As we've uncovered skeletons of people with congenial defects that survived to adulthood, and traumatic injuries that had healed, it would seem ancient humans had an inherent penchant for empathy, at least when it came to members of their family/tribe.
On a tribal level, and especially on a familial level in nomadic prehistory, I imagine their bonds were more akin to those of a military squad during times of modern war. Experiencing danger and tribulations on a regular basis together and having closer bonds within the group due to it.
@@NefariousKoel Or they were you know, the same emotional and familial bonds that we, as members of the same species, also have today... No need to make the leap to some weird military analogy when modern people feel the same way about their families, ancient people weren't aliens lol
I think Scmidt is a bit to eager to give Christianity credit for changing peoples’ values. As Dr Miano points out, they weren’t the only group who valued people.
Well there's also Dominion by Tom Holland that makes the case that Christianity made the modern world and our modern values. By in any case Christianity didn't evolve in a vacuum a lot of stuff influenced it including (potentially) stoicism.
It might also be worth reading the book "Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World" by Larry W. Hurtado to get an idea of how early (orthodox) Christianity was different from most of Roman society.
Christianity did have some very large impacts on European culture, though mostly in the areas where it was in conflict with, rather than controlled by, the local state (IE Russia and Byzantium). Certain religious legal practices massively changed social dynamics, especially among the lower classes who tended to be less willing and able to object to them. Banning incest and polygamy didn't have an enormous impact on the upper classes, who figured out ways around the bans or were able to coerce special dispensation, but they shattered the preexisting structure of society. Before that, the central, basic unit of society was the clan (basically a large extended family including several generations of related individuals, and it was rare to marry outside the clan, but clans were often large enough you were still unlikely to need to marry anyone closer than a third cousin), with incest banned, and the general principle being "if you know how closely related you are, it's too close," the clans began to break up and lose weight: it's difficult to remain relevant when no matter what you do you're shrinking in both numbers and wealth every generation as people leave the family, and *all* the clans were doing this. Gradually the basic unit shifted to the (more or less) nuclear family (they could often still include grandparents from one side or the other), and it's paradoxically also a lot harder to maintain any kind of rigid hierarchy when you have a system that small and brief, because the dynamics change every time someone moves out or someone new moves in. When you number in the hundreds, a couple people moving in or leaving the structure isn't going to have much of an impact, when you number maybe a dozen or two, that impact on dynamics is proportionally larger. ... I kinda went off on a rant here, didn't I?
@@Great_Olaf5 That was very interesting. Are there any books written by historians about how Christianity helped create our modern (or western) concept of family? I've read a little about it but not in detail.
@@henrimourant9855 Yeah, I don't have a lot of sources on this, it's mostly kind of intuitive based on the few things I do know, and I'm pretty sure some of it isn't my own intuition, but I can't fit the life of me recall where I heard it explained this way before. Sorry.
Great response. It's never a good idea to paint societies, time periods, etc. with a broad brush. Our tendency to view things in simplistic terms limits our ability to understand history.
The end of the Iliad has this "humane" sensitive ending, Achilles lets go of his rage, comes to grips with death of Patroclus and cries together with Priam, then we get the funeral of Hector as closing the show, and keep in mind the "Trojans" were the "enemy" to Greek audience, yet this greatest piece of story telling to an Archaic/Anciet/Hellenistic Greek humanizes them.
At the beginning Agamemnon sacrificed his own daughter. So myths let you pick and choose what you want to believe. If there’s a lesson, it is that you can kill an innocent person to further your goal, and you will win in the end. By the way I didn’t know the Greeks thought Trojans were the enemy in the story. it was Mycenaeans and Trojans. They’re all Greeks to me anyway.
Oh that was the best question yet and the answer was so well researched. I need to think of a question that doesn't lower the standard so far.. Easier said than done!
My understanding is that we have archeological evidence of critically injured people surviving said injuries, and living many years after, presumably by thier family’s and communities taking care of them, dating back tens of thousands of years. That means we have always cared about each other since we have been human.
That doesn't prove that the entire village, city or even culturally that, that was the case. Every family was responsible for those in that family. To care for an individual is a personal choice, not a cultural one.
Fascinating response, thank you. Really interesting to hear how even in early cultures there were ideas around equality and helping those less fortunate.
Even today the situation has not changed much It is hard to accept but it is the truth We humans don't value everyone's life equally If a police shoot a theif we don't blame the police for that
@@BobMeyers If you don't like this example Imagine if a military officer killed a terrorist Will you blame that officer for killing a terrorist who tried to kill so many people?
@@themaskedman5954 Think "threat to life". But no, I wouldn't blame any person who kills a terrorist that intends to kill people. Would you blame? The situation has changed drastically. We don't stone adulterers. We don't slaughter noncombatants, such as innocent women and children. We even have rules of war, such as the Geneva Convention. Many people now believe even a cold-blooded murderer should get to live his/her life now. Look at the death penalty worldwide. Things have changed...massively.
@@BobMeyers The situation has changed but not very "much" Still there are lot of ugly things happening in this world behind the scenes People have different opinions in this topic so I shared my opinion if you don't agree no problem you can just leave that
With destructive social dynamics like slavery (that the Populares didn't oppose), and the almost constant warfare and banditry, crop failures, 50% infant mortality etc... Universal regard for life is going to be a bit of a luxury to put into practice.
Great answer! I have been reading and listening to lectures on Plato's Republic and it was brought up that in contrast to the gold, silver and bronze cast system, Socrates puts forward everyone receives the same education before being put into a cast later on. Socrates also talks about making women have an equal role too men barring jobs that employ a significant difference in biological aptitude. Because Plato believes maths is a divine language and he knew women as well as slaves were capable of maths, he argues they have the same divine potential. Here we have an early example of a move towards a more equal society in 375 BC. Let us not forget the view some records of history paint of Spartan women. I would really enjoy hearing an episode where Dr. Miano talks about the roles of women in Athens and Sparta, how they differed, what was mostly myth and what was mostly true. Thanks for this great channel and well presented content!
The Channel Linfamy actually recently made a series of video exploring Infanticide in preindustrial Japan. To give the short and simple version of it: A new born baby wasn’t fully considered a person yet, and it was believed that if a baby died then the spirit would just be reborn at the next opportunity, so if a family was struggling to feed itself already and they had an inopportune birth where the baby was unlikely to survive then it made sense to allow it to die. It’s the Bloodletter dilemma, Bloodletting was a useless practice that often helped worsen the condition of a sick person, but the Bloodletter isn’t malicious and thinks they’re doing the best can they can to help their patient.
@@WorldofAntiquity @Inquisitor Thomas The series first video is also the name of the practice! "mabiki" (間引き) which means to pull plants from an overcrowded garden.
@@Rokiriko you are massively, massively oversimplifying, to the point of being incorrect but for a small number of cases. After the government outlawed it and tried to shame families who did mabiki, the number of "stillbirths" dramatically rose. It took over a generation for people to stop--indicating a large number of parents thought they really did do a thing they thought was necessary. And while there were people who thought it was traumatic, they still did mabiki, but generally by hiring the midwife to do an extra duty. Honestly, just go watch the video series and keep an open mind about cultures and the idea of "right" or "wrong" and your own biases that you project to historical peoples.
Thanks for a nuanced answer to a good question. I have to say, your fan question videos are the best part of the channel. I enjoy videos, where you dive into a topic with sources of your own selection way more than your debunking videos.
The Buddha's primary teaching is along those very lines of empathy. As a practicing Buddhist, I can swear our philosophy can be summed up as "practicing loving-kindness".
Oh yes, I must also agree the notion that locals are valued greater than foreigners. Or the faithful are more valued than infidels. I also am aware that these things continued in most nations into the 20th century, and still continue in a few places even today.
