rohan121 said: In japanese websites even the ln is tagged harem for mushoku Which Japanese website has the anime tagged as harem? Anikore doesn't. It has it tagged as: Travel (58) Family (51) World Reincarnation (51) Fantasy (40) Growth (36) Friends (35) Magic (35) Disaster (34) Bottom story (31) Battle (31) Parent and child (31) Party (30) Magic (30) Curse (29) Beastman (29) Missing (29) Master (27) Withdrawn (27) Figure (26) Friendship (24) Unreasonable (22) Monster (19) I can cry (18) Memory (17) Ranobe original (16) Become a novelist (16) |
Reply to xZabuzax
@Theo1899 Which church? there are thousands of churches, each following a different god or different variations of a god because even Christians don't seem to agree on anything since there are different flavors of Christianity out there and apparently, each one of them knows exactly what a god wants even if they contradict each other.
And how is Vishnu a demon? according to Hinduism, he's a god, so is he a god or not?
And how is Vishnu a demon? according to Hinduism, he's a god, so is he a god or not?
| @xZabuzax The Church (capital C) is used by Catholic and Orthodox christians to refer to their church as according to their theology there can only be one institution and the rest are invalid. The whole "gods of other religions are demons" is something all denominations actually agree on as it's mentioned in the Bible so you can't get around that even though it's not very politically correct. |
| MEA·MENTVLA·INGENS·EST |
Reply to xZabuzax
@Theo1899 But I like my churches (without capital C), so I guess I'll stick to churches.
And why are you using the Bible?, why not use the Bhagavad Gita to prove Vishnu instead? Not all Christian denominations will agree that the gods of different religions are demons either since my church didn't when I used to believe, we just said that they are following the same god but it just happened to have a different name on the other religions or that not all the religions have the "true word of god" but my church did have the "true word of god" because we were just that special and we happened to be the correct one while everybody else didn't, but then I realized that it was just a lazy excuse to make us not think too much about it, no wonder I don't believe in any of this religion or churches BS anymore, they all seem like a bunch of hypocrites to me while believing in different things without a single source of evidence for their gods (yes, without capital G).
And why are you using the Bible?, why not use the Bhagavad Gita to prove Vishnu instead? Not all Christian denominations will agree that the gods of different religions are demons either since my church didn't when I used to believe, we just said that they are following the same god but it just happened to have a different name on the other religions or that not all the religions have the "true word of god" but my church did have the "true word of god" because we were just that special and we happened to be the correct one while everybody else didn't, but then I realized that it was just a lazy excuse to make us not think too much about it, no wonder I don't believe in any of this religion or churches BS anymore, they all seem like a bunch of hypocrites to me while believing in different things without a single source of evidence for their gods (yes, without capital G).
| @xZabuzax From what you are describing it seems you were part of one of those churches that promote a very extreme form of religious pluralism. Christianity has considered that a heresy since before Christ was even born (found in the Old Testament) which is why I think the Catholic and Orthodox view of the Church as one divine institution instead of the sum of all believers regardless of denomination (the traditional protestant view) is true (and also supported in the Bible in Matthew 16). As for the Bible question, I'm convinced that the Bible is the true word of God after reading it. I've also compared it with other religious text (although to be fair no Hindu texts) and it and I found that its message of salvation and morals made the most sense out of all of them. God bless. |
| MEA·MENTVLA·INGENS·EST |
Reply to 1000-MAT
ktg said:
But we know that it is wrong even in their culture, because Paul also cheated on his wife and it was considered as a bad thing
But we know that it is wrong even in their culture, because Paul also cheated on his wife and it was considered as a bad thing
Zenith is a devotee of Millis, which is why she doesn't accept polygamy very well, but she is prepared for it, since she knew who Paul was.
This is better explained in the light novel, in the anime this is the only indication we have.
Zenith is the only one that says a prayer before meals.
