that those burning witches did believe it evil, according to the divine word of god, and that made it so...factually. They were moral realists...unquestionably.

So to blame it on moral realism is really a bit much.

I'm not "blaming" it on moral realism necessarily. I was simply pointing out that the idea that moral relativism somehow makes the world a worse or more dangerous place is absurd.

At least with moral relativism, one can consider their moral position as possibly wrong...and in need to examination. The moral realist doesn't ever need to do that...it's entirely out of their hands, so to speak. It's one of the reasons I imagine thinking of morals as facts is so easy...it washes away all responsibility of moral judgements.

I agree though, its practitioners were believing they were doing a 'good thing', but so were the Nazis. If it can't be supported from a viewpoint theoretically, as this cannot as it goes against too many other moral realist positions like Mercy or non-maleficence, than an attempt to do so is merely post-fact rationalisation. There is no causal relationship from one to the other, I am sorry.

I'm not arguing a causal relationship...I'm simply pointing out that violence, dehumanization, atrocity, and all the other interesting parts of history are just as easily committed by moral realists as they are relativists.

You are mistaken. For the record, I am a doctor who spent about a year of my medical career admitting the acutely psychotic and suicidal.

And you studied cases of mass hysteria?

Mass Hysteria need not be only coupled to physical manifestations. Though this is really not something Psychiatry can study, as it has to be done retrospectively.

There's multiple cases of mass hysteria in modern, or even recent, history which have been thoroughly examined by psychologists.

So essentially this is just a red herring you have been throwing about. It is not common, nor are Psychiatric definitions clear enough or immune enough from flux, for such a point to be made. There is no current DSM criteria for Hysteria for instance, it is not really a Psychiatric term at all. To couple it to Conversion Disorder and then dismiss its actual continued usage in Psychology, is utterly silly.

We aren't talking about the vague term "hysteria", which has all the usefulness of saying someone has an "infection"....we're talking about a specific event, with specific symptoms. If you have some disagreement with the Dr who's article I linked, let's hear it.

Here is a journal article on the ongoing problems in categorising Somatoform disorders and Conversion:
The Classification of Hysteria and Related Disorders: Historical and Phenomenological Considerations

And what would you like me to take away from that? There's difficulties with just about any diagnosis of a mental condition. Anxiety often overlaps with paranoia....bipolar disorders can overlap with schizophrenia...and so on.

If you're telling me that a psychologist cannot accurately diagnose witch burnings in historic times as episodes of mass hysteria....then certainly you'll agree there's no way a historian can do it? We're only left with the notion that those burning witches were acting logically as possible given their relative understanding of such matters in the times they lived.

However, if a shared delusion occurs, such as persecutory delusions by evil witches, this also falls within Psychiatric criteria.

I don't see persecutory delusions as being necessarily a part of it. The phenomenon being experienced may have well been real. For example, a man's goat dies suddenly overnight....when it appeared perfectly healthy before...may be blamed upon witchcraft. The fact that he doesn't know the actual cause doesn't necessarily make his beliefs a delusion. He's simply making an "uneducated guess" in a manner of speaking.

If you're going with as broad of a definition of delusion as I think you are....then we'd have to include an astounding amount of beliefs under such a definition...including beliefs in god. Delusion is a tricky word....don't throw it around lightly.

For instance, a good argument can be made for McCartheyism as a Moral Panic, as a shared delusion psychiatrically, a 'Mass Hysteria' in other words.

It wouldn't fall under a classification of mass hysteria....I doubt it would even fall under mass delusion.

The Spring Heeled Jack incident is a better example of mass delusion.

This would be psychogenic illness. This is only pedantry on my part, as you've set up some false idea of what entails Mass Hysteria psychiatrically and proceeded to argue against its actual legitimate academic usage.

I've done this? I didn't write up that dr and ask him to clarify what an incident of mass hysteria entails. I cam quote others if you find one voice on the matter insufficient.

You are really parading your ignorance here, while berating @Silmarien for the same. Maybe look up the actual term and its usage?

What do you think I did? If you're going to argue that witch burnings were perpetrated by those who were in some way...not of sound mind, then proceed with whatever evidence you have. Just keep in mind that the fact that they were wrong to believe in witches and witchcraft doesn't make them delusional. It simply makes them incorrect.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I acknowledged the mistake, and I also pointed out it's entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.



Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree there. I don't remember any old testament verses offhand...but I'm fairly certain there are declarations of witchcraft, sorcery, paganism, and various occult practices as being evil. It may not say that people accused of such should be burned specifically...bit that's not the point.