This video is the single most impressive piece of literary commentary that I have seen on UA-cam. The vast span of time Dr Miano covers with such impartiality and wisdom is awe-inspiring. If you want to know why, find out how A.C. Grayling and Matt Dillahunty failed to answer the same question in their debates.
I absolutely love the fact that you've read Bhagwat Gita. I don't know how much you have, guessing all of it. And hence would love to hear your opinions on it. Also i agree. Saying ancient people did not value lives and were barbaric is an injustice and a disservice to the many societies who did value lives. I also do not belive in "those where different times" kind of statements. They are inaccurate and put a sort of blanket on how people thought. Imo humans haven't changed much. Its all become clinical and behind curtains is what id argue. It just looks clean cause thats how we think. Our shiny cities often make us forget the hardship that exists just around the corner!
The golden rule makes sense & all... but for some reason it doesnt sink in enough for me. I pray & i still have outbursts of rage from time to time. I started my own "golden rule" to help me to see it more clearly with my biggest issues, it goes "everyone deserves to be treated nicely & everyone deserves to be told exactly what is going on" this is designed for me to just be honest & let ppl know vs trying to figure out what i should do racking my brain. Just treate them how i would want to be treated which is "to be told what is going on" i specifically made it long & complex sounding yet they're words i would likely use myself. For some reason it has stuck in my mind much better so far. Hopefully it continues to work for me.
TL;DW People have always had both empathy and indifference, and there were since ancient times several different schools of thought, both for and against the intrinsic value of human life. It's true that Christianity helped create a notion of equal inherent value, but it was far from the only doctrine to do so; Stoicism is a more secular example of the same line of thought.
Pay attention to his answer and the deeper truth is there, and that is given the vast variety of human societies you can find what you are looking for. Less value of human life is probably as easy to find as more value for human life. Depends on what you want to prove. Following the evidence is different than looking for the evidence you want to find. If you have an agenda you will give preference to the evidence you want to find. (The agenda as I see it can be as simple as proving what you believe to be true or specifically confirmation bias, so not necessarily nefarious or with ill intent.) I love professor Miano’s style it is so considerate of other points of view.
Google for the win? For example, Stoicism finds it origin (according wiki) around 300 BC, the works Meditations probably planned between 170 and 180 AD. Ancient Athens around 500 BC. Not that the exact dates are all that important for the core message of the story as @MrTrialofK points out.
Really interesting answer! I'm so deep in a history of economics paper right now that I was expecting a discussion of actual values ascribed to human lives - as in the case of the cumal-based honour price in ancient Ireland, or many other comparable examples from around the world. But to be honest, I'm glad this video focused on value in a more general sense - my brain needs a break from economics!
Thanks. I am not aware of any honor price systems that go back to ancient times, though I could be wrong. I believe the Brehon laws of Ireland can be traced back only to the early medieval period.
Thanks for the video, and for this: "I would be wary of anyone who makes judgments about whole societies. They usually lack the nuance necessary to make an informed assessment." Sadly, stereotypes of the sort are still powerful everywhere... It's a plague on so many UA-cam channels, at least in the comment section... I haven't read the book mentionned and couldn't elaborate on its views. The question treated in this video seems to indicate that it grants christianity probably way too much influence on modern (western...) values through debatable or outright false assessments and oppositions; is it indeed the purpose of the whole book? That would be quite problematic... I agree on most of what you said here; one thing, though, seems debatable to me, when you speak of Athenian democracy: there was still the issue of slavery. Sure, free people would be (theoretically?) treated as equal whatever their fortune or business and so on... well, as long as they were not women, because, yeah... but that leaves many people out of the game anyway, doesn't it? Even more if we include foreigners, with their distinct status...
Interesting Schmidt is crediting Christianity for giving humans value in Roman minds, when the Triumph of Christianity is talked about in the explicitly Roman (and therefore martial) meaning of Triumph--a violent defeat, one Christians in some places got by doing things such as sacking temples and ripping the doors off. Your shade at the end is delivered with respectable wisdom, class, and kindness.
It was primarily the industrial revolution that encouraged people to value life more. Largely because it saw a fall in infant mortality and a rise in life expectancy. Christianity doesn’t really have anything to do with it. Look at the most Christian developed nation today, the USA, and we see little in the was of equality and valuing human life when compared to less Christian developed nations.
@@WilliamSanderson86 the Left in the US values human life but right wing Christian conservatives place absolutely zero value on human life, they literally root for the government murdering it's own citizens in the streets with no due process for petty non violent crimes that no one has even been tried let alone convicted of, and they were so blood thirsty for vengeance against an entire race for the supposed crimes of 12 members of that race that they led us into a 20 year war for control of the heroin trade and the enforcement of our petro dollar monopoly on the world's economy, and while they claim to be pRo LiFe they give absolutely zero fucks about the suffering that humans go thru once they stop being a fetus and become an actual living breathing human being
@@WilliamSanderson86 20 people a year? Not even fucking close bruh, and when you count the number of people who are violently assaulted but don't die from the assault and all of the people who are kidnapped and incarcerated and deprived of their liberty for "crimes" that don't justify the terms of their incarceration then we're talking about literally millions of people abused by our "justice" system
@@WilliamSanderson86 and that's just the prison issue, millions more were murdered thanks to the bankers' wars that Christians supported and BILLIONS of people world wide who suffer living and dying in absolute abject poverty thanks to the capitalist system of slavery that Christians support and defend in defiance of what their so called "savior" actually taught them to be opposed to
@@moodist1er you're confusing Democrats and Republicans with the Left and the Right, both the D's and the R's are right wing conservatives of differing degrees, if you can't tell the difference between the ACTUAL Left and the ACTUAL Right then you are literally BEYOND brainwashed and ignorant
@@WilliamSanderson86 I don't disagree that we have made progress and I give you credit for your work to promote justice, my only point is that Christians are NOT responsible for that progress and (in general with few exceptions) actively work AGAINST that progress with their hypocrisy
I feel like people have always likely placed value on life in some kind of balancing act between a certain, inconsistent level of default value (based on physical and social proximity, as well as familiarity), and a perceived "earned" value (based on seeds, accomplishments, and perhaps connections to others you care about e.g. You might not care about a person's worth directly, but they're your brother's best friend, and he has a long history of helping said brother out of troubles). I say this because I find it very hard to believe that people have not always, in some way, cared about the lives of their children and family and friends (barring social/cultural framing that might allow a death to be seen as a good thing, such as a belief in a pleasant afterlife mitigating the pain, or a belief that prior to some (quite arbitrary) point in time, children don't quite count as human or alive yet, allowing one to more easily (though not universally easily nor just "easy" on a more objective scale) accept their death). I know that humans haven't always thought the same way about everything, but I feel like that's, in a lot of ways, a response to the necessities of life. We care more about life now more because we can afford to than because of any change in human psychology or thinking, death is less omnipresent, and altogether easier to prevent, so we care about it more, respond to it more viscerally, I take as evidence for this that we still often don't think of the deaths of the elderly as particularly tragic, unless it was of a condition we could have easily treated.
I have a question about inflation, I remember that the Roman Empire had some bad periods of inflation. I later learned that this was also a big problem for the later mongol empire. Is inflation also a recurring problem for ancient cultures, or where they more resilient because of more dependence on bartering?
So many commoners were mercilessly killed in so many wars of ancient times-- of course, it did happen in the modern period-- world wars -- In Mahabharata, just for the sake of restoration of their jurisdiction over some villages or empire-- lakhs of people were killed on either side-- just a handful of people survived that war along with the Victors , the Pandavas --- bhagavadgita happened to glorify such violence What do you think about this , Sir ?
It seems like today, we’d get the idea they valued life less back then, because of how they treated their enemies and that most of history is about wars and who conquered whom.
