Bog Bodies

[Arjos]

I don't know. Would you give your child up to your god(s)?

Afaik for example among the Karthadastim, it was perceived as something of a duty, for whoever happened to hold an elected office or power, to sacrifice either themselves or their own children. For it was thought to be an act that really reached the divine sphere and could "fix" extremely negative situations...

All in all I find quite "empty" to ask such moral/ethical interrogatives, when the contemporaneous (read "of the ancients") values are mostly unknown to us...
Another example are the Eriloz, who killed their elders, because they found them to be liabilities for the whole community. What is reasonable for one, is unthinkable for another etc...

[Brennus]

On the subject of child sacrifice you could also add the examples of Peruvian child sacrifices; again considered a great honour among Inca society. Also within some Australian aboriginal communities traditionally elderly members of the community would remove themselves them from the group and wander off into the bush to die of exposure, once they had become too old to contribute to the survival of their tribe.

[Ca Putt]

I've always thought that bog bodies in germania were primarily the result of executions. Or alternatively burial rites for People that have commited crimes of a specific nature.
You know, Thiefs get their Hand hacked off, murderers get hanged(and displayed) adulterers get dumped in the bog.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Afaik for example among the Karthadastim, it was perceived as something of a duty, for whoever happened to hold an elected office or power, to sacrifice either themselves or their own children. For it was thought to be an act that really reached the divine sphere and could "fix" extremely negative situations...

All in all I find quite "empty" to ask such moral/ethical interrogatives, when the contemporaneous (read "of the ancients") values are mostly unknown to us...
Another example are the Eriloz, who killed their elders, because they found them to be liabilities for the whole community. What is reasonable for one, is unthinkable for another etc...

Hmmmm? he whole question of kathadastim 'child sacrific' is somewhat...up in the air. Strange that the enemies of Rome should be seen as the purveyors of sacrifice while...Rome sacrificed enemies quite liberally (crucifixion, feeding 'enemes' of Rome to beats in the arena...)

What strikes me as odd is the idea that human beings would act counter to human nature. The people that Rome, for example, were willing to 'sacrifice' were...enemies of Rome. The few occasions when Germanic tribes are known to have contemplated sacrifice have been with enemies (the allies of Caesar who represented him to the Seuvi, for example)

What strikes me as odd is that we would simply believe the Roman's version of 'enemies' behaviour in spite of their obvious hypocrisy and in spite of more recent knowledge of such as even primate behavior...almost as if...we'll believe anything the Romans say about how their perceived enemies behaved.

What I think is empty is the idea that groups of people would, without reasonable excuse, act as inhuman. The whole point odf the story of Abraham is... that such behaviour (being willing to sacrifice one's own child) is.. counter to human nature. The story of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac has power precisely because it stands against everything any reasonable human being would expect in their life.

[Arjos]

Rather than the "child sacrifices", I was referring to Lancel's analysis of Polybios and others, but I suppose those accounts were biased. Just like other cultures observed in our days...
Letting aside that imo you are following the very same Roman view that: my own morality defines humanity. Let's move on to another example:

Exposure for "deformed" children by several cultures in a diatopic distribution, is that inhuman and therefore never happened and their remains were placed by the Archaeological Committee for Pratical Jokes?
Abraham's story as you've put it, or Kierkegaard really, has validity for the modern values in western society...

BTW it's funny that on one hand you've considered irrational, random violence as an answer and on the other the impossibility for violent, ignorant acts by human beings :P
Still I do not think it speaks for inhumanity, its context can be understood: a community living on a flimsy subsistence balance simply can't take care of certain members. It's an admission of failure/defeat, but for its survival it seems that certain members are/were willing to sacrifice themselves...
Obviously children cannot make such a choice, and for us it's just brutal, but then again we are living quite a comfortable life...

[Rex Somnorum]

Rather than the "child sacrifices", I was referring to Lancel's analysis of Polybios and others, but I suppose those accounts were biased. Just like other cultures observed in our days...
Letting aside that imo you are following the very same Roman view that: my own morality defines humanity.

It's obviously true that morality is relative. But it's just as plausible to suggest that some universal values constrain human actions. Take, for instance, the innate value of human life. In times of extreme stress- famine, drought and war - these values can be eroded, but they persist mainly because no society can survive in their absence. They encourage the interaction and cooperation that are the hallmarks of an organised culture.

Abraham's story as you've put it, or Kierkegaard really, has validity for the modern values in western society...

Which is strange, considering the story of Abraham predates the development of modern western philosophy by several thousand years.

[Arjos]

Which is strange, considering the story of Abraham predates the development of modern western philosophy by several thousand years.