You can argue that their interpretation of scripture was off...that didn't really mean it when he declared such things evil, but that's irrelevant. The point is that those burning witches did believe it evil, according to the divine word of god, and that made it so...factually. They were moral realists...unquestionably.

Not really. The verse you are thinking of is Exodus 22:18 - thou shalt not suffer a witch to live in the KJV. This is indeed a mistranslation of a hebrew term meaning poisoner. Thing is, the LXX and Vulgate translate it correctly and nowhere else does it say to kill sorcerers. So people that did not have the verse in this form, were also killing witches. So this is a bit of stretch to argue they were moral realists of OT understandings they did not yet have. The Protestants argued the verse to be in this form on account of mediaeval Jewish changes to the wordform and essentially a posteriori reasoning from the prevalence of 'witches'. So this is thoroughly implausible.

The reasoning is anyway fallacious. The Soviets and the Nazis were both moral relativists, yet killed people in great numbers for potential gains they sought, a 'good' in their eyes. Because people are willing to kill others that they consider evil, does not make them moral realists - be it witches, kulaks or untermenschen.

I'm not "blaming" it on moral realism necessarily. I was simply pointing out that the idea that moral relativism somehow makes the world a worse or more dangerous place is absurd.

At least with moral relativism, one can consider their moral position as possibly wrong...and in need to examination. The moral realist doesn't ever need to do that...it's entirely out of their hands, so to speak. It's one of the reasons I imagine thinking of morals as facts is so easy...it washes away all responsibility of moral judgements.



I'm not arguing a causal relationship...I'm simply pointing out that violence, dehumanization, atrocity, and all the other interesting parts of history are just as easily committed by moral realists as they are relativists.

In post 648 you said it was explained by moral realism, so you did draw a causal relationship.

However, the idea that Moral Realists are equally prone to violence as Relativists is nonsense. A relativist can not only re-evaluate a violent position, but also a good one - as the Soviets removed personal property or the Nazis stripped rights from the mentally ill and the Jews. As there is no real thing as a 'good' to a relativist, they can unblushingly argue an evil thing to be moral. This is Raskolnikov killing the pawn-broker, being a Napoleon creating a new Moral Code. A moral realist can never do so, and Moral Realist positions tend to remain and positive development is expected. A good example is slavery, which the Church saw as wrong, a symptom of the Fall, but was accepted in society - until one day the Churches started working to abolish it, and the Abolitionist churches were instrumental in ending the Atlantic Slave trade and so forth. That there were precepts allowing slavery is immaterial, when the concept itself was construed as not being fully moral. We already see Church Fathers like Augustine arguing thst this subjection showed our fallen state. This is the same position with capital punishment. A moral relativist could however argue for its morality, not needing to fundamentally excuse what was seen as a intrinsically bad thing, which is why the Nazis and Soviets reinvented Slavery in things like work camps and collectivisation.

And you studied cases of mass hysteria?



There's multiple cases of mass hysteria in modern, or even recent, history which have been thoroughly examined by psychologists.



We aren't talking about the vague term "hysteria", which has all the usefulness of saying someone has an "infection"....we're talking about a specific event, with specific symptoms. If you have some disagreement with the Dr who's article I linked, let's hear it.



And what would you like me to take away from that? There's difficulties with just about any diagnosis of a mental condition. Anxiety often overlaps with paranoia....bipolar disorders can overlap with schizophrenia...and so on.

If you're telling me that a psychologist cannot accurately diagnose witch burnings in historic times as episodes of mass hysteria....then certainly you'll agree there's no way a historian can do it? We're only left with the notion that those burning witches were acting logically as possible given their relative understanding of such matters in the times they lived.



I don't see persecutory delusions as being necessarily a part of it. The phenomenon being experienced may have well been real. For example, a man's goat dies suddenly overnight....when it appeared perfectly healthy before...may be blamed upon witchcraft. The fact that he doesn't know the actual cause doesn't necessarily make his beliefs a delusion. He's simply making an "uneducated guess" in a manner of speaking.

If you're going with as broad of a definition of delusion as I think you are....then we'd have to include an astounding amount of beliefs under such a definition...including beliefs in god. Delusion is a tricky word....don't throw it around lightly.




It wouldn't fall under a classification of mass hysteria....I doubt it would even fall under mass delusion.

The Spring Heeled Jack incident is a better example of mass delusion.




I've done this? I didn't write up that dr and ask him to clarify what an incident of mass hysteria entails. I cam quote others if you find one voice on the matter insufficient.