| @1000-MAT And even that ignores how poorly this whole situation was handled by both Lilya but most importantly Paul. |
| Hello, please don't take anything I say as an insult, it is not meant as an attack against you as a person. If I directly disagree with you, that does not mean I think you are wrong, I am just more correct. |
| I think there is something to discuss here, because while our perspective on polygamous relationships is most definitely formed by religion and culture and is thus invariably bound to our constructed views on moral, we are not talking about any kind of polygamous relationships here, but those found in strongly patriarchal societies as presented within Mushoku Tensei, in other words, we are talking about harems here. The point here is simply, that the only constellation of polygamous relationships within the show are one male and 2+ females, which makes a lot of sense within a strongly patriarchal and sexist world, but then you have to acknowledge that women in these relationships are either suffering the consequences of these social conditions or how their role within a relationship is of less importance than that of their male partner. The idea of 2 women being engaged with one man isn't the problem here, the problem lies with how this is blurred with sexism. The result is, that it is hard to tell how willingly characters engage in these harems, and it ignores the central injustice of this still being contextualized within the sexism of this world. Showing sexism isn't wrong, it just can't be shown to be right, this means, that showing a functional polygamous relationship with Rudeus, Roxy and Sylphiette isn't wrong in of itself, but you have to make clear, that it works in spite of the world's underlying sexism, not because of it. If you don't do that, then this is pretty canonically not just polygamous representation but rather sexist misrepresentation of patriarchal oppression. This also, at least to me, seems like a pretty hard fit with also having a perverted protagonist who you want to see grow. I do believe that Rudeus has a pretty phenomenal character arc, but giving him two wives who are both by sheer coincidence perfectly fine with that, seems like a step in the wrong direction, when trying to prove that he grows as a person. The obvious response to this would be "well, it isn't a sheer coincidence, you see, this is because in this world relationships like this are more common, so it isn't that rare" and this is a fine defence, but it ignores that this world was built up with deliberate intentions by the author, they decided to make it this way, so the question still stands, why? All in all, I think this whole thing is more multifaceted than a lot of people give it credit for, a lot of the show is pretty clearly anti-patriarchal, that is at least how I read it, but I still think that this is at the very least kind of a weird move by the author. Personally, I don't think that this will play out well, that doesn't mean the show sucks, I still love it, and the characters still work, but this stuff just wasn't necessary, at least not in my book. If you disagree, feel free to tell me otherwise. TLDR: The context of the world being patriarchal needs to be acknowledged when discussing this relationship, because it makes Roxy and Sylphiette part of an oppressed social minority that suffers from sexist ideology which limits their rights of self-governance, something Rudeus (somewhat knowingly) takes advantage of, without this being acknowledged. |
LucianaelJun 29, 6:28 PM
| Hello, please don't take anything I say as an insult, it is not meant as an attack against you as a person. If I directly disagree with you, that does not mean I think you are wrong, I am just more correct. |
Reply to ejleon
@Flacion I was more trying to point out that morality, religion, leadership are not independent of each other, assuming one lead to another does not follow the evidence we have in history.
You haven't proven that it is a social construct, you are using circular reasoning. It existed in societies, so societies must have made it up to control, but that doesn't answer the origin of such a concept in the first place, especially when history reveals that humans just did whatever was ok in their own eyes.
You are assuming societies considered "murder" to be immoral, but historically that is incorrect, even today, there are societies that muder others and think that they are doing a good thing.
There were societies where murder was seen as good, like for human sacrifice, or cannibalism, or to show a person's strength in battle, while there were other societies that did not allow it seeing it as bad.
But that only proves that deciding what is wrong or right is completely up to each human or group, which changes over time.
What I am asking is why humans would ever think "murder" is bad in the first place, when animals in the wild murder all the time, meaning why would morality develop when there is no basis for it in nature.
You haven't proven that it is a social construct, you are using circular reasoning. It existed in societies, so societies must have made it up to control, but that doesn't answer the origin of such a concept in the first place, especially when history reveals that humans just did whatever was ok in their own eyes.
You are assuming societies considered "murder" to be immoral, but historically that is incorrect, even today, there are societies that muder others and think that they are doing a good thing.
There were societies where murder was seen as good, like for human sacrifice, or cannibalism, or to show a person's strength in battle, while there were other societies that did not allow it seeing it as bad.
But that only proves that deciding what is wrong or right is completely up to each human or group, which changes over time.
What I am asking is why humans would ever think "murder" is bad in the first place, when animals in the wild murder all the time, meaning why would morality develop when there is no basis for it in nature.
| @ejleon I do think there is some basis for it in nature, though not how you would normally discuss it. If someone were to say that "squirrels have morals too" I would at the very least hesitate before disagreeing. The point is, the concept of "moral" is completely socially constructed, but the behavioural patterns that influence how we categorize morals most certainly aren't. To use our squirrel buddies again, they generally don't kill each other, I'm not saying that this never happened, but generally they kind of don't do that, and that is something we see across a wide range of species. While animals undeniably kill, they rarely kill their own kind, and out of that we get a behavioural pattern. We get even more exclusive data, by going for cannibalism instead of simple murder, now there are even fewer species left. The interesting part though, as might be obvious, we humans both murder and do cannibalism, so we are kind of out there really. But we can very clearly say, that most of these behavioural patterns are socially constructed, and that is because biology cares very little about religious blood gods and eating children. These are types of behaviour created as a social response to environmental change, and human sacrifice is a great example. I think we can pretty openly agree, that we as a species gain very little from sacrificing people to gods, but humans did that anyway. The answer to this, which I most definitely don't need to explain to you, is simply our tendency to seek explanations and when we can't find those, make up explanations. You have lighting that comes from the sky, but how does that make sense? Boom, you just made a Zeus, awesome. Let's just say that, for example, some old religious leader saw his son die in a great blizzard and right after that the storm ended, the conclusion that every storm will claim one life, then end, really doesn't seem so illogical. Murder is a lot trickier, so why is the idea of murder being bad so hard to pin down? We have a whole pile of problems when discussing this, a few would be: 1. Our bias towards "murder = bad" makes us pretty poor judges 2. We don't really know when we turned from pretty standard "compassionate" monkeys