Samuel Moyn, historian and critic of human rights:

"The mere fact of Christian universalism is no argument for awarding credit to the religion for the conceptual or political possibility of human rights. ... Though its egalitarianism is famous, the cultural and political implications of Christianity from age to age and place to place were simply too different, in need of too much drastic transformation, to approach modern conceptions on their own.

The premise of accounts that try to claim more, after all, is that there is only one move from particular cultures to universal morality to be made - and Christianity is it. But once it is acknowledged that there were, are, and could be many universalisms, the fact that one or another movement or culture is universalistic - even floridly so, as Christianity is - lends it no necessary role in the prehistory of human
rights". (Moyn, The Last Utopia: Human Rights In History).

Of course social harmony is the purpose of mores; what other goal could they have? — Janus

Well, any goal whatsoever. You've not provided a mechanism by which they would be restricted to social harmony.

Can you give an example of a society that valued mores that were designed to promote disharmony? — Janus

Nazi Germany.

What do you think the purpose of ethical and moral teachings in general could be? — Janus

To get people to conform to whatever set of behaviours the ruling elite think will be in their best interests.

when I say things that are more or less established general informed opinion such as that individualism as we moderns understand it, is not emphasized or even existent in primitive and ancient cultures, and that the idea evolved out of conceptions that are more or less unique to Western culture, — Janus

That's not all you said though is it? You said "humane treatment is predominately a matter of compassion, not of what was rationally considered to be fair and just treatment warranted by the mere fact of being an individual who is entitled to it." You're claiming that any humane treatment in tribal cultures is the result of blind compassion, not rational thought. It has nothing to do with individualisation. It's to do with perpetuating this dangerous myth that tribal cultures are barely thinking brutes compared to the enlightened westerners who will come and save them from themselves.

Thinking (or feeling) that others deserve humane treatment is not the same as thinking that every individual has an equal claim to rights. The Christian idea that all are equal in the eyes of God, and the fact that the first comprehensive declarations of human rights occurred in Christian cultures suggests that the idea is unique to Western culture. But by all means, bring the counter-examples.

ince there is no judiciary and no other strong checks on "executive" power, what power there is can be arbitrarily applied, unless there are strong social rules against this. And such rules are usually religious. — Echarmion

This is the bit I'm asking you for evidence for. That such rules are usually religious.

Thinking (or feeling) that others deserve humane treatment is not the same as thinking that every individual has an equal claim to rights. — Janus

No, it isn't. And yet I'm still waiting for any evidence at all to support your assertion that tribal cultures do not think the latter.

Well, any goal whatsoever. You've not provided a mechanism by which they would be restricted to social harmony. — Isaac

Give an actual example of an alternative goal if you want me to take your answer seriously.

Nazi Germany. — Isaac

So, you claim that Nazi Germany promoted social mores designed to produce internal disharmony? :roll:

To get people to conform to whatever set of behaviors the ruling elite think will be in their best interests. — Isaac

So, you think that, for example, the paradigm ethical teaching of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is designed to "get people to conform to whatever set of behaviors the ruling elite think will be in their best interests"? Are you serious?

It's to do with perpetuating this dangerous myth that tribal cultures are barely thinking brutes compared to the enlightened westerners who will come and save them from themselves. — Isaac

This is imputing what I have not said and what is not even implied in what I said. I said that the evidence suggests that ancient and primitive cultures did not have an idea of individual entitlement comparable to the modern Western conception. This is by no means to suggest that they were not rational; they could have been rational in a different way than we are.

This is the bit I'm asking you for evidence for. That such rules are usually religious. — Isaac

I am not an anthropologist. But you can probably look at every culture on earth and find strong, usually conceptually unalterable, social rules based on religion. Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, the ancestor worship of China or various Micronesian tribes. All these contain such social rules. Is that somehow not evidence?

If you want to say that this correlation does not amount to causation, you need to show examples of secular unalterable rules forming.

