I read a shocking defense of human sacrifice for the first time:
A: The Mayans went to their sacrifices willingly as they believe its a privilege to die for their Sun God.
B: not true. I believe most of their sacrifices are war captives.
A: But it is their culture!! U're not about to apply some white man's brand of shit and judge them based on that are you???
B: they are war captives wat, its like saying rape victims deserve to be raped because its the culture of the rapist.
A: Would you say the Greeks are immoral chauvinistic pigs because under their culture... women aint allowed to vote? That they value women only as vessels in which their seed is being baked? Or that they are all paedophiles because they practise "Greek love"?
Point is at that point of time within the Mayan civilisation, waging war and sacrificing to their gods are their way of life. They believe that the Sun God must receive a daily or weekly or something(i forgot the time frame) sacrifice for it strengthen his power against the forces of darkness or something.
Yes we don't agree with human sacrifices. But we must look within that particular culture's mindset at that point instead of using our current standards to judge them.
B: so you're saying that despite the fact that the iraq war is generally an "illegal war based on false information and lies", it is justifiable for one culture (american) to attack another( iraq) bacause its the basis of (american culture).
---
I think you don't get the point, from the point of the victor, it is acceptable, but from the point of the victim it is not acceptable. so you're saying that only the victor's culture applies.
did the mayans only fight with other mayans and seize captives from them? sure, I accept human sacrifices from the context of willing ball game players.. but to say that prisoners of war are willing sacrifices is a far stretch. that's like saying nazi pow sent to the gas chambers went willingly.
A: And how do you know they didnt go willingly? Cos of Mel Gibson's portrayal?
I didn't say its ok for America to attack another. It's wrong by current standards. Neither did I say victor's culture applies. The losing tribe(mayans), should they win the war, would also do the same to the losers! It's just their culture to do so.
But you must also know that the Mayans or Aztecs were a pretty war-like and aggressive people. Waging war is pretty much their way of life.
Yes they wage war largely among the various tribes of the Mayan culture. And who ever loses will definitely be offered up as sacrifice to the gods. Its their way of offering thanks to the gods, and as well as not depleting their own tribe.
It's all too easy to judge the ancient cultures with our own current standards. The Greeks practise homosexuality, the Egyptians incest, Mayans human sacrifices...etc... the list goes on...
And my point is we must not be too quick to judge based on our perspective. Only a two centuries ago, people were judging homosexuals harshly and labelled them as unclean, abberration, spawn of satan...etc... at that point of time... it WAS the accepted viewpoint.
Galileo was incarcerated because he believed in something that was not of that culture at that point of time; that the earth and not the sun revolves around.
Sure you can look back and say that our ancestors were stupid pigs for believing that the sun revolves around us. But at that point of time, it is an accepted fact.
How can you judge them when their belief and way of life is set on that?
And once again no I'm not saying its ok for one culture to attack another. I'm saying it's not ok because I am brought up within this century's standards.
But who are we to criticise a culture that had since long vanished whose way of life is vastly different from us?
Do we say our Chinese kin from China are barbarians because they eat dogs? They probably don't see it that way because dogs are quite part within of their culinary culture!
B: yeah. but you're treating an entire culture as monolithic.
ie: everyone from the privilege class down to the slave caste agrees that their culture (of keeping slaves is totally correct).
the victims of human sacrifice isn't just the warriors.
I just don't agree with absolute moral relativism , I still think some objective criteria like the golden rule, or consensualness should apply.
A Dialog on Aztec and Maya Religion
"I think that there is ample evidence that a great many Mayans and most of those under Aztec rule did, in fact, consider human sacrifice (or at least the scale upon which it was practiced) to be wrong (or at least unjust). The latest evidence suggests that the Maya collapse was not due to environmental factors, but to a decision by the common folk (who bore the burden of sacrifical demands) to vote with their feet to avoid the honor of meeting their ancestors heart/head in hand."
And I would hardly call prisoners of war willing sacrifices.