into warmongering Homo sapiens 3. There are underlying problems when drawing lines between evolutionary psychology and our behaviour of domination over other humans for gain 4. Evolutionary psychology is like 99% fake, don't listen to Jordan Peterson 5. It is hard to fully determine the scope of how the social perception of murder evolved over centuries (our date is just to inconclusive) 6. The "The Big Government says we need to sacrifice the children" VS. "The Simple Guy who has his own morals but can't follow them because of a lack of power" - This means that murder could generally be evolutionarily unfavourable and most humans see murder as an evil, but those few that are willing to use it shape public perception by gaining the power to write history (if everyone plays nice, you are going to have one heck of a time, being the only cheater in the room) There are a lot more of these arguments, all well better conveyed then I could ever do it, it's an interesting subject, would really recommend looking into this, though don't expect any conclusive answers. My personal stance on the thing is: Human babies first and foremost don't want to kill each other, so the idea of murder has to either be learned through outside influence or comes natural later in life. I think that there inevitably came a day, when one guy killed another guy, after which there will always be a social perception of this event which forms cultural moral norms. In other words, I am of the "Squirrels kill each other, but only very rarely"-faction, humans unlike squirrels just form cultural perception afterwards which from there on out shapes how we see murder, how we kill each other and so on. In other words, murder is pretty much completely a social construct. That's how I see it, hope this made any sense, if it didn't, it's probably because of those damn squirrels, I tell ya, they are pure evil, which most definitely isn't a social construct. Have a good one. |
LucianaelJun 30, 3:38 AM
| Hello, please don't take anything I say as an insult, it is not meant as an attack against you as a person. If I directly disagree with you, that does not mean I think you are wrong, I am just more correct. |
Reply to Cobalt-Blue
Lucianael said:
I think there is something to discuss here, because while our perspective on polygamous relationships is most definitely formed by religion and culture and is thus invariably bound to our constructed views on moral, we are not talking about any kind of polygamous relationships here, but those found in strongly patriarchal societies as presented within Mushoku Tensei, in other words, we are talking about harems here. The point here is simply, that the only constellation of polygamous relationships within the show are one male and 2+ females, which makes a lot of sense within a strongly patriarchal and sexist world, but then you have to acknowledge that women in these relationships are either suffering the consequences of these social conditions or how their role within a relationship is of less importance than that of their male partner. The idea of 2 women being engaged with one man isn't the problem here, the problem lies with how this is blurred with sexism. The result is, that it is hard to tell how willingly characters engage in these harems, and it ignores the central injustice of this still being contextualized within the sexism of this world. Showing sexism isn't wrong, it just can't be shown to be right, this means, that showing a functional polygamous relationship with Rudeus, Roxy and Sylphiette isn't wrong in of itself, but you have to make clear, that it works in spite of the world's underlying sexism, not because of it. If you don't do that, then this is pretty canonically not just polygamous representation but rather sexist misrepresentation of patriarchal oppression. This also, at least to me, seems like a pretty hard fit with also having a perverted protagonist who you want to see grow. I do believe that Rudeus has a pretty phenomenal character arc, but giving him two wives who are both by sheer coincidence perfectly fine with that, seems like a step in the wrong direction, when trying to prove that he grows as a person. The obvious response to this would be "well, it isn't a sheer coincidence, you see, this is because in this world relationships like this are more common, so it isn't that rare" and this is a fine defence, but it ignores that this world was built up with deliberate intentions by the author, they decided to make it this way, so the question still stands, why? All in all, I think this whole thing is more multifaceted than a lot of people give it credit for, a lot of the show is pretty clearly anti-patriarchal, that is at least how I read it, but I still think that this is at the very least kind of a weird move by the author. Personally, I don't think that this will play out well, that doesn't mean the show sucks, I still love it, and the characters still work, but this stuff just wasn't necessary, at least not in my book. If you disagree, feel free to tell me otherwise.
TLDR: The context of the world being patriarchal needs to be acknowledged when discussing this relationship, because it makes Roxy and Sylphiette part of an oppressed social minority that suffers from sexist ideology which limits their rights of self-governance, something Rudeus (somewhat knowingly) takes advantage of, without this being acknowledged.
I think there is something to discuss here, because while our perspective on polygamous relationships is most definitely formed by religion and culture and is thus invariably bound to our constructed views on moral, we are not talking about any kind of polygamous relationships here, but those found in strongly patriarchal societies as presented within Mushoku Tensei, in other words, we are talking about harems here. The point here is simply, that the only constellation of polygamous relationships within the show are one male and 2+ females, which makes a lot of sense within a strongly patriarchal and sexist world, but then you have to acknowledge that women in these relationships are either suffering the consequences of these social conditions or how their role within a relationship is of less importance than that of their male partner. The idea of 2 women being engaged with one man isn't the problem here, the problem lies with how this is blurred with sexism. The result is, that it is hard to tell how willingly characters engage in these harems, and it ignores the central injustice of this still being contextualized within the sexism of this world. Showing sexism isn't wrong, it just can't be shown to be right, this means, that showing a functional polygamous relationship with Rudeus, Roxy and Sylphiette isn't wrong in of itself, but you have to make clear, that it works in spite of the world's underlying sexism, not because of it. If you don't do that, then this is pretty canonically not just polygamous representation but rather sexist misrepresentation of patriarchal oppression. This also, at least to me, seems like a pretty hard fit with also having a perverted protagonist who you want to see grow. I do believe that Rudeus has a pretty phenomenal character arc, but giving him two wives who are both by sheer coincidence perfectly fine with that, seems like a step in the wrong direction, when trying to prove that he grows as a person. The obvious response to this would be "well, it isn't a sheer coincidence, you see, this is because in this world relationships like this are more common, so it isn't that rare" and this is a fine defence, but it ignores that this world was built up with deliberate intentions by the author, they decided to make it this way, so the question still stands, why? All in all, I think this whole thing is more multifaceted than a lot of people give it credit for, a lot of the show is pretty clearly anti-patriarchal, that is at least how I read it, but I still think that this is at the very least kind of a weird move by the author. Personally, I don't think that this will play out well, that doesn't mean the show sucks, I still love it, and the characters still work, but this stuff just wasn't necessary, at least not in my book. If you disagree, feel free to tell me otherwise.