Give an actual example of an alternative goal if you want me to take your answer seriously. — Janus

They could have the goal of making as many statues with massive heads to appease their Gods as it's possible to make despite using up so much timber that their entire civilisation is wiped out. For example.

So, you claim that Nazi Germany promoted social mores designed to produce internal disharmony? — Janus

You think the mores promoted by Nazi Germany were aimed a social harmony?

So, you think that, for example, the paradigm ethical teaching of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is designed to "get people to conform to whatever set of behaviours the ruling elite think will be in their best interests"? Are you serious? — Janus

Where do you get the paradigm ethical teaching of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" from? Just name a source, a pedagogic source from which we 'learn' 'do unto others...' that does not then go on to teach entirely culturally manipulative objectives like religion, individualism, property rights etc.

I said that the evidence suggests that ancient and primitive cultures did not have an idea of individual entitlement comparable to the modern Western conception — Janus

No you didn't. I've quoted what you said several times, and it's not that. You said "humane treatment is predominately a matter of compassion, not of what was rationally considered to be fair and just treatment warranted by the mere fact of being an individual who is entitled to it." You didn't say anything about 'comparable to the modern Western conception". Then you'd have to define- how comparable.

No, it isn't. And yet I'm still waiting for any evidence at all to support your assertion that tribal cultures do not think the latter. — Isaac

Since the orthodox opinion is, as far as I am aware, that they don't think that way; the burden is on you to provide evidence that they do. As far as I am aware in tribal communities individuals are understood predominately in terms of the social roles, and what they would be entitled to would vary according to their roles (and their attendant importance to the community).

They were hunter/gatherers, not intellectuals, and no doubt most considerations were of a practical, not an ideal, nature. I think that view is fairly uncontroversial (although I'm no anthropologist) but if you have contrary evidence then bring it on.

I am not an anthropologist. But you can probably look at every culture on earth and find strong, usually conceptually unalterable, social rules based on religion. Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, the ancestor worship of China or various Micronesian tribes. All these contain such social rules. Is that somehow not evidence?

If you want to say that this correlation does not amount to causation, you need to show examples of secular unalterable rules forming. — Echarmion

You made the claim, why am I being required to find contrary evidence. Surely, if you've made a strong claim like that you have empirical data to back it up already, otherwise it's just prejudice. Your claim is that moral law is necessarily contained within religious law. You should have some evidence for this to hand.

Theories by actual experts (I know, unpopular round here) as to how Hunter-Gatherers maintained their egalitarian societies broadly fall into three camps. Richard Lee's and Christopher Boehm's concept of 'reverse dominance' where the majority act in unison to diminish even the slightest air of superiority a single individual might have, and thereby socially 'nipping dominance in the bud'. Then there's Peter Gray's Ideas about childhood freedom to play allowing a greater social exploration, or Elizabeth Thomas's ideas about the effect of indulgent parenting providing emotional support missing in later cultures. None mention religion even once.

Since the orthodox opinion is, as far as I am aware, that they don't think that way; the burden is on you to provide evidence that they do. As far as I am aware in tribal communities individuals are understood predominately in terms of the social roles, and what they would be entitled to would vary according to their roles (and their attendant importance to the community). — Janus

That is not the orthodox view at all. It is your assertion of orthodoxy I'm asking for evidence of, not the actual view itself.

You think the mores promoted by Nazi Germany were aimed a social harmony? — Isaac

They were a totalitarian culture, but they did not promote mores such as their own people lying to one another, or murdering, raping and torturing one another. Of course they wanted internal harmony or else their regime could not have lasted long; if the people were unhappy to significant degree there would have been unrest and revolt against the regime.

Just name a source, a pedagogic source from which we 'learn' 'do unto others...' that does not then go on to teach entirely culturally manipulative objectives like religion, individualism, property rights etc. — Isaac

We are discussing mores, wherever they might arise, not the religions or secular cultures within which they may have arisen. What you don't get is that people are sometimes happy to live under strict regimes. The important thing is internal harmony within the community. We have been over this before. Murdering, raping and torturing members of one's own society, for example, are always considered to be moral evils in all societies. I bet you cannot come up with one counter-example.