What do you think I did? If you're going to argue that witch burnings were perpetrated by those who were in some way...not of sound mind, then proceed with whatever evidence you have. Just keep in mind that the fact that they were wrong to believe in witches and witchcraft doesn't make them delusional. It simply makes them incorrect.

This is merely obfuscation on your part. The whole argument was that we were speaking of the Psychological definition of Mass Hysteria, which you confused with a defunct connection to the Psychiatric manifestations of Somatoform and Conversion disorders. Psychology and Psychiatry are NOT THE SAME THING. The type of Mass Hysteria we were talking about, is not what you were referencing nor is it a current Psychiatric term. I myself connected it with things like Scapegoating in the post you quoted. These Psychologists have studied it retrospectively, but it is not within the scope of Psychiatry. You clearly do not understand the difference. The former has to do with neuroses and manifestations from human behaviour and mental states; the latter with physiological mental ilness based off of presumed organic causes. They are related disciplines, that utilise each other to treat mental illness, but their spheres are distinct. Some aspect of each is usually required to treat, as psychological derangement follows psychiatric illness (or perhaps vice versa too via plasticity).

There is such a thing as shared Delusion, where other people adopt a delusion as their own. I once had two brothers, where the one thought he was Jesus and the other one concurred. I said an argument can be made for McCarthyism or witch-hunting as shared delusions, not that they were - I said I was being pedantic. I had explicitly connected it to Scapegoating beforehand, and my whole argument was that we were discussing Psychological manifestations, and that your bringing Psychiatry in was a red herring. I fear you either lack reading comprehension, or are being disingenuous, but I think you maybe just don't really understand what I am saying, as you seem to equate the disciplines of Psychiatry and Psychology erroneously.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not really. The verse you are thinking of is Exodus 22:18 - thou shalt not suffer a witch to live in the KJV. This is indeed a mistranslation of a hebrew term meaning poisoner. Thing is, the LXX and Vulgate translate it correctly and nowhere else does it say to kill sorcerers. So people that did not have the verse in this form, were also killing witches. So this is a bit of stretch to argue they were moral realists of OT understandings they did not yet have. The Protestants argued the verse to be in this form on account of mediaeval Jewish changes to the wordform and essentially a posteriori reasoning from the prevalence of 'witches'. So this is thoroughly implausible.

I'm not sure what you're claiming here Quid...

Is it?

1. That those killing witches actually thought they were prisoners...not witches?

2. That those killing witches didn't think they were in fact, evil, and that killing them was in fact, good?

Just trying to simplify the conversation and not get bogged down in needless semantics.

The reasoning is anyway fallacious. The Soviets and the Nazis were both moral relativists,

I'd be interested in seeing that argument. You're saying that Hitler didn't see the jews and various other peoples as in fact, inferior/evil, and that eliminating them was in fact a good thing?

Not sure which Soviet killings you're referring to...so I'll wait for you to elaborate.

yet killed people in great numbers for potential gains they sought, a 'good' in their eyes. Because people are willing to kill others that they consider evil, does not make them moral realists - be it witches, kulaks or untermenschen.

It certainly does make them moral realists if they view these matters of evil and good as facts external to themselves and not simply matters of their own opinion. Judging by the arguments they made for their respective atrocities...I'd say they're pretty firmly moral realists.

In post 648 you said it was explained by moral realism, so you did draw a causal relationship.

Their reasoning is explained by moral realism....that's not the same as saying moral realism caused their actions though. I'm certain you can understand the difference.

However, the idea that Moral Realists are equally prone to violence as Relativists is nonsense.

Indeed, I'd say the vast majority of people in the world view morality from some realist position....in that morals goods and bads are facts external to themselves. The overwhelming number of atrocities committed by mankind were most likely committed by realists.

A relativist can not only re-evaluate a violent position, but also a good one - as the Soviets removed personal property or the Nazis stripped rights from the mentally ill and the Jews. As there is no real thing as a 'good' to a relativist, they can unblushingly argue an evil thing to be moral.

I'm not sure why you would think there's no such thing as "good" to a relativist.

This is Raskolnikov killing the pawn-broker, being a Napoleon creating a new Moral Code. A moral realist can never do so, and Moral Realist positions tend to remain and positive development is expected. A good example is slavery, which the Church saw as wrong, a symptom of the Fall, but was accepted in society - until one day the Churches started working to abolish it, and the Abolitionist churches were instrumental in ending the Atlantic Slave trade and so forth.

Read up on your history...the church's position on slavery at the beginning of the trans Atlantic slave trade was that it was acceptable because Africans weren't christian.