TLDR: The context of the world being patriarchal needs to be acknowledged when discussing this relationship, because it makes Roxy and Sylphiette part of an oppressed social minority that suffers from sexist ideology which limits their rights of self-governance, something Rudeus (somewhat knowingly) takes advantage of, without this being acknowledged.
How is it sexism if it is consensual? It's not like how it is in the Middle East where grown men marry kids and have 4 wives and the women have no say on anything. There are lot of women (In western society) in real life that generally don't care for feminism/equality and what is expected of them as a result. They don't mind or don't care about playing the feminine or submissive role and are actually annoyed with the whole "strong, independent woman" thing because men are generally treating women a lot differently then they have before (woman basically have to do a lot of things on their own at this point men are less willing to help in fear of offending, annoying or generally being considered a harasser) I think women and men are fluid beings and don't have to commit to a masculine or feminine role in a relationship or in life. They can change depending on their mood, the conditions the task, etc. Women that work in corporate and make more than their husbands still want the man to play the dominant role in sex but also can want to be egalitarian for doing chores.
Roxy and Sylphy are feminine women that don't mind Rudy being the patriarch and taking the lead on everything. Roxy and Sylphy are powerful mages that can stand on their own but CHOOSE to be lead by Rudy because of his personality, ability to provide for them and overall familiarity with both of them, he knew them since he was a child. Anyone could theoretically leave at any time, even with kids involved.
While Sylphy being pregnant does complicate her ability to have agency in this situation, it is important to know that she was kind of expecting this eventually, but maybe not at that time. Meaning she would've been on board with her either way. But even if she decided to leave after the kid was born because Rudy cheated, Rudy still has the financial resources to take care of the kid, HIS kid. He has friends, family around the house alai. Rudy story is definitely "It takes a village to raise a child" type of vibe.
Liliyah's daughter should be focused on more. she basically played the same role as her mother who is a maid which is in a subservient position to Zenith Paul and Rudy side of the family. That seems a lot less ethical to me, that she was born into subservient role to servethe mainfamily instead of being treated more like the primary family (Zenith derivative)
| @Cobalt-Blue What we have to take into account here is simply, that whether or not a choice is made consensual is only meaningful if consent can be given. For example, you wouldn't be talking about consent in relation to minors. You have to acknowledge how one's role within culture can limit one's ability to self govern. If social norms teach you that you have no freedom, you are probably a lot more likely to agree to being part of a harem. The problem is, simply, that Mushoku Tensei's world is sexist, just as our history of harems. This does not mean that all polygamous relationships within Mushoku Tensei are inherently sexist, but the fact that the show does not address the social oppression of Roxy and Sylphiette very much is sexist, because ignoring the ties to sexist oppression in historical harems, as we see it in Mushoku Tensei is wrong. We constantly see how sexist this fictional world is, and we know Rudeus to be sexist scum, the fact that the show doesn't even take into consideration how this is fertile ground for this going wrong is, well, worng. If you don't acknowledge this in the context of a sexist world which instils the ideal of women needing to be submissive, you very much are doing a sexism. What Mushoku Tensei is ignoring here, is basically how our idea of relationships is formed through social construction and in this case, this construct is a product of a sexist patriarchal society, because Reudeus doesn't have a Polygamous relationship, he has a harem. |
LucianaelJul 1, 7:34 AM
| Hello, please don't take anything I say as an insult, it is not meant as an attack against you as a person. If I directly disagree with you, that does not mean I think you are wrong, I am just more correct. |
Reply to xZabuzax
@Theo1899 I used to be a Mormon and we believed in the Bible and followed Christ like the rest of you guys (with the extra baggage that Mormonism teaches of course) but your post is exactly the reason why I don't believe in any of this BS anymore, you sound exactly like me when I used to believe and didn't question things, but once I started questioning it all fell apart.
Yes, I'm aware that you are convinced that the Bible is the true word of god for the same reason a Hindu is convinced that the Bhagavad Gita is the word of god or the Book of Mormon is the word of god too, etc... I'm just sick of this hypocrisy from religions honestly, using blind faith to believe in their BS is the reason we have thousands of religions in the first place, it's just not reliable, it never was and it never will.
No wonder I don't believe in any of this shit anymore and you can't blame me for it, once you religious guys can come up with a better way to find god or the truth then let me know.
Yes, I'm aware that you are convinced that the Bible is the true word of god for the same reason a Hindu is convinced that the Bhagavad Gita is the word of god or the Book of Mormon is the word of god too, etc... I'm just sick of this hypocrisy from religions honestly, using blind faith to believe in their BS is the reason we have thousands of religions in the first place, it's just not reliable, it never was and it never will.
