>were the nazis bad guys?
>was the british empire good or bad?
What the fuck /his/? What is up with these questions? I would like to remind you there is no good or bad in history, judging the past with modern morals is stupid.
The Nazis weren't that long ago senpai
Why you gotta make it worse
Yes.
Good .
Morals transcend history.
>image.jpg
>complains about others
Fucking kill yourself phone posting cunt.
>>1279495
Please post in the already existing shitty thread. Don't normally post frogs but I'm frustrated past the point of rational thought.
There are people still alive who saw Nazi Germany and the heyday of the British Empire. Morals have hardly changed drastically in that time.
In fact, part of the reason the Nazis are looked upon so unfavorably is because they were judged by modern morals at the time. A couple of centuries prior nothing they did would have been all that shocking.
>>1279533
>Morals have hardly changed
Yes, if you live alone in your room there seems to be no change at all.
>>1279495
This is a humanities board also, and not all of us are here for the history. Morals are something highly debatable and not everyone is a moral relativist.
Also its very disingenuous to say that 70 years ago is something we can't judge even as historians. Its like, really close to us morally.
>>1279562
Moral relativism is really only useful to me as a reactionary lens to view things through (as to spite salty traditionalists who want to enforce their absolutist moral codes) and a tool for empathy. There are situations where it's useful, and situations where it's of very little consequence to consider. But when you do use it, don't be a faggot, and apply it unilaterally. Otherwise it's just exceptionalism.
It's definitely worthwhile to consider moral ideas in a deeper, more abstract way than just saying "eh, they think it works for them." I've had more chances and inspiration to think deeply about the implications of mine, and be challenged on those implications, after I started visiting here. Shit's anonymous. The rules of debate are off. So you have to really evaluate what people say or else you just get baited into trollish pedantry. I've had more chances to do this now, than I have in years of solitary introspection.
>>1279510
>>1279533
>>1279550
>>1279562
>>1279642
"Morals" are a réaction against the way humans naturally organisé their societies, as determined by human psychology, by those who stand to imprive their reproductive chances by implement in a system counter to natural human social behavior.
Human psychology has not changed, because it is evolved into us.
Therefore "morals" do not change much.
>>1279495
Well gee whiz. We must judge the past using our modern morals lest we say "Hey! They committed Genocide, why can't we?" If we don't say, "Hey, that was fucked up!" Then perhaps it wasn't fucked up and PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO KILL ORGERS IN THE NAME OF GOD. Radical religious factions justify their killings of infidels of other religions because they don't recognize that the atrocities of the past were fucked up.
That felt good
>>1280057
>morals are predetermined by biology
Who writes this shit?
>what is culture
>>1280065 *others
ORGERS - those are like ogres and forgers or something. I'll take my -5 or spelling error.
Drink not the Kool Aid of thine ancestors!
>>1280065
>We must judge the past using our modern morals
"no", you fucking retard
>>1279533
>morals have hardly changed [the past 75 years]
You must be the dumbest motherfucked alive. How have you not died in a spoon accident or drowned in a puddle yet?