Christianity today is also very different from Christianity at its inception. You can't really use Christianity itself as the cause of cultural changes. It's mostly along for the ride rather than holding the reins.
What makes you say that? To me it looks like the opposite (I'm not a Christian myself it just seem to me that Christianity is more influential then many people realize).
@@henrimourant9855 Just look at the differences in Christian values from their early texts compared to now. Every single Christian alive today would be considered a heretic compared to any of the early factions.
@@unicyclist97 Yes. Obviously modern Christianity is not the same as early Christianity but how do you know it wasn't theologians (or people motivated by Christian beliefs) that spearheaded many of the societal changes?
@@greg5023 My point simply was that theological ideas about the world, humans, and how an ideal society should look like can (and did) lead to social change.
There were ancient bones found with "hypervitaminisis-A" (eating carnivorous animals causes a vitamin A overdose which shows in bones) that show the people were cared for long term by their community. Behaviours speak louder than words.
Whether Vikings used horned helmets? Many scholars argued against this idea but still I need a clear answer as to why earlier scholars came to that conclusion what evidence made them to believe that idea..
@@WorldofAntiquity I should have used earlier artists instead of earlier scholars That caused the confusion But still why they came to that conclusion back then? Is there any credible evidence? As far as I know there no conclusive evidence and horned helmets are not suitable for warfare
Very interesting video and a common practice that is over exaggerated by christian apologists. The ancient world society isn’t as simple as on might think, it goes much deeper..
Just watched a video by History for Granite and he mentions there being about five Granite stones randomly inside the great pyramid. Is 6his true and if so what and why are they?
Great question. Great answer. And what an opportunity for debate in today's world. Just think children in cages at our border. How do we continue to devalue life? Not a political question. A philosophical one.
I think there's much to consider with regards to life expectancy. I've heard that before more modern medicine, as many as 75% of children would die before age 8, the majority dying at or around childbirth. I may have that stat wrong after so many years. likewise, at one point as high as 90% of women died giving birth in hospitals when doctors would perform autopsies and births without washing hands. sometimes this explains why people had so many kids. sometimes it may explain attitudes towards women, their role in giving birth. the emphasis on them giving birth despite the danger, and the reality that so many, children and wives alike would and could die. I can only speculate, but I imagine we all can see how their values regarding life and purpose differs from our own
Amazing video as always! Off topic, but I recently watched a documentary on UA-cam called 'Cannabis: A Lost History' and I have a feeling that it isn't completely accurate. It might interest you
I have to wonder if high infant mortality rates may have also led to the life of newborns specifically being valued less. Especially before the parents had had a chance to bond with the baby.
It's about the same here life of the rich is more valuable than the poor. Class based has not changed even today just that life has more meaning today in my opinion. I say this because individual life is seen as important but back then they focused more on family is more important than one person, so they are more willing to sacrifice a individual for the family.
How much did they value life has to be placed next to how fearful were they of death. If they had no fear of death then they might through their actions be seen to have a lesser value of life.
A secondary question. Was the Indus valley civilization ( we now seem to call it Saraswati valley) socialist or was it pseudo democratic or was it feudal like? Do we have any clues to how it functioned? I would like to ask the same for MahaJanaPadas.
thank you dr miano, your time and expertise are always welcome. If it's possible a video on child rearing in ancient civilizations would probably pair well with this one, and content on youtube about the subject is a bit of a mixed bag. thank you for your consideration.
One of the reasons for Christianity's power in the later Roman era was the incredible amount of charity money that the people gave to help the poor and unfortunate, to distribute to these people. If pagans were just as generous why do we not hear of their charities? Why do we not hear of pagans devoting their lives to help lepers?
I tend toward the view that humans today are largely the same as humans of the past, we were just born later and thus know more than our ancestors. We often speak of modern culture as if it applies everywhere. There's entire countries where women are still second-class citizens, at best, and seen as property at worst. Even in the good ole US of A you can throw a stone and be almost garanteed to hit someone who's anti-gay, anti-trans, misogynistic, or bigoted in some way. It's why I don't judge people of the past for their messed up beliefs and cultures. It took until the 17th century for someone to write down the words "We hold these truths to be self evident, that every man is born equal" and even then they just forgot about more than half of the population. But, for me, once you've read those words, there is no going back. We, as a species, mostly move in the right direction generation after generation. We are, afterall, poorly evolved apes half a chromosome away from Chimpanzees. We're doing alright.
can't say I'm an expert, but his pronunciation of Lao Tzu made me cringe lol. Always always always heard it pronounced "La-ow (T)Zoo" not his quick "Low Tzuh" but I could be wrong. Otherwise love these videos and very well researched!
Deeply thought provoking, thanks to both of you! I always picture leaders that talk of this love of humanity as merely trying to keep those below their feet stable whilst simultaneously shrouding their own machievellian intentions with a blinding aura of spiritual goodness.
I am completely confused how "Judeo-Christian" values as a thing exists. Historically Judaism was always very dynamic in how interacted with other Abrahamic religions, for much of the Middle Ages Jews were very much seen closer to Muslims than Christians. Jews in Andalusia were among the top of the hierarchy. When Western European monarchs were exiling Jews during the High Middle Ages to Early Modern period, Muslim states like the Ottoman Empire (also Polish Lithuania Common Wealth) allowed refugee. That isn't to say that Jewish vs Muslim conflicts didn't exist during these times, just that the relationship between these leaders of these two religions were closer than Christians and Jews. Genesis of narrative of Christians and Jews vs Muslim East was very much a post 1800s thing. Especially with Anglo-elite being heavily invested in Jewish causes. Of course, the systematic Muslim hostility toward Jews was also a newer phenomenon with the aftermath of break up of the Ottoman Empire and attempts at Jewish resettlement in British Palestine. Not picking any side on the issue, but this idea that of a unified "Judeo-Christian" monolith seems like a mostly American Anglo back projection rather than any idea based on common history or theology. On a related note, one could look at modern warfare and the sheer brutality of early to mid century Western Civilizations and argue that modern societies lack morals as much as ancient societies. During WW1 and WW2, world leaders sacrificed millions of people to fight abstract causes and ideas. You can argue the world wars happened almost a century ago, but still this goes against the idea of evolving morality when world leaders were willing to essentially throw away most of their male population to fight ideological conflicts.
As a Jewish person myself, I've always wondered why nobody ever speaks about a "Judaeo-Islamic tradition" or a "Christo-Islamic tradition" for that matter. Positing a special connection between Jewish and Christian traditions and values as if they are a monolith makes absolutely no sense. It's kosher to pray in a mosque, but not a church.
The Pyramids and other huge funeral projects should give some indication how much life was valued in ancient times. If anything Christianity and other later death cults have diminished that effort. Whereas previously we'd provide our dead with all kinds of stuff for the afterlife and make sure they got a pleasant one, the cheapness of just believe and it will be okay shows a clear decline in value. As long as the corps doesn't smell too bad, we get to keep it a bit then it goes up in smoke, into the ground or into the deep blue sea. Not sure if there are still temples offering corpses to the vultures to take the spirits away, but that is uncommon these days.
Very good point about American lives being given more value in an overseas natural disaster than the native population. I also want to point out that people's worth being dictated by their class is still extremely prevalent. A poor person getting food stamps is seen as less than or even a "specimen" by some, yet very rich individuals and corporations paying no tax and, in fact, getting returns and subsidies aren't given the same treatment. Both cases are instances where people are receiving a "handout" (I don't really like that term), but only the one who actually needs help is chastized. Another issue is we're taught, at least in the U.S., by prominent economists, executives, politicians that human nature is that of individualism and complete self reliance. That's just wrong. We're an extremely social and interdependent species. Trey The Explainer has a good video about acts of compassion in the paleolithic era.