No wonder I don't believe in any of this shit anymore and you can't blame me for it, once you religious guys can come up with a better way to find god or the truth then let me know.
| @xZabuzax and you honestly sound like me, when I walked away from the Christian sphere thinking that it was nothing more than a philosophical social convenience and you can live perfectly well without God without any real consequences. I see that you're mistaken about the meaning of faith and following Christ. The Faith that Jesus and the apostles speak of is not some kind of intellectual conclusion. Its a spiritual gift from God that He gives through His Spirit to those who ask for it. It literally does not come from us. The Bible call it baptism of the Holy Spirit, when you go through the so-called new birth (John 3:1-12). I can even say that the vast majority of Christians today have not gone through this experience yet. Furthermore, Mormons are an antichristic cult founded by a strange angel and filled with unbiblical doctrines, as the apostle Paul explicitly warned in Galatians 1:8. Its very unlikely that a born-again person would be part of this organization, since the Holy Spirit effectively directs them away from denominational idolatry. As for the topic (so as not to stray from the main subject, since I'm only replying this because you asked), it seems a little worrying to see so many young people subjectivizing human morality because they still have no idea of the evil they're advocating, but I understand that theres a time to let go of these nihilistic ideas and learn properly as we mature. As for the show I dropped in S2P1 so I can't go any further. The bad writing and pacing and the lack of plot would be tolerable if there wasn't so much debauchery and demonic wish-fulfillment. |
Reply to xZabuzax
ShadowUnown said:
Furthermore, Mormons are an antichristic cult founded by a strange angel and filled with unbiblical doctrines, as the apostle Paul explicitly warned in Galatians 1:8. Its very unlikely that a born-again person would be part of this organization, since the Holy Spirit effectively directs them away from denominational idolatry.
Furthermore, Mormons are an antichristic cult founded by a strange angel and filled with unbiblical doctrines, as the apostle Paul explicitly warned in Galatians 1:8. Its very unlikely that a born-again person would be part of this organization, since the Holy Spirit effectively directs them away from denominational idolatry.
Ah yes, of course, this is the part that made me cringe about religions, it's the "your religion is wrong but my religion is the correct one, it's the bestest of the best!!!", mate, don't give me that, I've been there and done that too, that same thing you just said is the same shit I used to say about other religions too because I was indoctrinated to believe that Mormons had it right all along, just as you are indoctrinated about your religion and just like any other person is indoctrinated about their religion, a Hindu or a Muslim will say the same thing about your religion too, which is silly.
And to say that Mormons are antichristic is just plain wrong, don't talk about Mormonism if you don't know anything about it, they follow Christ too, it's just absurd how you are even using your Bible to prove your point when a Mormon can use the Book of Mormon to prove their point too, it's circular reasoning. Go tell a Mormon how antichristic they are to see how well that will end up.
| @xZabuzax No, the proof that it is a cult comes from the Bible itself, not from some personal will. You can prove that the Mormons are a heretical sect by the very sound doctrine that God left in writing through his servants, and the same goes for many of the denominations. The Holy Spirit just attests the truth in the consciousness of a believer and then fully reveals it on the Day of Judgment to give each person according to his works. ...It doesnt seem that you really read anything I just said. If you're not open to a conversation without being so dismissive, don't ask for clarification like you did. |
Reply to Lucianael
@ejleon I do think there is some basis for it in nature, though not how you would normally discuss it. If someone were to say that "squirrels have morals too" I would at the very least hesitate before disagreeing. The point is, the concept of "moral" is completely socially constructed, but the behavioural patterns that influence how we categorize morals most certainly aren't. To use our squirrel buddies again, they generally don't kill each other, I'm not saying that this never happened, but generally they kind of don't do that, and that is something we see across a wide range of species. While animals undeniably kill, they rarely kill their own kind, and out of that we get a behavioural pattern. We get even more exclusive data, by going for cannibalism instead of simple murder, now there are even fewer species left. The interesting part though, as might be obvious, we humans both murder and do cannibalism, so we are kind of out there really. But we can very clearly say, that most of these behavioural patterns are socially constructed, and that is because biology cares very little about religious blood gods and eating children. These are types of behaviour created as a social response to environmental change, and human sacrifice is a great example. I think we can pretty openly agree, that we as a species gain very little from sacrificing people to gods, but humans did that anyway. The answer to this, which I most definitely don't need to explain to you, is simply our tendency to seek explanations and when we can't find those, make up explanations. You have lighting that comes from the sky, but how does that make sense? Boom, you just made a Zeus, awesome. Let's just say that, for example, some old religious leader saw his son die in a great blizzard and right after that the storm ended, the conclusion that every storm will claim one life, then end, really doesn't seem so illogical. Murder is a lot trickier, so why is the idea of murder being bad so hard to pin down? We have a whole pile of problems when discussing this, a few would be:
1. Our bias towards "murder = bad" makes us pretty poor judges
2. We don't really know when we turned from pretty standard "compassionate" monkeys into warmongering Homo sapiens
3. There are underlying problems when drawing lines between evolutionary psychology and our behaviour of domination over other humans for gain
4. Evolutionary psychology is like 99% fake, don't listen to Jordan Peterson
5. It is hard to fully determine the scope of how the social perception of murder evolved over centuries (our date is just to inconclusive)
6. The "The Big Government says we need to sacrifice the children" VS. "The Simple Guy who has his own morals but can't follow them because of a lack of power" - This means that murder could generally be evolutionarily unfavourable and most humans see murder as an evil, but those few that are willing to use it shape public perception by gaining the power to write history (if everyone plays nice, you are going to have one heck of a time, being the only cheater in the room)
There are a lot more of these arguments, all well better conveyed then I could ever do it, it's an interesting subject, would really recommend looking into this, though don't expect any conclusive answers. My personal stance on the thing is:
Human babies first and foremost don't want to kill each other, so the idea of murder has to either be learned through outside influence or comes natural later in life. I think that there inevitably came a day, when one guy killed another guy, after which there will always be a social perception of this event which forms cultural moral norms. In other words, I am of the "Squirrels kill each other, but only very rarely"-faction, humans unlike squirrels just form cultural perception afterwards which from there on out shapes how we see murder, how we kill each other and so on. In other words, murder is pretty much completely a social construct.
