Judging People..

Should a person be convicted by his or her times, in terms of the morals that were contemporaneous to his/her time...and based on the the mores of his/her life...convicted based the things that he/she understood to be right or wrong in their life...?

Or should a person be convicted by some future judgement of his/her actions...?

Can "we" should we judge people of the past based on our present set of laws and morals?

Is "right" or "wrong" based on "our" understanding?

Or is "right" or "wrong" based on some future understanding?

Do we judge Abraham by today's laws?

I think their time has to serve as at least mitigating circumstances. Otherwise we'd condemn everyone as wrong and not value improvement.

Maya Angelou said something to the effect of try your best, until you know better. Then try harder.

I think a lot is history is people messing things up and learning from their mistakes.

It's ok to condemn actions, but when it comes to condemning the character of a person we have to consider the world the lived in.

do need people in the past teach us right and wrong.

we need judge them to learn from their mistakes to make us a better person.

we need to judge own mistakes to be more human, before we can judge others.

easy to judge people for who they are. or who think they are by surface appearances.

when judge ourselves to we like what we see in the mirror.

does our reflects judging what it see from the image of the mirror look back. does it like what it is see?

chaski: Should a person be convicted by his or her times, in terms of the morals that were contemporaneous to his/her time...and based on the mores of his/her life...convicted based the things that he/she understood to be right or wrong in their life...?


Erimitus: No.


chaski: Or should a person be convicted by some future judgment of his/her actions...?


Erimitus: Consequentialism?


Erimitus: We (he(s) and she(s)) might want to take the probable consequences into consideration before taking any volitional action keeping in mind that anticipation is no more than a probability estimate based on inference.


chaski: Can "we" (should we) judge people of the past based on our present set of laws and morals?


Erimitus: No


chaski: Is "right" or "wrong" based on "our" understanding?

Erimitus: Morality (contemporary regional standards) is the product of the past.


chaski: Or is "right" or "wrong" based on some future understanding?


Erimitus: Are you asking whether moral choices should be based on anticipated consequences? If so, I would say that probable consequences could (or should) be a consideration. That, however, would require an exercise of free will. It seems to me that most people just follow the herd like lemmings. A doubt a group of lemmings is called a herd and I suppose I could Google it but that would require moving the cursor and pushing some keys and it is just not worth all of that effort.


chaski: Do we judge Abraham by today's laws?


Erimitus: I suppose we could. Today's laws, as I understand it, are based on Abrahamic laws. But ...but I guess if we wish to judge past actions it would be to some advantage to judge them in the context of the time and place they occurred. I do not see why we could not compare the laws of the past and the laws of the present.

It is said, the law is written in your heart.

it might be why we overcome

I wasn't really asking that, but you have an interesting point.

It is not clear to me how a choice can be made based on an understanding that I do not have yet.

I am hoping to understand what you mean in the future but I do not understand yet so I cannot base anything on something that I do not know...

I agree.

But, if I did it then, can/will you convict me now?

Wait ...wait I believe I may understand what you mean. Relative to the past the present is (or was) the future. is that correct?

OH... The rules change.

Maybe....

Let me try an example (though I have been resisting this for a variety of reasons):

I am living at some time in the past. I am betrothed to a woman. The relationship is not "consummated", but she is my "property". It is the way we did things and have "always" done things. I grew up knowing nothing different.

In "my" time if a man tries to take away my woman, I get to kill him. In this past time, the woman has no say in the matter.

So..a man tries to "take" my woman. They are in "love" but in "violation" of our laws, our customs, our mores and morals. They are doing this together, but the woman, in this past time, has no say in the matter. Her opinion, her voice, her "vote" = 0.... nothing.

The man has violated our law, our morals...our way.

So, I kill him.

I go on in my life to many good, and kind, and fair and enlightened things....in the future some people think that I was/am quite the example of being a "good" person.

NOW a few thousand years later society has determined that women have a voice, a vote..they have rights and equality. There are no arranged marriages anymore. No man is legally allowed to kill anyone for any reason...PERIOD.


>>>> So. Is it fair or right for the people of this modern world to judge my behavior in the past based on their rules, laws, morals?

And if the answer is "yes"...how shall I have, in the past, known what to do?

I can only answer this part of your post. The Wayback machine, of course.

I'd say don't judge. Sure, we have to charge and convict people, but the idea should be with the purpose of creating a safe society. Law and punishment should reflect this and not go beyond such boundaries.