Then by that somewhat poor construction, many of the founding fathers were Chinese.
Because our standards are better. And because not everyone has an emotional investment in venerating the evil people of the past, not everyone feels obligated to excuse the evils of the past with pretzel logic about how we can’t judge them because “times were different back then” while at the same time claiming they were Great Men. Apparently we can only judge them when the judgment is positive.
Which is a condemnation of their society, not of the “idolaters”.
It was an evil society, run by evil people who did evil things. Genocidal slavers deserve nothing but hatred and contempt, regardless of when they lived.
You seem to be operating under the delusion that the majority of people cannot be evil or wrong, but they can.
They will look at us like greedy war mongers.
Yours aren’t. In fact, your standards are worse. Your moral standard is based on hatred of everyone, except you hate some people more than others.
The pretense that you have the standing to judge people of the 18th century is ludicrous. It’s like Fred Phelps looking down his nose at Abraham Lincoln.
Regards,
Shodan
As far as Ancient Israel goes, the problem isn’t that that the Hebrews practiced a morality that is repugnant to us moderns. So did the Hittites, the Egyptians and the Assyrians. The problem is that religious people attempt to hold the Hebrews myths as modeling a morality appropriate for us, in the 21st century. The Hebrews weren’t any worse than other ancient societies, but they weren’t any better either and their myths should be historic curiousities rather than objects of serious belief.
The founding fathers were way behind the curve on slavery. Many of their contemporaries realized how archaic and unjust slavery was. Alexander Hamilton was not a slave owner, had friends of African descent as a child, and denounced slavery. The existence of slavery in our constitution cannot be excused by historical relativism.
I suspect in the 18th Century at least, slaves disliking their racism was more a result of self-interest then in any belief in racial equality.
No I am not a moral relativist, but at the same time I find it absurd to judge everyone strictly by present-day standards because oftentimes they could not have known better.
Actually I believe everyone to be totally depraved, so actually I believe humanity to be eviller in general than you do. 
Actually compared to the laws of Draco and some other ancient laws it used the death penalty fairly sparingly and in addition under it (theoretically) everyone was equal under the law.
But at any rate, my opinion is that Mosaic Law offers us guidance with regards to moral behaviour. I don’t believe adulterers, for instance, should be stoned, but I do think it does show the seriousness of that crime.
[/QUOTE]
We needed that compromise to get the Southern states into the United States of America, without which we should have been divided and prey for foreign nations. It was a necessary evil.
Both of these points appear to contradict the premise of your OP.
If you believe that then you are a moral relativist. That’s what the word means. It’s also bullshit to say they didn’t know better. Yes they did. They knew if something caused suffering, and that’s all they neeed to know. Variations of the Golden Rule go back thousands of years.
This is just silly. Is your mother evil and depraved?
What’s so serious about it?
How about beating peole to death with rocks for working on the sabbath? Good idea or bad idea?
The point is that they knew full well that slavery was evil. We also know that many of them kept slaves of their own, so saying the had to compromis is disngenuous. Nobody was forcing them to be slaveowners.
At the time of the Founding, several Northern states were themselves slave states. The Atlantic slave trade was still legal, and some New England ship captains had made their fortunes on it. All the Northern states, even after their own abolitions, benefited from slave produce. Northern looms were fed with Southern cotton.
Slavery was an American institution, not just a Southern one.
A lot of Southern slave owners believed that their slaves were happy under slavery and that they would “suffer” if they were freed. They were wrong obviously but they were using your justification.
By this definition:
yes along with every other member of the species homo sapiens sapiens living or dead with a single, famous exception.
So you don’t think people who betray their marriage vows and trick their loved one is a bad thing?
Again it does not apply to us to-day and it is theorized the main point of the law was a warning to those who disobeyed God and that was the reason for the punishment.
Thomas Jefferson for example wished to free his slaves, but due to debt he was not in control of his own affairs. Indeed there was a trend toward gradual abolition of slavery until Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin and as a result pro-slavery forces gained momentum and became downright fanatical.
Eli Whitney is history’s greatest monster!
They didn’t believe that. They knew it was bullshit. They knew what cruelty was.
What are you quoting from, and what is your basis for believing its true?
What’s the most evil and depraved thing you ever saw your mom doing?
I think it’s a bad thing to betray one’s loved ones, but not all adultery is covert or a betrayal.
Cite?
[quote]
and it is theorized the main point of the law was a warning to those who disobeyed God and that was the reason for the punishment.[/quite]
You mean it is rationalized as such. That rationalization has no Biblical basis, though.
Baloney. He was President of the United States. Don’t tell me he couldn’t have freed his slaves.
Cite?
Regards,
Shodan
Although Dio makes the point in his inimitable way, I think there’s a kernel of truth there. Slavery was universally kept in place through the threat of torture: even slavowners who didn’t keep a lash on hand could rely on the slaves’ knowledge of what would happen to them at the hands of the police should the slaves try to resign from their work. Removing that threat was tantamount to emancipating the slaves. To argue that threatening to torture someone into working for you was kindness is the worst sort of cognitive dissonance imaginable. Certainly some slavers made this argument, but it’s exceedingly difficult to believe that they were completely sincere in it.
As for why we judge people of the past by the standards of today, I’d suggest broadening the question: why judge people by our standards and not their own? There are two answers to this question:
- If your judgment matters–for example, if you’re considering implementing a no-fly zone over a country–then you use your own judgment because it’s the only one you have, and presuming you’re trying to make a better world but don’t have perfect knowledge, it’s the best you can do.
- If your judgment doesn’t matter–for example, if you’re talking smack about someone on a messageboard, or you’re talking about people who are dead, or you’re talking about people who otherwise your judgment won’t affect–then you do it to hone your own moral judgment and to influence other people. Sure, saying “Slavery is wrong” isn’t so interesting and for most of us doesn’t go very far to hone our moral judgment. But to say, “Slavery is wrong, and slaveowners were wrong to benefit from this clear injustice” goes a bit further: we can use this conversation to figure out how we ought to respond to injustices that we benefit from, such as sweatshops in India, or gas prices kept low by alliances with dictators.
I’m not sure how we can judge former eras by their standards. At best, we can try to apply our best guess, by our standards, as to what their standards were.
Because they were slaveowners and because it is self-evident bullshit.
Let’s turn it around.
By the standards of the Past, we today are just a bunch of whiny wasichu.
“Wasichu?!” How DARE they calls us that! Let’s go desecrate some graves!
I judge the past by my standards because that’s all I have.