That's how I see it, hope this made any sense, if it didn't, it's probably because of those damn squirrels, I tell ya, they are pure evil, which most definitely isn't a social construct. Have a good one.
1. Our bias towards "murder = bad" makes us pretty poor judges
2. We don't really know when we turned from pretty standard "compassionate" monkeys into warmongering Homo sapiens
3. There are underlying problems when drawing lines between evolutionary psychology and our behaviour of domination over other humans for gain
4. Evolutionary psychology is like 99% fake, don't listen to Jordan Peterson
5. It is hard to fully determine the scope of how the social perception of murder evolved over centuries (our date is just to inconclusive)
6. The "The Big Government says we need to sacrifice the children" VS. "The Simple Guy who has his own morals but can't follow them because of a lack of power" - This means that murder could generally be evolutionarily unfavourable and most humans see murder as an evil, but those few that are willing to use it shape public perception by gaining the power to write history (if everyone plays nice, you are going to have one heck of a time, being the only cheater in the room)
There are a lot more of these arguments, all well better conveyed then I could ever do it, it's an interesting subject, would really recommend looking into this, though don't expect any conclusive answers. My personal stance on the thing is:
Human babies first and foremost don't want to kill each other, so the idea of murder has to either be learned through outside influence or comes natural later in life. I think that there inevitably came a day, when one guy killed another guy, after which there will always be a social perception of this event which forms cultural moral norms. In other words, I am of the "Squirrels kill each other, but only very rarely"-faction, humans unlike squirrels just form cultural perception afterwards which from there on out shapes how we see murder, how we kill each other and so on. In other words, murder is pretty much completely a social construct.
That's how I see it, hope this made any sense, if it didn't, it's probably because of those damn squirrels, I tell ya, they are pure evil, which most definitely isn't a social construct. Have a good one.
| @Lucianael Thank you for all that you shared, I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to present your perspective on the topic. Multiple people, including yourself, have stated, "morality is a social construct", no offense, but in my mind this sounds like circular reasoning, 'Societies have morality, so morality must be a social construct', but my question is about the origin and basis for the 'concept of morality' itself in nature, before 'societies' existed, why would this concept ever enter the brain of an animal named 'humans' with their natural behavior in the wild. Also, I think we have two different perspectives on the 'concept of morality'. It seems in your perspective, morality comes from how animals act in nature, but in my perspective, morality is something that is to prevent how animals act in nature, meaning to stop animals from acting how they would in the natural wild, which would make morality an intended self-imposed restraint and restriction to stop their own natural behavior. To use your squirrels example, yes these animals do not kill each other, but many squirrels steal from each other and fight over their food resources, so that would be what I call the natural behavior of these animals int the wild. However, 'morality' would be that one day a squirrel living in the wild, decided to stop stealing nuts from another squirrel, because, for some unknown reason, they considered it to be a 'wrong/bad' behavior, meaning that there would also be 'right/good' behavior too. But that is not all, then one day, this same squirrel said to other squirrels, "You should not steal from each other, it is bad, we should be good", which causes the other squirrels to either consider this for themselves or to ignore it altogether, making it a free will choice by each individual squirrel to purposely restrict and restrain themselves from their natural behavior in the wild. In the case of humans, 'morality' is used to prevent their natural behavior in the wild, a restriction and restraint on themselves (or others), for example, to stop humans from stealing from other humans. As for the 'concept of a god/God', this too is like the concept of 'morality', I find no logical explanation for the origin and basis in nature. With all due respect, my dog doesn't know what lightning is and he is sure afraid of it, but my dog does not one day bow down, worship, pray, sacrifice, do rituals, and believe the lightning has senses, consciousness, power, and can affect their life in some way. Someone might argue, "Well humans are different than squirrels and dogs", but then this brings up the 'concept of consciousness', which again I find no logical explanation for the origin and basis in nature. Animals have different brain sizes and have different behaviors, but animals in nature do not have behaviors that are equal to 'human consciousness'. Hence my original starting point ... If humans are or were animals like all the rest on planet earth, then why would a human act any differently than how animals act in nature? |
ejleonJun 30, 6:58 PM
Note: I don’t lazily watch 3-5 episodes, biasedly compare to other anime, or unfairly judge by surface level similarities. With every anime I start, I watch the entire series, both Japanese Sub & English Dub, then judge each anime based on what they present, to give an honest and fair rating.  |
talisism said: @SimplyBrazen wrong, these are evolved traits that serve an important purpose even today. The only purpose they serve is to help us survive more easily in a society. |
 |
Reply to Cobalt-Blue
Lucianael said:
@Cobalt-Blue What we have to take into account here is simply, that whether or not a choice is made consensual is only meaningful is consent can be given. For example, you wouldn't be talking about consent in relation to minors. You have to acknowledge how one's role within culture can limit one's ability to self govern. If social norms teach you that you have no freedom, you are probably a lot more likely to agree to being part of a harem. The problem is, simply, that Mushoku Tensei's world is sexist, just as our history of harems. This does not mean that all polygamous relationships within Mushoku Tensei are inherently sexist, but the fact that the show does not address the social oppression of Roxy and Sylphiette very much is sexist, because ignoring the ties to sexist oppression in historical harems, as we see it in Mushoku Tensei is wrong. We constantly see how sexist this fictional world is, and we know Rudeus to be sexist scum, the fact that the show doesn't even take into consideration how this is fertile ground for this going wrong. If you don't acknowledge this in the context of a sexist world which instils the ideal of women needing to be submissive, you very much are doing a sexism. What Mushoku Tensei is ignoring here, is basically how our idea of relationships is formed through social construction and in this case, this construct is a product of a sexist patriarchal society, because Reudeus doesn't have a Polygamous relationship, he has a harem.