So, I suppose this is nitpicking (sorry), but the terminology you are using to describe original Buddhist ideas, namely that by Confucius, is inherently Chinese, not Japanese. Japan adopted Buddhist ideas and philosophies. "Rai" and "jyanai" are both Japanese words. The second one being "to not do" I think the adaptation of their currently existing language combined with the understanding of Chinese concepts is the reason why we have Zen Buddhism(mainly Japanese sect) and traditional Buddhism While Japan does practice a form of those religions, I personally believe that these original ideas/terms should be referred in their original Chinese. That's like claiming "touchdown" when a batter scores an RBI. It's conceptually correct, however, the expression of those ideas, in my opinion, doesn't do it justice.
While his talk tries to argue that ancient societies had some enlightened view of human worth, he doesn't explain why they would hold such a concept. Logically why would the powerful, those in charge, promote a view that all lives were intrinsically valuable? How would he prove such a statement? How would that apply to practice when we see everywhere in ancient times the enslavement and abuse of conquered peoples. He even speaks of religions superficially without explaining why that fits in with their moral logic - and how compelling any of that has been in the societies and communities from those religious beliefs.
In the olden days poor people were less valuable than the rich. But nowadays, if you can't afford a good lawyer you often have little better chances than a snowball in hell. So, not very different after all. Afterthought: Maybe in the case of a murder the idea of equality may fare a bit better. May.
I absolutely love this. Mom and I used to chew over this topic ... And we learn an essential. Haves and have nots. A more reflective moment might open you to the idea that there is an asterisk by how much life is valued today ... *Depending on privilege and other markers of difference. To excise from our natures the tendency to create "others" and various enemies to put down or aggress upon, is worthy. To embrace all is to have no others to punish or exclude. 👵
Depends my people the aborigines of taiwan did some horrible things ,then theres china what they did to the dutch settlers I’m a bit dutch because of these actions ,the dutch women that they spared became concubines
"And there is emphasis in many text on taking care of the less fortunate, like orphans and widows..." That is not always the case. In India up until few decades the widows were looked down very lowly in the society. She was ostracized, and considered a bad omen when encountered. She is forced to be bald and always in white sari without the blouse. Widows are still looked very badly in indian society even to this day. It was buch worse a few hundred years back, with practice of Sati, and mandatory child bride.(it is required for a girl to be married before puberty accordng to some hindu scriptures.). Hence the female infanticide was/is prevalent in india. The widows are looked down, because it is believed that they are paying for their "Karma" in an earlier life, and therefore has to suffer the consequences. That's how bad hindu concept of "Karma" was damaging to indian society. Didnt even start to talk about the varna system. This is to say, valuing human life is not a default position of humans, but derivied from the concept that "all humans are made in the image of God". This is not to say, humans did not value human life, without this concept.
The Roman Republic - was it self serving? Take over of farms replacing owners w/ slaves was not popular. The return of JGC was he the ☆TRUMP☆ of his time?
not so. in some cases you can paint with a broad brush and be accurate. for instance in china and taiwan no one is a freethinker or freespirit or counter culture. everyone is pure conformist, no freethought at all. go there and see. some generalizations are true almost 100 percent. asia tends to be super conformist, at least 99.99 percent of the people are, not just a simple majority.
I disagree. When our most famous king and roman Emperor needed money doing pogrom in Jewish community was easy fix. Actually freedom and equality ideas came from native americans when they met with european colonists. They considered us slaves of our kings. Which is about right.
@@unicyclist97 - lot of women died during childbirth. Physically strong women had more children, yes, but a lot of them not. So in some families or circumstances (healthy) children who lived long enough until adulthood could be rare.
But were people like Caesar, Anthony and the other Populares exactly ancient progressives? They seemed to me more like populists, who wanted to keep on to their elite status, but give people the barely minimum to keep their support for them.
I don't think anyone living within 100 years of 1914-1945 can really cast any broad comparison judgements about the inherent value of human life in the cultures of other ages.
The claims that Christianity changed how the average person valued human life is an understandable claim, but I think it requires you to be willing to overlook some major counter-points. It being based on Judaism and their culture it seems odd to exclude them when surely they would be the source of this sort of human empathy. And Islam was essentially founded as a rebuttal to the mandate of many Christian rulers to exclude religeous tolerance. Their solution was to basically "fine" or tax people for being non-Muslims, but it ended up making a lot of non-Muslims well known contributors to public works. And compared to having your property seized and being banished which was the fate of many Jewish and Christian "heresies" of the era, it was a considerably better deal.
This is not an accurate representation of how Islam was founded. Mohammad was not the concerned with Christian rulers' 'intolerance'. He was concerned with establishing Islam as the dominate power. Consider the fate of Jewish tribes who refused Muslim dominance in Medina. Unlike Christianity, discrimination against other faiths was codified as part of the Islamic religion. You might also want to consider the bloody expansion of the first few centuries of Islam, all religiously justified Mohammad's teachings, against the first few centuries of Christianity.
Wow, that is two comments I made on here that were censored. Amazing that would happen on this channel. There was nothing in my comments that justified removal and I challenge the censor to show otherwise. Shame on you.
None of your comments showed up in my "Held for review" section, and I don't delete comments. As you can see from going through the comments, I let people say mean and nasty things to me all the time. So I don't know what you are talking about.
@@WorldofAntiquity Thank you. That's got me worried that such censorship would happen. I wonder where my (NOT mean and nasty, or even incorrect) comments went. Maybe you have a trustee helping you check comments? It's just too strange two attempts to post disappeared.
@@BobMeyers No one goes through the comments except me. But I have heard about comments going missing. A few of my own have too. I think it is probably some glitch in the system.
@@WorldofAntiquity wrote, "glitch in the system". I would agree except it happened twice with at least an hour between posts. Someone has figured out how to trick the system, such as using lots of "Report" clicks in rapid succession by different accounts. I noticed one user's comment, that avoided specifics, clarity or explanation, received an unusually high number of upvotes--hmmm. Interesting...and sad that goes on.
"I've been reading under the influence..." Hell, that's me every night.
Thank you for recommending me this channel, dad
Yeah, me too. I’m here because of your collaboration between your channel, History With Cy and this one.
As we've uncovered skeletons of people with congenial defects that survived to adulthood, and traumatic injuries that had healed, it would seem ancient humans had an inherent penchant for empathy, at least when it came to members of their family/tribe.
On a tribal level, and especially on a familial level in nomadic prehistory, I imagine their bonds were more akin to those of a military squad during times of modern war. Experiencing danger and tribulations on a regular basis together and having closer bonds within the group due to it.
@@NefariousKoel Or they were you know, the same emotional and familial bonds that we, as members of the same species, also have today...
No need to make the leap to some weird military analogy when modern people feel the same way about their families, ancient people weren't aliens lol
That‘s a really interesting question. Glad it was being asked.
I think Scmidt is a bit to eager to give Christianity credit for changing peoples’ values. As Dr Miano points out, they weren’t the only group who valued people.
Well there's also Dominion by Tom Holland that makes the case that Christianity made the modern world and our modern values. By in any case Christianity didn't evolve in a vacuum a lot of stuff influenced it including (potentially) stoicism.
It might also be worth reading the book "Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World" by Larry W. Hurtado to get an idea of how early (orthodox) Christianity was different from most of Roman society.