That is not the orthodox view at all. It is your assertion of orthodoxy I'm asking for evidence of, not the actual view itself. — Isaac

So, what is the orthodox view according to you?

Your claim is that moral law is necessarily contained within religious law. — Isaac

No, it's not. You're welcome to provide evidence for this claim, if you have it.

There are now three people in this thread who you misrepresent. I suggest you take a step back and look at what was actually written.

You should have some evidence for this to hand. — Isaac

I just gave you a bunch of evidence. What's wrong with that?

Theories by actual experts (I know, unpopular round here) as to how Hunter-Gatherers maintained their egalitarian societies broadly fall into three camps. Richard Lee's and Christopher Boehm's concept of 'reverse dominance' where the majority act in unison to diminish even the slightest air of superiority a single individual might have, and thereby socially 'nipping dominance in the bud'. Then there's Peter Gray's Ideas about childhood freedom to play allowing a greater social exploration, or Elizabeth Thomas's ideas about the effect of indulgent parenting providing emotional support missing in later cultures. None mention religion even once. — Isaac

Interesting, but I did not argue that religion was necessary to "maintain an egalitarian hunter-gatherer society". I was talking about how, historically, religious rules are the precursors of modern inalienable rights.

they did not promote mores such as their own people lying to one another, or murdering, raping and torturing one another. — Janus

What? What do you think went on in Nazi Germany? They promoted mores which encouraged people to think of Jews as lesser humans. that, without a shadow of a doubt, created disharmony (which is a mild word for the murder of six million innocent people).

if the people were unhappy to significant degree there would have been unrest and revolt against the regime. — Janus

Did you know about the Second World War? There was quite a bit of 'unrest and revolt'.

So, what is the orthodox view according to you? — Janus

I've outlined it for Echarmion above.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/ind-chin/

What? What do you think went on in Nazi Germany? They promoted mores which encouraged people to think of Jews as lesser humans — Isaac

The Jews were not considered to be their own people. How many times do I have to explain what I mean?

No, it's not. You're welcome to provide evidence for this claim, if you have it. — Echarmion

what power there is can be arbitrarily applied, unless there are strong social rules against this. And such rules are usually religious. — Echarmion

most ideas of inalienable rights and equality are, at least historically, connected to religious ideas. — Echarmion

This is especially true for ideas like inalienable human rights, since this implies an absolute limit to the use of force. Historically, such limits to power were almost always religious. — Echarmion

What there could be interpreted any other way than to suggest that people could do any action 'use of force' etc in the absence of religious laws?

There are now three people in this thread who you misrepresent. I suggest you take a step back and look at what was actually written. — Echarmion

What I read when I take a step back is three people furiously back-peddling from blatantly lazy colonialist ideas about the 'backward natives' by gradually refining their arguments to increasingly specific correlations. What started off as suggesting that people could arbitrarily apply power before religion, has now become "well, tribes don't have a written bill of rights like we do".

I just gave you a bunch of evidence. What's wrong with that? — Echarmion

That's not evidence, it's stuff you reckon. evidence is the theory of experts in the field based on empirical study.

I did not argue that religion was necessary to "maintain an egalitarian hunter-gatherer society". — Echarmion

...

what power there is can be arbitrarily applied, unless there are strong social rules against this. And such rules are usually religious. — Echarmion

most ideas of inalienable rights and equality are, at least historically, connected to religious ideas. — Echarmion

This is especially true for ideas like inalienable human rights, since this implies an absolute limit to the use of force. Historically, such limits to power were almost always religious. — Echarmion

How do you marry 'egalitarian society' with one in which the strong have no checks as to the arbitrary application of force over the weak?

The Jews were not considered to be their own people. How many times do I have to explain what I mean? — Janus

Yes, and the idea of Jews not being part of 'their people' was a social more which caused disharmony.