@Cobalt-Blue What we have to take into account here is simply, that whether or not a choice is made consensual is only meaningful is consent can be given. For example, you wouldn't be talking about consent in relation to minors. You have to acknowledge how one's role within culture can limit one's ability to self govern. If social norms teach you that you have no freedom, you are probably a lot more likely to agree to being part of a harem. The problem is, simply, that Mushoku Tensei's world is sexist, just as our history of harems. This does not mean that all polygamous relationships within Mushoku Tensei are inherently sexist, but the fact that the show does not address the social oppression of Roxy and Sylphiette very much is sexist, because ignoring the ties to sexist oppression in historical harems, as we see it in Mushoku Tensei is wrong. We constantly see how sexist this fictional world is, and we know Rudeus to be sexist scum, the fact that the show doesn't even take into consideration how this is fertile ground for this going wrong. If you don't acknowledge this in the context of a sexist world which instils the ideal of women needing to be submissive, you very much are doing a sexism. What Mushoku Tensei is ignoring here, is basically how our idea of relationships is formed through social construction and in this case, this construct is a product of a sexist patriarchal society, because Reudeus doesn't have a Polygamous relationship, he has a harem.
That makes sense now. It's still a Harem and not Poly. It's just a Harem with well written characters. Rudeus is sexist by default because he never spent any time around women before reincarnation. He never had a legit connection with any of them until now which is understandable.
I like that you challenge that they can't consent to the Harem because society says they're supposed to be submissive to men. Even if they aren't consenting to the Harem, they both consented to him individually and surely they're able to do that. So doesn't that undermine your argument? They both wanna be with him and if that's the stipulation attached to it Roxy and Sylphy are pretty accepting of it. A relationship is all about compromise and you're not going to be 100% happy about everything even in a monogamous egalitarian relationship. Sylphy being an Elf may have a lower sex drive than Roxy. So It could give Sylphy some room to breath while Rudy can spend time with Roxy.
So it just combines both of their consents to a Harem agreement. While it may be implied, Rudy also doesn't explicitly say that they can't have other partners as well but I guess they choose not to because of patriarchy/social norms. But also, unlike Liliyah, Roxy and Sylphy are powerful mages and don't necessarily need to rely on Rudy for finances or protection, as they both have places to go if they wanted to leave the situation although again, the kids complicates things.
| @Cobalt-Blue To make that consent point a bit clearer, I'm gonna use a bit of a weird example, let's look at the Hitler Youth. At the end of WWII, when Germany was basically already defeated, Hitler hid away in his bunker in Berlin and sent out all the troops he got, just to live another day. This went on to the point where he sent thousands of kids to die. These children were forced to march to their death and none of them protested. So why did this happen? Why didn't these kids turn on their dictator? The simple answer: because of ideology. They had been told all their life, that there is no greater honour then to die for the Führer, he was basically a god to them. I would go as far as to say, if they were asked to die for Hitler, a lot of them would have consented to it. This is why consent becomes meaningless if a society's values limit its people's ability to think for themselves. We know that women in Mushoku Tensei live in a world where sexism is common place, their values and identity are characterized by their societies expectations. We know that Mushoku Tensei as a setting is sexist, we know that the relationship of Rudeus, Roxy and Sylphy is a harem, if you want to make this work, you are going to need to give a really good reason for it. You can technically have a relationship like this work out in a setting like Mushoku Tensei's, but you have to make clear that this is the case despite the cultural norms and discrimination, not because of it. If you show the viewers a sexist world, then tell them that the protagonist lives in a harem with two wives, all three being completely fine with this, you have to give a reason for why this is the case, otherwise you make it sound like this is the norm. There simply is no good reason for why this should work like this, unless all women in Rudeus harem have no own goals and aspirations apart from Rudeus, something we actually see. For some reason, they all just love this guy, even though he practically is still a piece of shit. This is the problem here, having a polygamous relationship is completely okay, but in this case you need to show why it works out, just because there are so many things going against it, if you don't show why this works, you make it seem like systemic patriarchal oppression would work, which it obviously does not. There is a whole world of women who suffer from abuse and discrimination, who are being sold as slaves, who are nothing but objects to be owned and traded, but you hear none of that, because it is more important to show how much the two most important female characters like Rudeus, that is sexism. Ignoring the oppression and to show this as a functional status quo sells a broken system as a whole one. |
| Hello, please don't take anything I say as an insult, it is not meant as an attack against you as a person. If I directly disagree with you, that does not mean I think you are wrong, I am just more correct. |
Reply to ejleon
@Lucianael Thank you for all that you shared, I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to present your perspective on the topic.