Now, there's some early writings between church leaders condemning slavery...when it's being perpetrated upon Christians...but if I'm not mistaken, the church didn't officially condemn slavery in principle till the late 1800s.

That there were precepts allowing slavery is immaterial, when the concept itself was construed as not being fully moral. We already see Church Fathers like Augustine arguing thst this subjection showed our fallen state.

I would hardly call them immaterial lol.

This is the same position with capital punishment. A moral relativist could however argue for its morality, not needing to fundamentally excuse what was seen as a intrinsically bad thing, which is why the Nazis and Soviets reinvented Slavery in things like work camps and collectivisation.

Anyone from any moral position could argue for capital punishment...realist or relativist. The fundamental difference between the two is that the relativist realizes his morals are his opinions...while the realist thinks himself right in fact. Nazis are rather squarely in the realist column.

Please, I'd rather not have to start posting things nazis said about the jews to prove my point. You can look these things up for yourself. They did not see these things as matters of personal opinion, but as matters of fact.

This is merely obfuscation on your part. The whole argument was that we were speaking of the Psychological definition of Mass Hysteria, which you confused with a defunct connection to the Psychiatric manifestations of Somatoform and Conversion disorders.

Defunct? How?

Psychology and Psychiatry are NOT THE SAME THING. The type of Mass Hysteria we were talking about, is not what you were referencing nor is it a current Psychiatric term. I myself connected it with things like Scapegoating in the post you quoted.

The point was made that witch burnings were not conducted by people of sound mind...but by those afflicted by mass hysteria. It's a psychological argument at it's core.

You've got no cause to be upset that I then referred to a psychological explanation of mass hysteria.

These Psychologists have studied it retrospectively, but it is not within the scope of Psychiatry. You clearly do not understand the difference. The former has to do with neuroses and manifestations from human behaviour and mental states; the latter with physiological mental ilness based off of presumed organic causes. They are related disciplines, that utilise each other to treat mental illness, but their spheres are distinct. Some aspect of each is usually required to treat, as psychological derangement follows psychiatric illness (or perhaps vice versa too via plasticity).

The primary difference between the two is that psychiatry is about the clinical practice and treatment of mental disorders and health in general. It has no place in the historical context of witch burnings...but is relevant if we're to discuss modern examples of mass hysteria.

That's why I posted an article from Psychology Today.

There is such a thing as shared Delusion, where other people adopt a delusion as their own. I once had two brothers, where the one thought he was Jesus and the other one concurred. I said an argument can be made for McCarthyism or witch-hunting as shared delusions, not that they were - I said I was being pedantic. I had explicitly connected it to Scapegoating beforehand, and my whole argument was that we were discussing Psychological manifestations, and that your bringing Psychiatry in was a red herring.

At what point did I bring in psychiatry?

Did you even read the credentials of the article's author?

"He holds a doctorate in sociology from James Cook University in Queensland Australia, a Masters in American sociology from the State University of New York at Albany, a Masters in Australian sociology from The Flinders University of South Australia, a BA degree in Communications from The State University of New York at Plattsburgh, and a Certificate in Radio Broadcasting from the State University of New York - Adirondack campus. He has written on an array of topics ranging from human social and cultural diversity, to mass psychogenic illness (aka “mass hysteria”), social delusions, moral panics, fads, collective behavior, the history of tabloid journalism, history of the paranormal, popular myths and folklore."

I'd say he's rather qualified on the topic at hand, wouldn't you? The guy has basically made unusual group behaviours his body of research and work. If he's not qualified to speak intelligently on mass hysteria, then perhaps you'd like to offer up someone who you prefer?

Edit- Just because I'm a nice guy, I looked up another article detailing the psychological view of mass hysteria (you'll see it referenced multiple times)

John Waller on the mystery of mass hysteria

Here's a notable passage...

" In 1749, a contagion of squirming, screaming and trance spread through a German convent; locals inferred the work of a witch, seized a nun as a likely candidate and beheaded her in the marketplace."

So again, when historians talk about mass hysteria being connected to witch burnings, they aren't talking about the people who are killing the witches. I can understand why there might be some confusion on your part regarding this...but I hope it clears things up.

Edit-Edit...You may also notice that the author of that article is another well educated scholar who has written specifically about the very topic we're discussing. I'm not sure what more you could want from me on this matter. If you, or anyone else, has any evidence that's on par with what I've presented that explains the actions of those who burned witches as "mass hysteria"....then let's see it already.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm not sure what you're claiming here Quid...

Is it?

