Sexism/racism etc in older fiction

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

"Missionary" does not automatically equal "person of conscience" in my experience.

Perhaps not, but it's a very long leap indeed from there to the suggestion that not one person who has ever wanted to help what they considered to be a less civilised people has ever done so because they considered it a moral or charitable act.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps not, but it's a very long leap indeed from there to the suggestion that not one person who has ever wanted to help what they considered to be a less civilised people has ever done so because they considered it a moral or charitable act.

It's a huge leap, in fact. One that I have not made (nor would I). I'm merely suggesting that not all work done under the aegis of "mission" is charitable. Some is done with assimilation and subjugation in mind.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It's a huge leap, in fact. One that I have not made (nor would I).

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you'd expressed the view that nobody who did consider a different ethnic group to be inferior to their own could have a conscience? My apologies if I misinterpreted your views.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you'd expressed the view that nobody who did consider a different ethnic group to be inferior to their own could have a conscience? My apologies if I misinterpreted your views.

I did (do) express that view. Nobody who truly considers an entire ethnic group to be inferior to their own is a person of conscience. Note: I do not consider "inferior" and "less fortunate" to be synonymous. My definition of inferior in the case of racial bias is "of inherently lesser worth, or rank."

What you're missing is that not all people who performed those acts of mission/charity believed the other ethnic group was inferior (of inherently lesser worth, or rank). Those were the people of conscience. Even if they were ultimately misguided in their desire to "convert the heathen." I can't say any more on that without crossing into P&R territory.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I did (do) express that view. Nobody who truly considers an entire ethnic group to be inferior to their own is a person of conscience.

You appear to using that belief as a definition of "lack of conscience" which I really don't really think gets us anywhere. "My ethnic group is superior to your ethnic group" beliefs have been widespread - I'm tempted to say "universal", even - throughout recorded history. To suggest that no person who has ever held such a belief can be a person of good conscience is a view that is entirely unsupportable, to my mind.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

To suggest that no person who has ever held such a belief can be a person of good conscience is a view that is entirely unsupportable, to my mind.

It doesn't matter to me if anyone thinks it's "unsupportable" or not. I'm not looking for validation or approval for my suggestion It's just a very basic tenet of my personal philosophy. No one who believes another life (or race or ethnic group) is of lesser intrinsic worth than their own is a person of good conscience. Such beliefs disqualify them. No matter when they may have lived.

Your assertion that the unconscionable belief of "my ethnic group is superior to your ethnic group" being widespread or even universally held (which of course it never was) somehow guarantees that some of them HAD to be people of good conscience is just as odd and unsupportable to me. It's not a numbers/majority game.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It doesn't matter to me if anyone thinks it's "unsupportable" or not. I'm not looking for validation or approval for my suggestion It's just a very basic tenent of my personal philosophy. No one who believes another life (or race or ethnic group) is of lesser intrinsic worth than their own is a person of good conscience. Such beliefs disqualify them. No matter when they may have lived.

There seems little point in continuing this interesting discussion then, regrettably. I always try to follow the advice of my philosophy lecturer, which is to accept that people in the past had beliefs and attitudes which can seem alien - at times even abhorrent - to us today, and to examine their arguments in the light of those beliefs. You can't understand a different culture if you begin with the baggage of a 21st-century belief system colouring your approach to that culture.

Thank you for the interesting discussion, anyway.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No one who believes another life (or race or ethnic group) is of lesser intrinsic worth than their own is a person of good conscience.

How about species? Is it possible for anyone who is not a vegan to be a person of good conscience?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

How about species? Is it possible for anyone who is not a vegan to be a person of good conscience?

In my opinion? Of course. And vegans are free to believe me wrong. Just remember that plants belong to a species as well -- in case you're really willing to open that can of worms.

[Deskisamess]

People believe things that are wrong all the time. That isn't a matter of conscience but of ignorance or lack of education.

I would imagine there were plenty of people who lived during the times of slavery in the US who grew up with slavery, accepting it without question, because of what they were taught. It was just accepted with no more thought given.

I knew someone years ago who believed that a certain race had no souls. He had been raised with that "truth" pounded into his head by his father. This person was not a deep thinker, he didn't question what he had been taught. He believed error. He was sincere in his beliefs, but his beliefs were incorrect.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

I knew someone years ago who believed that a certain race had no souls. He had been raised with that "truth" pounded into his head by his father. This person was not a deep thinker, he didn't question what he had been taught. He believed error. He was sincere in his beliefs, but his beliefs were incorrect.

Unless you're in a position to be able to prove whether or not someone has a soul, would it not be more accurate to say that his beliefs differed from yours, rather than to categorically state that his beliefs were incorrect?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

I would imagine there were plenty of people who lived during the times of slavery in the US who grew up with slavery, accepting it without question, because of what they were taught. It was just accepted with no more thought given.

And yet as I've often said, there were people who grew up with it who knew in their bones it was wrong. In spite of what they were taught. It's quite clear to me that accepting it without question was not the only option available.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

How about species? Is it possible for anyone who is not a vegan to be a person of good conscience?

So murdering plants is acceptable in a person of good conscience? Or if you live in an area where plant based food is not readily available (see Inuit), you can not be a person of good conscience?

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

People believe things that are wrong all the time. That isn't a matter of conscience but of ignorance or lack of education.

Or a matter of what they are being taught simply being wrong. A good classical education included quite a bit of information that we now know to be wrong. Looking back at this era, it's very likely there will be a few good chuckles over the beliefs that we have that are equally wrong.

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

I would imagine there were plenty of people who lived during the times of slavery in the US who grew up with slavery, accepting it without question, because of what they were taught. It was just accepted with no more thought given.

Is a fish aware of water?

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

I knew someone years ago who believed that a certain race had no souls. He had been raised with that "truth" pounded into his head by his father. This person was not a deep thinker, he didn't question what he had been taught. He believed error. He was sincere in his beliefs, but his beliefs were incorrect.

Souls? What proof do we have that a soul exists? Not simply belief or faith (the dirtiest word in the English language) but quantifiable proof from repeatable experiments. And yes, I know that attempting to prove or disprove the existence of a non-material being by material data is risible.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by DNSB

So murdering plants is acceptable in a person of good conscience? Or if you live in an area where plant based food is not readily available (see Inuit), you can not be a person of good conscience?

I was attempting reductio ad absurdum.