Christianity did have some very large impacts on European culture, though mostly in the areas where it was in conflict with, rather than controlled by, the local state (IE Russia and Byzantium). Certain religious legal practices massively changed social dynamics, especially among the lower classes who tended to be less willing and able to object to them. Banning incest and polygamy didn't have an enormous impact on the upper classes, who figured out ways around the bans or were able to coerce special dispensation, but they shattered the preexisting structure of society. Before that, the central, basic unit of society was the clan (basically a large extended family including several generations of related individuals, and it was rare to marry outside the clan, but clans were often large enough you were still unlikely to need to marry anyone closer than a third cousin), with incest banned, and the general principle being "if you know how closely related you are, it's too close," the clans began to break up and lose weight: it's difficult to remain relevant when no matter what you do you're shrinking in both numbers and wealth every generation as people leave the family, and *all* the clans were doing this. Gradually the basic unit shifted to the (more or less) nuclear family (they could often still include grandparents from one side or the other), and it's paradoxically also a lot harder to maintain any kind of rigid hierarchy when you have a system that small and brief, because the dynamics change every time someone moves out or someone new moves in. When you number in the hundreds, a couple people moving in or leaving the structure isn't going to have much of an impact, when you number maybe a dozen or two, that impact on dynamics is proportionally larger.
...
I kinda went off on a rant here, didn't I?
@@Great_Olaf5 That was very interesting. Are there any books written by historians about how Christianity helped create our modern (or western) concept of family? I've read a little about it but not in detail.
@@henrimourant9855 Yeah, I don't have a lot of sources on this, it's mostly kind of intuitive based on the few things I do know, and I'm pretty sure some of it isn't my own intuition, but I can't fit the life of me recall where I heard it explained this way before. Sorry.
Great response. It's never a good idea to paint societies, time periods, etc. with a broad brush. Our tendency to view things in simplistic terms limits our ability to understand history.
The end of the Iliad has this "humane" sensitive ending, Achilles lets go of his rage, comes to grips with death of Patroclus and cries together with Priam, then we get the funeral of Hector as closing the show, and keep in mind the "Trojans" were the "enemy" to Greek audience, yet this greatest piece of story telling to an Archaic/Anciet/Hellenistic Greek humanizes them.
At the beginning Agamemnon sacrificed his own daughter. So myths let you pick and choose what you want to believe. If there’s a lesson, it is that you can kill an innocent person to further your goal, and you will win in the end. By the way I didn’t know the Greeks thought Trojans were the enemy in the story. it was Mycenaeans and Trojans. They’re all Greeks to me anyway.
Oh that was the best question yet and the answer was so well researched.
I need to think of a question that doesn't lower the standard so far.. Easier said than done!
@@StaggersonJagz Ah, tip of the cap.
My understanding is that we have archeological evidence of critically injured people surviving said injuries, and living many years after, presumably by thier family’s and communities taking care of them, dating back tens of thousands of years. That means we have always cared about each other since we have been human.
That doesn't prove that the entire village, city or even culturally that, that was the case. Every family was responsible for those in that family. To care for an individual is a personal choice, not a cultural one.
A culture made up of individuals capable of empathy probably valued empathy at least to some extent.
Fascinating response, thank you. Really interesting to hear how even in early cultures there were ideas around equality and helping those less fortunate.
Even today the situation has not changed much
It is hard to accept but it is the truth
We humans don't value everyone's life equally
If a police shoot a theif we don't blame the police for that
You wrote, "If a police shoot a thief". But police do not shoot for theft. Do you realize that? They shoot to eliminate a threat to life.
@@BobMeyers Yeah imagine if that thief has weapon in his hand
@@BobMeyers If you don't like this example
Imagine if a military officer killed a terrorist
Will you blame that officer for killing a terrorist who tried to kill so many people?
@@themaskedman5954 Think "threat to life". But no, I wouldn't blame any person who kills a terrorist that intends to kill people.
Would you blame?
The situation has changed drastically. We don't stone adulterers. We don't slaughter noncombatants, such as innocent women and children. We even have rules of war, such as the Geneva Convention.
Many people now believe even a cold-blooded murderer should get to live his/her life now. Look at the death penalty worldwide. Things have changed...massively.
@@BobMeyers The situation has changed but not very "much"
Still there are lot of ugly things happening in this world behind the scenes
People have different opinions in this topic so I shared my opinion if you don't agree no problem you can just leave that
With destructive social dynamics like slavery (that the Populares didn't oppose), and the almost constant warfare and banditry, crop failures, 50% infant mortality etc... Universal regard for life is going to be a bit of a luxury to put into practice.
Just a wonderful channel❤️
Aw, thank you so much!
Great answer! I have been reading and listening to lectures on Plato's Republic and it was brought up that in contrast to the gold, silver and bronze cast system, Socrates puts forward everyone receives the same education before being put into a cast later on. Socrates also talks about making women have an equal role too men barring jobs that employ a significant difference in biological aptitude. Because Plato believes maths is a divine language and he knew women as well as slaves were capable of maths, he argues they have the same divine potential. Here we have an early example of a move towards a more equal society in 375 BC. Let us not forget the view some records of history paint of Spartan women. I would really enjoy hearing an episode where Dr. Miano talks about the roles of women in Athens and Sparta, how they differed, what was mostly myth and what was mostly true. Thanks for this great channel and well presented content!
The Channel Linfamy actually recently made a series of video exploring Infanticide in preindustrial Japan. To give the short and simple version of it: A new born baby wasn’t fully considered a person yet, and it was believed that if a baby died then the spirit would just be reborn at the next opportunity, so if a family was struggling to feed itself already and they had an inopportune birth where the baby was unlikely to survive then it made sense to allow it to die. It’s the Bloodletter dilemma, Bloodletting was a useless practice that often helped worsen the condition of a sick person, but the Bloodletter isn’t malicious and thinks they’re doing the best can they can to help their patient.
Interesting!
@@WorldofAntiquity @Inquisitor Thomas The series first video is also the name of the practice! "mabiki" (間引き) which means to pull plants from an overcrowded garden.
That sounds like a convenient excuse for the parents to tell themselves and cope with trauma, I kinda understand why such a myth would exist.
@@Rokiriko you are massively, massively oversimplifying, to the point of being incorrect but for a small number of cases. After the government outlawed it and tried to shame families who did mabiki, the number of "stillbirths" dramatically rose. It took over a generation for people to stop--indicating a large number of parents thought they really did do a thing they thought was necessary. And while there were people who thought it was traumatic, they still did mabiki, but generally by hiring the midwife to do an extra duty. Honestly, just go watch the video series and keep an open mind about cultures and the idea of "right" or "wrong" and your own biases that you project to historical peoples.
@@WmJared Well I am not surprised I was wrong, I just made a simple guess made on your comment, I have no problem in saying I was completely wrong.
Thanks for a nuanced answer to a good question. I have to say, your fan question videos are the best part of the channel. I enjoy videos, where you dive into a topic with sources of your own selection way more than your debunking videos.
Glad you like them!
WOW that was a good, well informed and well articulated answer
Hardships breed simple people with cruel necessities
A wonderful topic and a rich answer!
Thanks!
Great question and shedding g light on the topic in the response. I enjoy when this channel makes me think.
The Buddha's primary teaching is along those very lines of empathy. As a practicing Buddhist, I can swear our philosophy can be summed up as "practicing loving-kindness".
Oh yes, I must also agree the notion that locals are valued greater than foreigners. Or the faithful are more valued than infidels. I also am aware that these things continued in most nations into the 20th century, and still continue in a few places even today.
This video is the single most impressive piece of literary commentary that I have seen on UA-cam. The vast span of time Dr Miano covers with such impartiality and wisdom is awe-inspiring. If you want to know why, find out how A.C. Grayling and Matt Dillahunty failed to answer the same question in their debates.
Great answer to a great question! Meditation's is truly an ancient gem and should be on the high-school reading list in all schools
I absolutely love the fact that you've read Bhagwat Gita. I don't know how much you have, guessing all of it. And hence would love to hear your opinions on it.
Also i agree. Saying ancient people did not value lives and were barbaric is an injustice and a disservice to the many societies who did value lives. I also do not belive in "those where different times" kind of statements. They are inaccurate and put a sort of blanket on how people thought. Imo humans haven't changed much. Its all become clinical and behind curtains is what id argue. It just looks clean cause thats how we think. Our shiny cities often make us forget the hardship that exists just around the corner!
