7 Answers

  1. Can. And it can be considered moral. And we can assume that the criterion of morality is when a mosquito buzzes. Buzzes-morally. Not buzzing – not moral. You can count anything at all.

    In this formulation, you will not be able to give any other answer. It makes sense to ask whether it should be considered moral, whether it should be considered moral. No, you shouldn't. It would be a crazy and absurd morality to ” act morally according to the mores of your society.” It does not correspond to the golden rule, it does not allow us to evaluate the mores of society in any way – that is, in fact, there is no longer morality as an independent phenomenon, only morals that are declared valuable in themselves and cannot be analyzed, because they are now the standard for evaluating everything else.

  2. Hello, Mary.

    I think that there are two main criteria of morality: justice (righteousness) and love (goodness).

    The first corresponds to the commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your soul, with all your heart, with all your strength, and with all your understanding.” For, as the apostle John says, this is the love of God, that we should keep His commandments, but His commandments are not heavy. Jesus also says, ” If anyone loves Me, he will keep my word.”

    The second corresponds to the commandment: love your neighbor as yourself. The golden rule of ethics is a special case of this commandment: so in all things, whatever you want people to do to you, do to them also, for this is the law and the prophets (Matthew 7).

    All the forces of the human soul take part in the morality of the act. Therefore, it is important how much a person understood what he was doing, how much he knew whether it was possible to do this or not, how much he was free and persistent in the act. Those who knew, understood, did things voluntarily, and persevered are morally sane. And what quality of imputation-positive or negative-depends on the case itself and different circumstances.

    Killing an enemy is not a completely immoral act. This was permitted to a certain extent in the Old Testament. Yes, and in the New Testament time we are fighting for our Homeland, we must kill the enemy in the war, if the fighting requires it.

    But the atrocity is definitely immoral. It is contrary to the meaning of love. Here the Indian is definitely guilty, because he disfigures the human body. But tradition has an impact on the degree of guilt. If a Christian did this, it's a disaster. If a pagan who did not know God and whose conscience is not enlightened by divine teaching and the sacraments of the church, he is less guilty. The Lord can have mercy on sinful pagans, if they kept to the truth and goodness within the limits of their understanding. Everyone has these two criteria. Everyone strives for truth and good, and they know that it is better than lies and evil. But not everyone understands the circumstances of the cases. The Indian could remove the scalp mechanically, performing the prescribed ritual. This is not the same as applying your own personal cruelty. And yet the deed is evil, so the soul is defiled.

    Your question has an additional meaning: what will it cost the Indian to do this, and what will it cost me if I do it too? An Indian does not know the Christian faith and life with God, but we Christians do. Therefore, we respond more strictly than an Indian. If he was only performing a ritual, and that person was, indeed, an enemy, he can be forgiven by God. Otherwise, the ways of God are higher than our ways, as the heavens are higher than the earth. We assume, and the Lord decides.

    We will be severely punished on the Day of Judgment, because in Christian terms this is unspeakable cruelty. For to whom much is given, more will be required of him, and to whom much is entrusted, more will be required of him.

    May the Lord help us learn to live a righteous life and love people.

  3. If an ogre acts in accordance with the mores of the tribe, then he is moral, why not? If society gives a sanction to morals, then it is their criterion. The fascists in the concentration camp had written: “right or wrong, this is my homeland” – this is the whole criterion of morality.

    Just think, morality. Conscience can be hung with any ethics, ethos in general can be molded on the fly – and she, a fool, will endure. There is a problem with food in the country – we come up with a” bad boy ” who is fat, and we sculpt the ethos “eat – help the enemy”, and when everyone weakens, we need to force “eat little – work badly!” Or in our time: in cartoons, mice are sniveled over, and on the farm they are enthusiastically exterminated – and what should the child take from this?

    The contradictions of ethos eventually overwhelm people's empathy for each other and all living things, and ethics is completely devoid of salt.

  4. No, he's an Indian, that's the way they do it, that's the way they live. At the same time, the Indian himself can find a lot of immoral things in those who denounce him. So in terms of exposing each other, it will be 1:1.
    At the same time, if an Indian loses a war and is forced to submit to the victors, he must comply with the cultural norms of the victors, remaining with his own only within the limits left to him from above. The same rule applies if the Indian himself, voluntarily decided to live among those from whom it is considered immoral to take scalps.