If I declare that me and my mate both want to go around raping people and consider it to be socially harmonious to our social group (which we take to be just me and my mate), does that then follow your theory? If so, then what does it yield in terms of morality. If we're all free to define 'our social group' in whatever way we feel like, then any activity whatsoever can be condoned simply by altering the definition of social group.

I've outlined it for Echarmion above. — Isaac

Theories by actual experts (I know, unpopular round here) as to how Hunter-Gatherers maintained their egalitarian societies broadly fall into three camps. Richard Lee's and Christopher Boehm's concept of 'reverse dominance' where the majority act in unison to diminish even the slightest air of superiority a single individual might have, and thereby socially 'nipping dominance in the bud'. Then there's Peter Gray's Ideas about childhood freedom to play allowing a greater social exploration, or Elizabeth Thomas's ideas about the effect of indulgent parenting providing emotional support missing in later cultures. None mention religion even once. — Isaac

So, individualism is suppressed by "reverse dominance". Where is the notion of "rights of the individual" in that? I haven't said their societies were not in any practical sense egalitarian. On the contrary I imagine that primitive societies (but not ancient societies) would have been, if anything, generally more egalitarian, at least practically speaking, than modern Western societies are. I mean they were tiny groups by comparison, where everyone would have been very familiar with everyone else, and no one would have been dispensable to the life of the community.The argument has been over the idea of the individual and the individual being entitled to certain rights. Gray's and Thomas's ideas don't seem relevant at all to what I have been arguing.

Do you really expect me to take your claim that these three represent the orthodox idea of the history of the development of the idea of individual rights seriously?

What there could be interpreted any other way than to suggest that people could do any action 'use of force' etc in the absence of religious laws? — Isaac

Now I get it. I was referring not to individual use of force, but use of force by the tribal community, the chief, the king, the state etc. Something we might call "political power". I wasn't referring to just any and all behaviour. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

What I read when I take a step back is three people furiously back-peddling from blatantly lazy colonialist ideas about the 'backward natives' by gradually refining their arguments to increasingly specific correlations. What started off as suggesting that people could arbitrarily apply power before religion, has now become "well, tribes don't have a written bill of rights like we do". — Isaac

In that case, your condescending attitude is impairing your reading comprehension.

That's not evidence, it's stuff you reckon. evidence is the theory of experts in the field based on empirical study. — Isaac

Evidence is whatever the state of affairs is. Theories are based on evidence, they are not themselves evidence. The statements of experts are likewise evidence. Are you claiming that what I wrote is factually wrong?

How do you marry 'egalitarian society' with one in which the strong have no checks as to the arbitrary application of force over the weak? — Isaac

Egalitarian refers to the relative distribution of power and resources. Not to the limits on the application of said power and resources.

Yes, and the idea of Jews not being part of 'their people' was a social more which caused disharmony. — Isaac

The Jews were murdered in order to achieve social harmony in the twisted minds of the nazis. Of course many non-Jews would have been horrified, and the judgement of the nazis was totally flawed. But they did not promote mores designed to create disharmony and that is the point.

As I've said before, if we want civilization to continue then the ideal would be that all people be considered to be part of one community. The economy is global now, but people still hang on to notions of national sovereignty, and continue to see other cultures as "other", so when the crunch comes they will promote the idea that we must look after our own, and fuck the rest. This might be misplaced but it is certainly designed to promote internal harmony. No one wants unrest within their own communities.

So, individualism is suppressed by "reverse dominance". Where is the notion of "rights of the individual" in that? I haven't said their societies were not in any practical sense egalitarian. — Janus

You said "and what they would be entitled to would vary according to their roles (and their attendant importance to the community)" was the orthodox view. Varying entitlements is not egalitarianism is it? Notwithstanding that, you asked me what the orthodox views are, so I presented them. I didn't claim all of them supported a notion that individual rights were a thought-out concept in hunter-gatherer tribes. Personally, I favour Peter Gray's theory. Children in hunter-gatherer societies are treated as individuals with rights far more than they are in modern Western cultures where they're treated more like th property of the parents.