The golden rule makes sense & all... but for some reason it doesnt sink in enough for me. I pray & i still have outbursts of rage from time to time. I started my own "golden rule" to help me to see it more clearly with my biggest issues, it goes "everyone deserves to be treated nicely & everyone deserves to be told exactly what is going on" this is designed for me to just be honest & let ppl know vs trying to figure out what i should do racking my brain. Just treate them how i would want to be treated which is "to be told what is going on" i specifically made it long & complex sounding yet they're words i would likely use myself. For some reason it has stuck in my mind much better so far. Hopefully it continues to work for me.
Good video
Great video!
Thanks!
TL;DW People have always had both empathy and indifference, and there were since ancient times several different schools of thought, both for and against the intrinsic value of human life. It's true that Christianity helped create a notion of equal inherent value, but it was far from the only doctrine to do so; Stoicism is a more secular example of the same line of thought.
Thanks for answering my question!
What years was it about in the Ancient Greco-Roman culture were you speaking about?
Pay attention to his answer and the deeper truth is there, and that is given the vast variety of human societies you can find what you are looking for. Less value of human life is probably as easy to find as more value for human life. Depends on what you want to prove. Following the evidence is different than looking for the evidence you want to find. If you have an agenda you will give preference to the evidence you want to find. (The agenda as I see it can be as simple as proving what you believe to be true or specifically confirmation bias, so not necessarily nefarious or with ill intent.) I love professor Miano’s style it is so considerate of other points of view.
Google for the win? For example, Stoicism finds it origin (according wiki) around 300 BC, the works Meditations probably planned between 170 and 180 AD. Ancient Athens around 500 BC. Not that the exact dates are all that important for the core message of the story as @MrTrialofK points out.
Really interesting answer! I'm so deep in a history of economics paper right now that I was expecting a discussion of actual values ascribed to human lives - as in the case of the cumal-based honour price in ancient Ireland, or many other comparable examples from around the world. But to be honest, I'm glad this video focused on value in a more general sense - my brain needs a break from economics!
Thanks. I am not aware of any honor price systems that go back to ancient times, though I could be wrong. I believe the Brehon laws of Ireland can be traced back only to the early medieval period.
@@WorldofAntiquity That's correct, and was what I was writing about. I used the term "ancient" pretty inaccurately ;)
Hail Caesar, the last great populari. Great video my Friend
Thanks for the video, and for this: "I would be wary of anyone who makes judgments about whole societies. They usually lack the nuance necessary to make an informed assessment."
Sadly, stereotypes of the sort are still powerful everywhere... It's a plague on so many UA-cam channels, at least in the comment section...
I haven't read the book mentionned and couldn't elaborate on its views. The question treated in this video seems to indicate that it grants christianity probably way too much influence on modern (western...) values through debatable or outright false assessments and oppositions; is it indeed the purpose of the whole book? That would be quite problematic...
I agree on most of what you said here; one thing, though, seems debatable to me, when you speak of Athenian democracy: there was still the issue of slavery. Sure, free people would be (theoretically?) treated as equal whatever their fortune or business and so on... well, as long as they were not women, because, yeah... but that leaves many people out of the game anyway, doesn't it? Even more if we include foreigners, with their distinct status...
Yes, you are absolutely right.
An excellent answer!
Thank you!
Interesting Schmidt is crediting Christianity for giving humans value in Roman minds, when the Triumph of Christianity is talked about in the explicitly Roman (and therefore martial) meaning of Triumph--a violent defeat, one Christians in some places got by doing things such as sacking temples and ripping the doors off. Your shade at the end is delivered with respectable wisdom, class, and kindness.
It was primarily the industrial revolution that encouraged people to value life more. Largely because it saw a fall in infant mortality and a rise in life expectancy. Christianity doesn’t really have anything to do with it. Look at the most Christian developed nation today, the USA, and we see little in the was of equality and valuing human life when compared to less Christian developed nations.
@@WilliamSanderson86 the Left in the US values human life but right wing Christian conservatives place absolutely zero value on human life, they literally root for the government murdering it's own citizens in the streets with no due process for petty non violent crimes that no one has even been tried let alone convicted of, and they were so blood thirsty for vengeance against an entire race for the supposed crimes of 12 members of that race that they led us into a 20 year war for control of the heroin trade and the enforcement of our petro dollar monopoly on the world's economy, and while they claim to be pRo LiFe they give absolutely zero fucks about the suffering that humans go thru once they stop being a fetus and become an actual living breathing human being
@@WilliamSanderson86 20 people a year? Not even fucking close bruh, and when you count the number of people who are violently assaulted but don't die from the assault and all of the people who are kidnapped and incarcerated and deprived of their liberty for "crimes" that don't justify the terms of their incarceration then we're talking about literally millions of people abused by our "justice" system
@@WilliamSanderson86 and that's just the prison issue, millions more were murdered thanks to the bankers' wars that Christians supported and BILLIONS of people world wide who suffer living and dying in absolute abject poverty thanks to the capitalist system of slavery that Christians support and defend in defiance of what their so called "savior" actually taught them to be opposed to
@@moodist1er you're confusing Democrats and Republicans with the Left and the Right, both the D's and the R's are right wing conservatives of differing degrees, if you can't tell the difference between the ACTUAL Left and the ACTUAL Right then you are literally BEYOND brainwashed and ignorant
@@WilliamSanderson86 I don't disagree that we have made progress and I give you credit for your work to promote justice, my only point is that Christians are NOT responsible for that progress and (in general with few exceptions) actively work AGAINST that progress with their hypocrisy
I feel like people have always likely placed value on life in some kind of balancing act between a certain, inconsistent level of default value (based on physical and social proximity, as well as familiarity), and a perceived "earned" value (based on seeds, accomplishments, and perhaps connections to others you care about e.g. You might not care about a person's worth directly, but they're your brother's best friend, and he has a long history of helping said brother out of troubles). I say this because I find it very hard to believe that people have not always, in some way, cared about the lives of their children and family and friends (barring social/cultural framing that might allow a death to be seen as a good thing, such as a belief in a pleasant afterlife mitigating the pain, or a belief that prior to some (quite arbitrary) point in time, children don't quite count as human or alive yet, allowing one to more easily (though not universally easily nor just "easy" on a more objective scale) accept their death). I know that humans haven't always thought the same way about everything, but I feel like that's, in a lot of ways, a response to the necessities of life. We care more about life now more because we can afford to than because of any change in human psychology or thinking, death is less omnipresent, and altogether easier to prevent, so we care about it more, respond to it more viscerally, I take as evidence for this that we still often don't think of the deaths of the elderly as particularly tragic, unless it was of a condition we could have easily treated.
Nope, it was Conan the Barbarian for thousands of years
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women!
I have a question about inflation, I remember that the Roman Empire had some bad periods of inflation. I later learned that this was also a big problem for the later mongol empire. Is inflation also a recurring problem for ancient cultures, or where they more resilient because of more dependence on bartering?
It depends on how much the society relied on coinage. The Roman Empire used it quite a bit.
So many commoners were mercilessly killed in so many wars of ancient times-- of course, it did happen in the modern period-- world wars --
In Mahabharata, just for the sake of restoration of their jurisdiction over some villages or empire-- lakhs of people were killed on either side-- just a handful of people survived that war along with the Victors , the Pandavas --- bhagavadgita happened to glorify such violence
What do you think about this , Sir ?
It seems like today, we’d get the idea they valued life less back then, because of how they treated their enemies and that most of history is about wars and who conquered whom.
Christianity today is also very different from Christianity at its inception. You can't really use Christianity itself as the cause of cultural changes. It's mostly along for the ride rather than holding the reins.