1. That those killing witches actually thought they were prisoners...not witches?

2. That those killing witches didn't think they were in fact, evil, and that killing them was in fact, good?

Just trying to simplify the conversation and not get bogged down in needless semantics.



I'd be interested in seeing that argument. You're saying that Hitler didn't see the jews and various other peoples as in fact, inferior/evil, and that eliminating them was in fact a good thing?

Not sure which Soviet killings you're referring to...so I'll wait for you to elaborate.




It certainly does make them moral realists if they view these matters of evil and good as facts external to themselves and not simply matters of their own opinion. Judging by the arguments they made for their respective atrocities...I'd say they're pretty firmly moral realists.





Their reasoning is explained by moral realism....that's not the same as saying moral realism caused their actions though. I'm certain you can understand the difference.



Indeed, I'd say the vast majority of people in the world view morality from some realist position....in that morals goods and bads are facts external to themselves. The overwhelming number of atrocities committed by mankind were most likely committed by realists.




I'm not sure why you would think there's no such thing as "good" to a relativist.



Read up on your history...the church's position on slavery at the beginning of the trans Atlantic slave trade was that it was acceptable because Africans weren't christian.

Now, there's some early writings between church leaders condemning slavery...when it's being perpetrated upon Christians...but if I'm not mistaken, the church didn't officially condemn slavery in principle till the late 1800s.




I would hardly call them immaterial lol.




Anyone from any moral position could argue for capital punishment...realist or relativist. The fundamental difference between the two is that the relativist realizes his morals are his opinions...while the realist thinks himself right in fact. Nazis are rather squarely in the realist column.

Please, I'd rather not have to start posting things nazis said about the jews to prove my point. You can look these things up for yourself. They did not see these things as matters of personal opinion, but as matters of fact.




Defunct? How?



The point was made that witch burnings were not conducted by people of sound mind...but by those afflicted by mass hysteria. It's a psychological argument at it's core.

You've got no cause to be upset that I then referred to a psychological explanation of mass hysteria.



The primary difference between the two is that psychiatry is about the clinical practice and treatment of mental disorders and health in general. It has no place in the historical context of witch burnings...but is relevant if we're to discuss modern examples of mass hysteria.

That's why I posted an article from Psychology Today.



At what point did I bring in psychiatry?

Did you even read the credentials of the article's author?

"He holds a doctorate in sociology from James Cook University in Queensland Australia, a Masters in American sociology from the State University of New York at Albany, a Masters in Australian sociology from The Flinders University of South Australia, a BA degree in Communications from The State University of New York at Plattsburgh, and a Certificate in Radio Broadcasting from the State University of New York - Adirondack campus. He has written on an array of topics ranging from human social and cultural diversity, to mass psychogenic illness (aka “mass hysteria”), social delusions, moral panics, fads, collective behavior, the history of tabloid journalism, history of the paranormal, popular myths and folklore."

I'd say he's rather qualified on the topic at hand, wouldn't you? The guy has basically made unusual group behaviours his body of research and work. If he's not qualified to speak intelligently on mass hysteria, then perhaps you'd like to offer up someone who you prefer?

Edit- Just because I'm a nice guy, I looked up another article detailing the psychological view of mass hysteria (you'll see it referenced multiple times)

John Waller on the mystery of mass hysteria

Here's a notable passage...

" In 1749, a contagion of squirming, screaming and trance spread through a German convent; locals inferred the work of a witch, seized a nun as a likely candidate and beheaded her in the marketplace."

So again, when historians talk about mass hysteria being connected to witch burnings, they aren't talking about the people who are killing the witches. I can understand why there might be some confusion on your part regarding this...but I hope it clears things up.

Edit-Edit...You may also notice that the author of that article is another well educated scholar who has written specifically about the very topic we're discussing. I'm not sure what more you could want from me on this matter. If you, or anyone else, has any evidence that's on par with what I've presented that explains the actions of those who burned witches as "mass hysteria"....then let's see it already.

Do moral relativists acknowledge that other individuals’ morals exist objectively?

If so, would they acknowledge that if another individual’s morals are good and right then objective morality exists in that individual?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do moral relativists acknowledge that other individuals’ morals exist objectively?

If so, would they acknowledge that if another individual’s morals are good and right then objective morality exists in that individual?

I'm not sure you understand what subjective means. Yes, people really do objectively have opinions about moral issues. That means they are necessarily subjective.

(We know that other people have different opinions about those moral issues. Things that are objective do not depend on any particular mind (by definition). Things that are subjective may be different in different minds. Just because someone has the kindness to agree with me on a particular issue is not a warrant for me to declare my opinion objective.)