Any military cultures in history that were proud of being rapists?

[Speaker to Animals]

What do you mean by universalist koolaid though?

[BjornP]

What do you mean by universalist koolaid though?

I think universalism, such as the one found religions like Christianity and Islam, but also in ideologies such as Communism or even Liberalism, have a tendency to paint whatever they believe, as something everyone else "really" knows, but just won't "admit" to themselves or to others. And it's that tendency which leads to thinks like the identity culture wars in Anglophone countries + Sweden. The "if everyone just realizes The One Universal Truth, we'll all be happy, harmonious and/or going to heaven".

Not that I don't believe in big truths, firm values, that some things are good and other bad ethically and morally. And also, that one can arrive at better moral decisions through applying reason. I just don't consider them universal, nor I do need them to be.

Not that there are no things whatsoever about the way all of mankind organizes itself in societies that are, sort of, universal. But those things are so broadly human, that they aren't really objective morals, or sign of a universal morality. Like, all societies for all time all around the globe have created laws to seperate justifiable from unjustifiable killing, unjustifiable from justifiable taking of goods, and so on. In short, all societies have had a concept of "murder", "theft" and an idea that there are "rude" and "polite" things to do. But I don't believe in, universal and "objective" definition of murder, theft, etc.

Calling it "koolaid" may give the wrong impression, tbh. As with tribalism, universalist beliefs are only a problem when slid too far off the scale.

[Speaker to Animals]

What do you mean by universalist koolaid though?

I think universalism, such as the one found religions like Christianity and Islam, but also in ideologies such as Communism or even Liberalism, have a tendency to paint whatever they believe, as something everyone else "really" knows, but just won't "admit" to themselves or to others. And it's that tendency which leads to thinks like the identity culture wars in Anglophone countries + Sweden. The "if everyone just realizes The One Universal Truth, we'll all be happy, harmonious and/or going to heaven".

Not that I don't believe in big truths, firm values, that some things are good and other bad ethically and morally. And also, that one can arrive at better moral decisions through applying reason. I just don't consider them universal, nor I do need them to be.

Not that there are no things whatsoever about the way all of mankind organizes itself in societies that are, sort of, universal. But those things are so broadly human, that they aren't really objective morals, or sign of a universal morality. Like, all societies for all time all around the globe have created laws to seperate justifiable from unjustifiable killing, unjustifiable from justifiable taking of goods, and so on. In short, all societies have had a concept of "murder", "theft" and an idea that there are "rude" and "polite" things to do. But I don't believe in, universal and "objective" definition of murder, theft, etc.

Calling it "koolaid" may give the wrong impression, tbh. As with tribalism, universalist beliefs are only a problem when slid too far off the scale.

Maybe you should separate dogma from the natural law portion of those religions. I can't speak to Islam, but Judaism, Christianity, and even Confucianism affirm some simple natural law truths. The Golden Rule probably represents the most obvious example.

己所不欲，勿施於人。
"What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others."
子貢問曰："有一言而可以終身行之者乎"？子曰："其恕乎！己所不欲、勿施於人。"
Zi gong (a disciple of Confucius) asked: "Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?"
The Master replied: "How about 'shu' [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?"
--Confucius, Analects XV.24, tr. David Hinton (another translation is in the online Chinese Text Project)

The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful.

— Tao Te Ching, Chapter 49
Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.

— T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien

Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama, c. 623 – c. 543 BC)[48][49] made this principle one of the cornerstones of his ethics in the 6th century BC. It occurs in many places and in many forms throughout the Tripitaka.

Comparing oneself to others in such terms as "Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I," he should neither kill nor cause others to kill.

— Sutta Nipata 705
One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.

— Dhammapada 10. Violence
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.

— Udanavarga 5:18
Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.[50]

श्रूयतां धर्मसर्वस्वं श्रुत्वा चाप्यवधार्यताम्।
आत्मनः प्रतिकूलानि परेषां न समाचरेत्।।

If the entire Dharma can be said in a few words, then it is — that which is unfavorable to us, do not do that to others.
— Padmapuraana, shrushti 19/357–358

What do you suppose led people totally unrelated and out of touch from one another to derive the same moral teaching from natural law?

[C-Mag]

The current Caliphate is very proud of rape. They have issued written fatwas on promoting rape.

Pretty standard fair for Muslim armies

[Okeefenokee]

The current Caliphate is very proud of rape. They have issued written fatwas on promoting rape.

Pretty standard fair for Muslim armies

i'm reporting you.

[Speaker to Animals]

Aaahhhhhh

Carlus took the bait.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Goes back to what hash said a while back about rape having an inflated importance.

I guess it all comes down to optics, or something like that.

We have a weird way of ranking things.

Take a platoon of soldiers into a village and kill fifty people, massacre. Drop more bombs on north vietnam than all of the bombs dropped in ww2, nothingburger.

Kill millions in fire bombing of tokyo, footnote. Kill fifty thousand at nagasaki, war crime.

Kill thousands barraging baghdad, footnote. embarrass a POW at abu ghraib, international incident.

kill millions of germans invading from the east, war. rape some women along the way, travesty.

You're right, but torture does cross a different line than killing for a purpose. Even killing without a clear purpose.

It implies a sadism that we separate from military action.

[BjornP]

What do you suppose led people totally unrelated and out of touch from one another to derive the same moral teaching from natural law?

That we are all the same species, and we are social animals by nature. As such we all developed some of the same ways to avoid conflict within our groups and similarly ways to promote social well-being within the group.

And right about now you are doing a little happy dance that ends with you screaming "Aaa-HA! Gotcha!" at my post, aren't you?

Yes, the above description could fit the definition of objective morality and if you recall, I argued for that position back on the DCF some years back.

But I don't see it quite that way now. After the golden rule of "treat others like you want others to treat you" is only universal untill you realize that for cultural reasons a Chinese guy would want to be treated in a different way than an Englishman.

Would you, in that case, say that the golden rule is the objective morality and the cultural.. "application"(?) or interpretation of the golden rule by a culturally Chinese and English guy was the subjective version of the golden rule?

[Hwen Hoshino]

Pretty standard fair for Muslim armies

I could see it very easily being true, but regardless. Source?

[C-Mag]

Pretty standard fair for Muslim armies

I could see it very easily being true, but regardless. Source?

So, I've suggested the Mongols, Japanese and now Muslim Armies. Did you ask for sources on all 3 or just one