What makes you say that? To me it looks like the opposite (I'm not a Christian myself it just seem to me that Christianity is more influential then many people realize).
@@henrimourant9855 Just look at the differences in Christian values from their early texts compared to now. Every single Christian alive today would be considered a heretic compared to any of the early factions.
@@unicyclist97 Yes. Obviously modern Christianity is not the same as early Christianity but how do you know it wasn't theologians (or people motivated by Christian beliefs) that spearheaded many of the societal changes?
@@greg5023 My point simply was that theological ideas about the world, humans, and how an ideal society should look like can (and did) lead to social change.
@@greg5023 Haha I kind of ment both?
There were ancient bones found with "hypervitaminisis-A" (eating carnivorous animals causes a vitamin A overdose which shows in bones) that show the people were cared for long term by their community. Behaviours speak louder than words.
Whether Vikings used horned helmets?
Many scholars argued against this idea but still I need a clear answer as to why earlier scholars came to that conclusion what evidence made them to believe that idea..
I thought it was just something from the movies, no?
@@WorldofAntiquity I should have used earlier artists instead of earlier scholars
That caused the confusion
But still why they came to that conclusion back then?
Is there any credible evidence?
As far as I know there no conclusive evidence and horned helmets are not suitable for warfare
@@themaskedman5954 The Vikings are a little out of my period of expertise. I'm not really sure why.
Very interesting video and a common practice that is over exaggerated by christian apologists. The ancient world society isn’t as simple as on might think, it goes much deeper..
Just watched a video by History for Granite and he mentions there being about five Granite stones randomly inside the great pyramid. Is 6his true and if so what and why are they?
Great question. Great answer. And what an opportunity for debate in today's world. Just think children in cages at our border. How do we continue to devalue life? Not a political question. A philosophical one.
You are Doctor David Miano, Ph.D.
Ha yes, that is true, even if redundant.
I think there's much to consider with regards to life expectancy. I've heard that before more modern medicine, as many as 75% of children would die before age 8, the majority dying at or around childbirth. I may have that stat wrong after so many years. likewise, at one point as high as 90% of women died giving birth in hospitals when doctors would perform autopsies and births without washing hands. sometimes this explains why people had so many kids. sometimes it may explain attitudes towards women, their role in giving birth. the emphasis on them giving birth despite the danger, and the reality that so many, children and wives alike would and could die. I can only speculate, but I imagine we all can see how their values regarding life and purpose differs from our own
7:30
08:03
Wonderful answer!!! Amazing how pious religious and other people think that they were the ones who invented virtue!! GERRR!!
Amazing video as always!
Off topic, but I recently watched a documentary on UA-cam called 'Cannabis: A Lost History' and I have a feeling that it isn't completely accurate.
It might interest you
I will check it out!
Again it seems there was more in common between us and ancient peoples than differences between us and ancient people.
I have to wonder if high infant mortality rates may have also led to the life of newborns specifically being valued less. Especially before the parents had had a chance to bond with the baby.
It's about the same here life of the rich is more valuable than the poor. Class based has not changed even today just that life has more meaning today in my opinion. I say this because individual life is seen as important but back then they focused more on family is more important than one person, so they are more willing to sacrifice a individual for the family.
How much did they value life has to be placed next to how fearful were they of death. If they had no fear of death then they might through their actions be seen to have a lesser value of life.
A secondary question. Was the Indus valley civilization ( we now seem to call it Saraswati valley) socialist or was it pseudo democratic or was it feudal like? Do we have any clues to how it functioned? I would like to ask the same for MahaJanaPadas.
I think we still don't have enough information about it to know for certain.
@@WorldofAntiquity ah alright. Thank you!
thank you dr miano, your time and expertise are always welcome. If it's possible a video on child rearing in ancient civilizations would probably pair well with this one, and content on youtube about the subject is a bit of a mixed bag. thank you for your consideration.
speakpipe.com/DavidMiano
One of the reasons for Christianity's power in the later Roman era was the incredible amount of charity money that the people gave to help the poor and unfortunate, to distribute to these people. If pagans were just as generous why do we not hear of their charities? Why do we not hear of pagans devoting their lives to help lepers?
I tend toward the view that humans today are largely the same as humans of the past, we were just born later and thus know more than our ancestors.
We often speak of modern culture as if it applies everywhere. There's entire countries where women are still second-class citizens, at best, and seen as property at worst.
Even in the good ole US of A you can throw a stone and be almost garanteed to hit someone who's anti-gay, anti-trans, misogynistic, or bigoted in some way.
It's why I don't judge people of the past for their messed up beliefs and cultures.
It took until the 17th century for someone to write down the words "We hold these truths to be self evident, that every man is born equal" and even then they just forgot about more than half of the population.
But, for me, once you've read those words, there is no going back. We, as a species, mostly move in the right direction generation after generation.
We are, afterall, poorly evolved apes half a chromosome away from Chimpanzees. We're doing alright.
can't say I'm an expert, but his pronunciation of Lao Tzu made me cringe lol. Always always always heard it pronounced "La-ow (T)Zoo" not his quick "Low Tzuh" but I could be wrong. Otherwise love these videos and very well researched!
ua-cam.com/video/MjB4qBV4bzE/v-deo.html
Deeply thought provoking,
thanks to both of you!
I always picture leaders that talk of this love of humanity as merely trying to keep those below their feet stable whilst simultaneously shrouding their own machievellian intentions with a blinding aura of spiritual goodness.
I am completely confused how "Judeo-Christian" values as a thing exists.
Historically Judaism was always very dynamic in how interacted with other Abrahamic religions, for much of the Middle Ages Jews were very much seen closer to Muslims than Christians. Jews in Andalusia were among the top of the hierarchy. When Western European monarchs were exiling Jews during the High Middle Ages to Early Modern period, Muslim states like the Ottoman Empire (also Polish Lithuania Common Wealth) allowed refugee. That isn't to say that Jewish vs Muslim conflicts didn't exist during these times, just that the relationship between these leaders of these two religions were closer than Christians and Jews.
Genesis of narrative of Christians and Jews vs Muslim East was very much a post 1800s thing. Especially with Anglo-elite being heavily invested in Jewish causes. Of course, the systematic Muslim hostility toward Jews was also a newer phenomenon with the aftermath of break up of the Ottoman Empire and attempts at Jewish resettlement in British Palestine. Not picking any side on the issue, but this idea that of a unified "Judeo-Christian" monolith seems like a mostly American Anglo back projection rather than any idea based on common history or theology.
On a related note, one could look at modern warfare and the sheer brutality of early to mid century Western Civilizations and argue that modern societies lack morals as much as ancient societies. During WW1 and WW2, world leaders sacrificed millions of people to fight abstract causes and ideas. You can argue the world wars happened almost a century ago, but still this goes against the idea of evolving morality when world leaders were willing to essentially throw away most of their male population to fight ideological conflicts.
As a Jewish person myself, I've always wondered why nobody ever speaks about a "Judaeo-Islamic tradition" or a "Christo-Islamic tradition" for that matter. Positing a special connection between Jewish and Christian traditions and values as if they are a monolith makes absolutely no sense. It's kosher to pray in a mosque, but not a church.
The Pyramids and other huge funeral projects should give some indication how much life was valued in ancient times. If anything Christianity and other later death cults have diminished that effort. Whereas previously we'd provide our dead with all kinds of stuff for the afterlife and make sure they got a pleasant one, the cheapness of just believe and it will be okay shows a clear decline in value. As long as the corps doesn't smell too bad, we get to keep it a bit then it goes up in smoke, into the ground or into the deep blue sea. Not sure if there are still temples offering corpses to the vultures to take the spirits away, but that is uncommon these days.
I wish we were more like rome
Very good point about American lives being given more value in an overseas natural disaster than the native population.