  5. A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye – says the Law of God given through Moses. Therefore, in principle, there is a certain justification for killing an enemy if it is committed in revenge from the position of the “Old Testament” decrees. Another thing is excessive cruelty to the enemy can already be too much:

    3 Thus saith the LORD: For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not spare them: for they have threshed Gilead with iron threshings.
    (Amos 1: 3)

    The criterion of morality? On the one hand, it is the Law of God, on the other, for those who do not know, it is the law of conscience

    14 For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things of the law, they are a law unto themselves, not having the law.:
    15 they show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience and their thoughts bear witness, now accusing and now justifying one another)
    (Rom 2: 14,15)

    If you simplify and reduce the Law of God to cream, then it sounds like this: do not do to others what you do not want to do to yourself. In principle, a person's conscience says the same thing – this is the criterion of morality.

  6. Is it immoral for an Indian to take the scalp of an enemy and act according to the mores of his society?The criterion of morality?

    Mary, the question contains a statement.�

    The Indians were taking their scalps. How do we know that? Movies about Indians (made by non-Indians), books about Indians (written by non-Indians), in short – propaganda.�

    And if you rummage through the vast expanses of the all-powerful and all-knowing Internet, you will find that…

    scalps were taken long before the Indians by the Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans. Pre-Christian tribes in Europe and Asia. Calmly so filmed, immoral. And the Indians? At the time of the colonization of North America, only a few Native American tribes practiced it as evidence of military prowess. From a dead enemy. From the dead exactly. And it is with the warrior. The tribes of Canada, the Northeastern part of the future states, all the tribes along the Pacific coast did not do this at all. But with the arrival of civilized Europeans, oddly enough, this spread everywhere. Not only did the Europeans themselves enthusiastically engage in scalping ( and from the living, women and children), but they also put it on a commercial basis. Turning the sacred act of appropriating the military power of the spirit into the purchase and sale of scalps, the passion of which covered both immigrants and tribes who had not previously practiced this.


    The Europeans made scalping a way of commercially stimulating Indians and Whites to serve a particular belligerent. The scalp could be turned into money, exchanged for weapons and necessary goods. It quickly lost its sacred significance, turning into a “bargaining chip”. At this time, scalping became widespread and reached almost an industrial scale. The Dutch and then the English governments began to award bounties for scalps, that is, for slaughtered Indians. In 1641. the governor of the British colony of New Holland for the first time established a reward for Indian scalps. On July 26, 1722, a proclamation declaring war on the Indians was issued in Boston, and one of its points was a provision that prescribed the payment of remuneration for scalps taken. In 1725, white settlers of the colony of New Hampshire first scalped ten Indians, for which they received a reward from the authorities of 100 pounds for the scalp of Indians of hostile tribes. No one cared about the origin of the scalp, so it was often removed not only from the Indians, but also from enemies among their own tribesmen. A woman's scalp, an old man's scalp, or a child's scalp cost less, but that didn't stop many scalp hunters. The price was also affected by the size of the scalp. In 1724, the colony of Massachusetts offered $ 500 for the scalp of a red man, and in 1755, the same colony offered $ 200 for the scalp of a red man over the age of 12, and $ 100 for the scalp of a red woman or child.

    Nothing personal, as they say, just business. And there is no crime that a capitalist would not commit with a profit of 300 percent or more.�

    But is it moral to put the purchase and sale of scalps on an industrial basis?

    Is it moral to distribute blankets specially infected with smallpox to the Indians?

    Is it moral to survive the locals from their native land?

    How moral is it to exterminate Indian settlements with the use of artillery by the army?

    Before the arrival of Columbus, the land now occupied by the 48 states of America was inhabited by over 12 million people. Four centuries later, the population was reduced to 237,000, or 95%.

    Is it very moral?

    And what did the European “explorers” who sailed with Columbus to the Caribbean do – in general, a list of horrors. Total extermination of the island population. How moral is it to feed Aboriginal children to dogs?

    Hitler learned genocide from the Americans. And now Americans are morally teaching everyone else to live. This is not his phrase “the final solution of the Jewish question”, this is a paraphrase.�

    It was the superintendent of Indian Affairs, Duncan Campbell Scott, the son of Adolf Eichmann, who in April 1910 was so concerned with the “Indian problem”: “We recognize that Native American children are losing their natural resistance to disease in these cramped schools, and that they are dying at a much higher rate than in their villages. But that in itself is not a reason to change the policy of this department, aimed at the final solution of our Indian problem.”

    Strongly moral?

  7. Well, yes, we are not individually intelligent. This means that we can't be individually ethical either. Our cultures and subcultures are reasonable and ethical. That is why the international community is shaking over all these “declarations”. �Human rights-especially. This is not the law. But this is the standard for deviations from which it is already possible to judge in an ethical sense. But judging by it is truly wild… Indian – meaningless.

Leave a Reply