Same for most gods, given the degree to which they were anthropomorphized. (In fact, the Bhagavad-Gita talks about how Hindus need to anthropomorphize in order to give “personal loving devotion to Lord Krishna”. [Quote from a commentary])
Yep, ancestors are dead humans, gods are humans in the same way Batman is human. (I mean, Thor is one of the Avengers. I think that gives it away.) I wanted to say “animals” without implying that humans aren’t animals.
I remember reading about a Native American culture that had a designated Speaker for the Wolves who was supposed to represent them in meetings, but I can’t remember any details. Could be bogus.
There are many indigenous cultures (with some hunters still around today) who ask forgiveness upon killing food animals. And history’s full of bear cults, and animal species with names that translate into “people of the _,” and taboos on harming various animals. I think the notion that humans have mostly only cared for the concerns of humans is the product of an industrial-age blind spot: only people who’ve never hunted or husbanded, and eat their meat from the slaughterhouse, have never thought about animal welfare.
Ancestor worshippers- who are the people whose opinions we’re discussing- would disagree. Wikipedia:
Veneration of the dead or ancestor reverence is based on the belief that the dead have a continued existence...the goal of ancestor veneration is to ensure the ancestors’ continued well-being
Sure, but there’s a fact of the matter: It’s not that we don’t value the experiences or well-being of dead ancestors; it’s that we hold that they do not have any experiences or well-being — or, at least, none that we can affect with the consequences of our actions. (For instance, Christians who believe in heaven consider their dead ancestors to be beyond suffering and mortal concerns; that’s kind of the point of heaven.)
The “expanding circle” thesis notices the increasing concern in Western societies for the experiences had by, e.g., black people. The “narrowing circle” thesis notices the decreasing concern for experiences had by dead ancestors and gods.
The former is a difference of sentiment or values, whereas the latter is a difference of factual belief.
The former is a matter of “ought”; the latter of “is”.
Slaveholders did not hold the propositional beliefs, “People’s experiences are morally significant, but slaves do not have experiences.” They did not value the experiences of all people. Their moral upbringing specifically instructed them to not value the experiences of slaves; or to regard the suffering of slaves as the appointed (and thus morally correct) lot in life of slaves; or to regard the experiences of slaves as less important than the continuity of the social order and economy which were supported by slavery.
Slaveholders did not hold the propositional beliefs, “People’s experiences are morally significant, but slaves do not have experiences.” They did not value the experiences of all people.
You know, I think you’re wrong about that. They talked about how savages needed to be ruled by civilised man, and the like, rather than claiming that they were the same as us but who gives a damn?
I am fairly confident that I haven’t understood your point, as it doesn’t seem to me to address the discussion above. My interpretation of your post is that it claims that people engaged in ancestor worship were factually wrong about whether their dead ancestors still counted as humans- e.g. whether or not they experienced anything. However, this is irrelevant to the question under discussion- of whether or not ancestor worship is a counter-example to the claim that most people throughout history haven’t cared about non-humans. All that matters for this claim is whether or not most ancestor-worshippers thought that their ancestors qualified as people.
I think the point that fubarobfusco was trying to make with that was a partial refutation of the “narrowing circle” thesis that says we care less about people not like us today than in the past. S/he was trying to say, “we haven’t stopped caring about anyone we used to care about, we’ve just stopped believing in them. If we still believed our dead ancestors had feelings, we’d still care about them.”
You’re correct that all that matters for the question “did ancestor-worshippers care for non-humans” is whether the ancestor-worshippers thought their ancestors were human.
(It’s my impression that the belief of ancestor-worshipers is not that their actions today fulfill the past living desires of now-dead ancestors, but that their actions today affect the experiences of their dead ancestors today.)
I haven’t read the article by gwern that Qiaochu linked, so I didn’t know that it referred specifically to ancestor worship rather than the more general (believed) evaporation of respect for ancestors’ desires as a terminal value.