Do you really expect me to take your claim that these three represent the orthodox idea of the history of the development of the idea of individual rights seriously? — Janus

Well, why don't you tell me what sort of evidence you've used to decide what you think is the orthodox view and I'll try to match that?

I was referring not to individual use of force, but use of force by the tribal community, the chief, the king, the state etc. Something we might call "political power". I wasn't referring to just any and all behaviour. Sorry if that wasn't clear. — Echarmion

Right, well in that case you'd need some evidence that in the famously egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribes, the 'chief' regularly abuses his/her power for arbitrary reasons.

Are you claiming that what I wrote is factually wrong? — Echarmion

What you wrote doesn't even pertain to the first 200,000 years of human culture, so no, it is not evidence of the 'almost always' correlation you're claiming.

Egalitarian refers to the relative distribution of power and resources. Not to the limits on the application of said power and resources. — Echarmion

I don't understand what point you're making here. Your argument is that there can be arbitrary abuse of power. In an egalitarian society (one on which power is distributed equally), who is it that the abuse of power is forcing?

No one wants unrest within their own communities. — Janus

Right. And if 'their own communities' can be defined as small or specific as you like, then all you have is that people want harmony for themselves and anyone they fancy giving harmony to. That's relativism.

You said "and what they would be entitled to would vary according to their roles (and their attendant importance to the community)" was the orthodox view. Varying entitlements is not egalitarianism is it? — Isaac

The piece you quoted speaks of "nipping superiority in the bud" it says nothing of ideas of individual entitlement.

Well, why don't you tell me what sort of evidence you've used to decide what you think is the orthodox view and I'll try to match that? — Isaac

You know as well as I do what the orthodox view is. You can call it colonialist or chauvinistic or whatever you like, and I'll probably agree with you, at least in part, but if you want to offer another account that you claim is the new orthodoxy then you need to provide evidence of that in the way of quotes from texts, and evidence that those alternate views are indeed now the new orthodoxy.

It's not relativism if its what people universally want. In other words they all want the same kinds of things, just for different people, and that has been my point all along.

You know as well as I do what the orthodox view is. — Janus

That's your argument? "You know as well as I do".

What you are alluding to is the orthodox view among the uneducated. The orthodox view among experts is not that and has not been for at least 60 years possibly longer. If you want me to prove that you will have to provide me with some idea of what sort of proof you'd accept, but to avoid double standards, it will have to be the same type of proof that you used to arrive at your conclusion about the orthodox view.

The problem is how we get from an objective descriptive fact to an objective normative rule. — Echarmion

Right action is the faultless performance of moral (good) action.

I would think that we look for an objective standard in order to justify applying that standard to others. If we regard moral propositions as purely subjective, enforcing law and order amounts to nothing more than 'might makes right', right? — JosephS

Morality is a mental construct which has many subjective (personal) and intersubjective (cultural) manifestations. A person's morality construct develops in parallel with mental maturation, personal experience, and social influences (Kohlberg, 1983).

Ethical propositions are subjective; they are statements of, or pertaining to, ethical value.

With regard to ethics, only human events having a moral or immoral quality are objective (factual). So, there are moral facts and immoral facts.

Empathy (identification with, and the vicarious experience of, the thoughts and/or affect of another person) is a faculty of ethical awareness, having both cognitive and affective components (Rogers, et al., 2007) which informs a subject of an ethical fact (except in the case of mental disorders such as psychopathy).

So, there is no separation of "is" (fact) and "ought" (value), because awareness is both objective (fact-based) and subjective (value-based). Ethical fact and value constitute the two poles of empathy.

Conscience is the intuitive faculty which evaluates ethical options and self conduct (including motives and intent) in accordance with morality.

Questions of subordination and rebellion, while somewhat more complex than most other ethical questions, are not a function of cultural bias (individualism or collectivism).

Note I'm speaking about the orthodox view regarding the evolution of the idea of individuality and individual rights. Is that what you are speaking about?