You've missed the point: the emphasis Kierkegaard saw on the human drammatic choice has a certain relevance for us...
For all we know in the past it was seen as human total devotion being rewarded...
Also other cultures can perceive it in a completely different manner...

At the same time, nothing precludes certain values to last for millennia...

Take, for instance, the innate value of human life. In times of extreme stress- famine, drought and war - these values can be eroded, but they persist mainly because no society can survive in their absence. They encourage the interaction and cooperation that are the hallmarks of an organised culture.

So this is innate and an hallmark of organised culture, because soon as said society is threatened it's immediately dropped? Thus having kept that moral in an abstract plain, has ensured that said society survives...
Yup, unbiased logic without any idealisation XD

Your very example shows how certain societies survived without it: interaction and cooperation do not equal the sanctity of life...

[Rex Somnorum]

You've missed the point: the emphasis Kierkegaard saw on the human dramatic choice has a certain relevance for us...
For all we know in the past it was seen as human total devotion being rewarded...
Also other cultures can perceive it in a completely different manner...

I understand that, but I still find it hard to believe that a community's natural (read "biological") affection - let alone a parent's - for children would permit child sacrifice to occur routinely when the survival of the collective was not at stake. In extraordinary circumstances, yes. On a regular basis, no.

[Arjos]

In extraordinary circumstances, yes. On a regular basis, no.

And when did I ever said that it occurred regurarly? lol
GSG was stating how it is impossible for humans to act without "humanity" and, as you apparently agree, there have been and are episodes in which that is not the case...
So, at least imo, there should be no problem in seeing certain sacrifices as "inhumane", but rather signs of social desperation...

If anything killing one own's children, could be seen as an even greater involvement/committment by the religious/political figure...

Cooperation implies a certain amount of respect - which is only a step removed from sanctity of life - for fellow human beings. In other words, empathy.

Not even close, cooperation implies a shared goal and the mutual understanding of either the impossibility to achieve it alone or the greater ease a coordinated action allows...
Obviously human beings then feel/develop particular emotions related to the acts performed, but it's not what motivate them:

Firefighters do not work in a team because they respect eachother, but because putting out a fire with a bucket is counterproductive.
Then through life experiences, helping eachother, especially the realisation (conscious or unconscious) of how camaraderie ensures a safer environment for each member, these "feeling beings" grow attached to one another...

But the idea that one respects another, therefore is drawn to perform alongside him is, imo, a fallacy...
No one goes to a workplace out of the love he feels for his co-workers, but the workplace exists (is established) because the worker cannot complete (in a given time) a task alone. Then if they became friends/lovers or simply respect one another the better. At the same time anyone can hate the other's guts and together professionally do the best work possible and achieve their common goal, as good (and possibly even better) as respectful co-workers...

[Rex Somnorum]

So this is innate and an hallmark of organised culture, because soon as said society is threatened it's immediately dropped? Thus having kept that moral in an abstract plain, has ensured that said society survives...
Yup, unbiased logic without any idealisation XD

Your very example shows how certain societies survived without it: interaction and cooperation do not equal the sanctity of life...

Cooperation implies a certain amount of respect - which is only a step removed from sanctity of life - for fellow human beings. In other words, empathy.

[antisocialmunky]

Hmmmm? he whole question of kathadastim 'child sacrific' is somewhat...up in the air. Strange that the enemies of Rome should be seen as the purveyors of sacrifice while...Rome sacrificed enemies quite liberally (crucifixion, feeding 'enemes' of Rome to beats in the arena...)

What strikes me as odd is the idea that human beings would act counter to human nature. The people that Rome, for example, were willing to 'sacrifice' were...enemies of Rome. The few occasions when Germanic tribes are known to have contemplated sacrifice have been with enemies (the allies of Caesar who represented him to the Seuvi, for example)

What strikes me as odd is that we would simply believe the Roman's version of 'enemies' behaviour in spite of their obvious hypocrisy and in spite of more recent knowledge of such as even primate behavior...almost as if...we'll believe anything the Romans say about how their perceived enemies behaved.

What I think is empty is the idea that groups of people would, without reasonable excuse, act as inhuman. The whole point odf the story of Abraham is... that such behaviour (being willing to sacrifice one's own child) is.. counter to human nature. The story of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac has power precisely because it stands against everything any reasonable human being would expect in their life.

You should read the account of Ibn Fadlan about the Viking Funeral he witnessed. It one of the few writings that I've read that has captured more or less the mindset of the people involved in such rituals:
http://web.archive.org/web/200804092...ed/risala.html

I don't reproduce it here because its quite long and graphic.