I don’t think this is true. As gwern’s The Narrowing Circle argues, major historical exceptions to this include gods and dead ancestors.
dead ancestors may not count as ‘non-human’, depending on your metric.
Same for most gods, given the degree to which they were anthropomorphized. (In fact, the Bhagavad-Gita talks about how Hindus need to anthropomorphize in order to give “personal loving devotion to Lord Krishna”. [Quote from a commentary])
… which would imply that the reality is not anthropomorphic but empathising with it is a good thing.
Yep, ancestors are dead humans, gods are humans in the same way Batman is human. (I mean, Thor is one of the Avengers. I think that gives it away.) I wanted to say “animals” without implying that humans aren’t animals.
I remember reading about a Native American culture that had a designated Speaker for the Wolves who was supposed to represent them in meetings, but I can’t remember any details. Could be bogus.
There are many indigenous cultures (with some hunters still around today) who ask forgiveness upon killing food animals. And history’s full of bear cults, and animal species with names that translate into “people of the _,” and taboos on harming various animals. I think the notion that humans have mostly only cared for the concerns of humans is the product of an industrial-age blind spot: only people who’ve never hunted or husbanded, and eat their meat from the slaughterhouse, have never thought about animal welfare.
Dead ancestors are not minds that experience anything.
Ancestor worshippers- who are the people whose opinions we’re discussing- would disagree. Wikipedia:
Sure, but there’s a fact of the matter: It’s not that we don’t value the experiences or well-being of dead ancestors; it’s that we hold that they do not have any experiences or well-being — or, at least, none that we can affect with the consequences of our actions. (For instance, Christians who believe in heaven consider their dead ancestors to be beyond suffering and mortal concerns; that’s kind of the point of heaven.)
The “expanding circle” thesis notices the increasing concern in Western societies for the experiences had by, e.g., black people. The “narrowing circle” thesis notices the decreasing concern for experiences had by dead ancestors and gods.
The former is a difference of sentiment or values, whereas the latter is a difference of factual belief.
The former is a matter of “ought”; the latter of “is”.
Slaveholders did not hold the propositional beliefs, “People’s experiences are morally significant, but slaves do not have experiences.” They did not value the experiences of all people. Their moral upbringing specifically instructed them to not value the experiences of slaves; or to regard the suffering of slaves as the appointed (and thus morally correct) lot in life of slaves; or to regard the experiences of slaves as less important than the continuity of the social order and economy which were supported by slavery.
You know, I think you’re wrong about that. They talked about how savages needed to be ruled by civilised man, and the like, rather than claiming that they were the same as us but who gives a damn?
I am fairly confident that I haven’t understood your point, as it doesn’t seem to me to address the discussion above. My interpretation of your post is that it claims that people engaged in ancestor worship were factually wrong about whether their dead ancestors still counted as humans- e.g. whether or not they experienced anything. However, this is irrelevant to the question under discussion- of whether or not ancestor worship is a counter-example to the claim that most people throughout history haven’t cared about non-humans. All that matters for this claim is whether or not most ancestor-worshippers thought that their ancestors qualified as people.
I think the point that fubarobfusco was trying to make with that was a partial refutation of the “narrowing circle” thesis that says we care less about people not like us today than in the past. S/he was trying to say, “we haven’t stopped caring about anyone we used to care about, we’ve just stopped believing in them. If we still believed our dead ancestors had feelings, we’d still care about them.”
You’re correct that all that matters for the question “did ancestor-worshippers care for non-humans” is whether the ancestor-worshippers thought their ancestors were human.
Therefore, by substitution, we don’t experience anything in response to knowledge about things that will happen after we’re dead?
What? Sorry, I don’t see the connection.
(It’s my impression that the belief of ancestor-worshipers is not that their actions today fulfill the past living desires of now-dead ancestors, but that their actions today affect the experiences of their dead ancestors today.)
I haven’t read the article by gwern that Qiaochu linked, so I didn’t know that it referred specifically to ancestor worship rather than the more general (believed) evaporation of respect for ancestors’ desires as a terminal value.