I also want to point out that people's worth being dictated by their class is still extremely prevalent. A poor person getting food stamps is seen as less than or even a "specimen" by some, yet very rich individuals and corporations paying no tax and, in fact, getting returns and subsidies aren't given the same treatment. Both cases are instances where people are receiving a "handout" (I don't really like that term), but only the one who actually needs help is chastized.
Another issue is we're taught, at least in the U.S., by prominent economists, executives, politicians that human nature is that of individualism and complete self reliance. That's just wrong. We're an extremely social and interdependent species. Trey The Explainer has a good video about acts of compassion in the paleolithic era.
So, I suppose this is nitpicking (sorry), but the terminology you are using to describe original Buddhist ideas, namely that by Confucius, is inherently Chinese, not Japanese. Japan adopted Buddhist ideas and philosophies. "Rai" and "jyanai" are both Japanese words. The second one being "to not do" I think the adaptation of their currently existing language combined with the understanding of Chinese concepts is the reason why we have Zen Buddhism(mainly Japanese sect) and traditional Buddhism
While Japan does practice a form of those religions, I personally believe that these original ideas/terms should be referred in their original Chinese.
That's like claiming "touchdown" when a batter scores an RBI. It's conceptually correct, however, the expression of those ideas, in my opinion, doesn't do it justice.
While his talk tries to argue that ancient societies had some enlightened view of human worth, he doesn't explain why they would hold such a concept. Logically why would the powerful, those in charge, promote a view that all lives were intrinsically valuable? How would he prove such a statement? How would that apply to practice when we see everywhere in ancient times the enslavement and abuse of conquered peoples. He even speaks of religions superficially without explaining why that fits in with their moral logic - and how compelling any of that has been in the societies and communities from those religious beliefs.
What does this have to do with modern times ?
Read the title.
@@WorldofAntiquity ok , my mistake.
The ancients valued human life so much they sacrificed it to the gods regularly.
In the olden days poor people were less valuable than the rich. But nowadays, if you can't afford a good lawyer you often have little better chances than a snowball in hell. So, not very different after all.
Afterthought: Maybe in the case of a murder the idea of equality may fare a bit better. May.
Someday I would like a list of these "judeo-christian values" I keep hearing about.
I absolutely love this. Mom and I used to chew over this topic ...
And we learn an essential. Haves and have nots.
A more reflective moment might open you to the idea that there is an asterisk by how much life is valued today ... *Depending on privilege and other markers of difference.
To excise from our natures the tendency to create "others" and various enemies to put down or aggress upon, is worthy.
To embrace all is to have no others to punish or exclude. 👵
Depends my people the aborigines of taiwan did some horrible things ,then theres china what they did to the dutch settlers I’m a bit dutch because of these actions ,the dutch women that they spared became concubines
Were there "partial birth abortions" in the classical period? That seems like an anachronism maybe?
I haven't heard about any.
"And there is emphasis in many text on taking care of the less fortunate, like orphans and widows..." That is not always the case. In India up until few decades the widows were looked down very lowly in the society. She was ostracized, and considered a bad omen when encountered. She is forced to be bald and always in white sari without the blouse. Widows are still looked very badly in indian society even to this day. It was buch worse a few hundred years back, with practice of Sati, and mandatory child bride.(it is required for a girl to be married before puberty accordng to some hindu scriptures.). Hence the female infanticide was/is prevalent in india. The widows are looked down, because it is believed that they are paying for their "Karma" in an earlier life, and therefore has to suffer the consequences. That's how bad hindu concept of "Karma" was damaging to indian society. Didnt even start to talk about the varna system. This is to say, valuing human life is not a default position of humans, but derivied from the concept that "all humans are made in the image of God". This is not to say, humans did not value human life, without this concept.
The Roman Republic - was it self serving? Take over of farms replacing owners w/ slaves was not popular. The return of JGC was he the ☆TRUMP☆ of his time?
No. The Bernie.
not so. in some cases you can paint with a broad brush and be accurate. for instance in china and taiwan no one is a freethinker or freespirit or counter culture. everyone is pure conformist, no freethought at all. go there and see. some generalizations are true almost 100 percent. asia tends to be super conformist, at least 99.99 percent of the people are, not just a simple majority.
You have left out the discarded newborn boys near ancient brothels
I disagree. When our most famous king and roman Emperor needed money doing pogrom in Jewish community was easy fix. Actually freedom and equality ideas came from native americans when they met with european colonists. They considered us slaves of our kings. Which is about right.
Who needs to value life when the infant mortality rate is 50%?
You could also argue that this should be reason to value it more. Because more rare and less easy to "replace".
@@armandsimonis7992 not really. Women had more children than they do now that the mortality rate is lower, so it didn't create rarity.
@@unicyclist97 - lot of women died during childbirth. Physically strong women had more children, yes, but a lot of them not. So in some families or circumstances (healthy) children who lived long enough until adulthood could be rare.
You drift away from the value of human life to talk more about equality. Try to think, "life and death" value.
Comparative value has a bearing on the question.
But were people like Caesar, Anthony and the other Populares exactly ancient progressives? They seemed to me more like populists, who wanted to keep on to their elite status, but give people the barely minimum to keep their support for them.
You're right about that, but who were they appealing to?
I don't think anyone living within 100 years of 1914-1945 can really cast any broad comparison judgements about the inherent value of human life in the cultures of other ages.
Brother miano democracy was not invented in Athens. It was invented in the Middle East.
Those are generally considered proto-democracies.
Compress your videos so we don’t hear you smacking every time your lips touch and open. It’s kind of nauseating
like number 666 hail satan or something
Christians. FFS
The claims that Christianity changed how the average person valued human life is an understandable claim, but I think it requires you to be willing to overlook some major counter-points. It being based on Judaism and their culture it seems odd to exclude them when surely they would be the source of this sort of human empathy. And Islam was essentially founded as a rebuttal to the mandate of many Christian rulers to exclude religeous tolerance. Their solution was to basically "fine" or tax people for being non-Muslims, but it ended up making a lot of non-Muslims well known contributors to public works. And compared to having your property seized and being banished which was the fate of many Jewish and Christian "heresies" of the era, it was a considerably better deal.
This is not an accurate representation of how Islam was founded. Mohammad was not the concerned with Christian rulers' 'intolerance'. He was concerned with establishing Islam as the dominate power. Consider the fate of Jewish tribes who refused Muslim dominance in Medina. Unlike Christianity, discrimination against other faiths was codified as part of the Islamic religion. You might also want to consider the bloody expansion of the first few centuries of Islam, all religiously justified Mohammad's teachings, against the first few centuries of Christianity.
Wow, that is two comments I made on here that were censored. Amazing that would happen on this channel. There was nothing in my comments that justified removal and I challenge the censor to show otherwise. Shame on you.
None of your comments showed up in my "Held for review" section, and I don't delete comments. As you can see from going through the comments, I let people say mean and nasty things to me all the time. So I don't know what you are talking about.
@@WorldofAntiquity Thank you. That's got me worried that such censorship would happen. I wonder where my (NOT mean and nasty, or even incorrect) comments went. Maybe you have a trustee helping you check comments? It's just too strange two attempts to post disappeared.
@@BobMeyers No one goes through the comments except me. But I have heard about comments going missing. A few of my own have too. I think it is probably some glitch in the system.
@@WorldofAntiquity wrote, "glitch in the system". I would agree except it happened twice with at least an hour between posts. Someone has figured out how to trick the system, such as using lots of "Report" clicks in rapid succession by different accounts. I noticed one user's comment, that avoided specifics, clarity or explanation, received an unusually high number of upvotes--hmmm. Interesting...and sad that goes on.
@@DianaAtena It's not a live person making the decisions. It's a program. It isn't very smart.