Multiple people, including yourself, have stated, "morality is a social construct", no offense, but in my mind this sounds like circular reasoning, 'Societies have morality, so morality must be a social construct', but my question is about the origin and basis for the 'concept of morality' itself in nature, before 'societies' existed, why would this concept ever enter the brain of an animal named 'humans' with their natural behavior in the wild.
Also, I think we have two different perspectives on the 'concept of morality'. It seems in your perspective, morality comes from how animals act in nature, but in my perspective, morality is something that is to prevent how animals act in nature, meaning to stop animals from acting how they would in the natural wild, which would make morality an intended self-imposed restraint and restriction to stop their own natural behavior.
To use your squirrels example, yes these animals do not kill each other, but many squirrels steal from each other and fight over their food resources, so that would be what I call the natural behavior of these animals int the wild. However, 'morality' would be that one day a squirrel living in the wild, decided to stop stealing nuts from another squirrel, because, for some unknown reason, they considered it to be a 'wrong/bad' behavior, meaning that there would also be 'right/good' behavior too. But that is not all, then one day, this same squirrel said to other squirrels, "You should not steal from each other, it is bad, we should be good", which causes the other squirrels to either consider this for themselves or to ignore it altogether, making it a free will choice by each individual squirrel to purposely restrict and restrain themselves from their natural behavior in the wild.
In the case of humans, 'morality' is used to prevent their natural behavior in the wild, a restriction and restraint on themselves (or others), for example, to stop humans from stealing from other humans.
As for the 'concept of a god/God', this too is like the concept of 'morality', I find no logical explanation for the origin and basis in nature. With all due respect, my dog doesn't know what lightning is and he is sure afraid of it, but my dog does not one day bow down, worship, pray, sacrifice, do rituals, and believe the lightning has senses, consciousness, power, and can affect their life in some way.
Someone might argue, "Well humans are different than squirrels and dogs", but then this brings up the 'concept of consciousness', which again I find no logical explanation for the origin and basis in nature. Animals have different brain sizes and have different behaviors, but animals in nature do not have behaviors that are equal to 'human consciousness'.
Hence my original starting point ...
If humans are or were animals like all the rest on planet earth, then why would a human act any differently than how animals act in nature?
Multiple people, including yourself, have stated, "morality is a social construct", no offense, but in my mind this sounds like circular reasoning, 'Societies have morality, so morality must be a social construct', but my question is about the origin and basis for the 'concept of morality' itself in nature, before 'societies' existed, why would this concept ever enter the brain of an animal named 'humans' with their natural behavior in the wild.
Also, I think we have two different perspectives on the 'concept of morality'. It seems in your perspective, morality comes from how animals act in nature, but in my perspective, morality is something that is to prevent how animals act in nature, meaning to stop animals from acting how they would in the natural wild, which would make morality an intended self-imposed restraint and restriction to stop their own natural behavior.
To use your squirrels example, yes these animals do not kill each other, but many squirrels steal from each other and fight over their food resources, so that would be what I call the natural behavior of these animals int the wild. However, 'morality' would be that one day a squirrel living in the wild, decided to stop stealing nuts from another squirrel, because, for some unknown reason, they considered it to be a 'wrong/bad' behavior, meaning that there would also be 'right/good' behavior too. But that is not all, then one day, this same squirrel said to other squirrels, "You should not steal from each other, it is bad, we should be good", which causes the other squirrels to either consider this for themselves or to ignore it altogether, making it a free will choice by each individual squirrel to purposely restrict and restrain themselves from their natural behavior in the wild.
In the case of humans, 'morality' is used to prevent their natural behavior in the wild, a restriction and restraint on themselves (or others), for example, to stop humans from stealing from other humans.
As for the 'concept of a god/God', this too is like the concept of 'morality', I find no logical explanation for the origin and basis in nature. With all due respect, my dog doesn't know what lightning is and he is sure afraid of it, but my dog does not one day bow down, worship, pray, sacrifice, do rituals, and believe the lightning has senses, consciousness, power, and can affect their life in some way.
Someone might argue, "Well humans are different than squirrels and dogs", but then this brings up the 'concept of consciousness', which again I find no logical explanation for the origin and basis in nature. Animals have different brain sizes and have different behaviors, but animals in nature do not have behaviors that are equal to 'human consciousness'.
Hence my original starting point ...
If humans are or were animals like all the rest on planet earth, then why would a human act any differently than how animals act in nature?
| @ejleon I think you slightly misunderstood my views on morality, I at least didn't mean to imply, that I see animalistic impulses as morals, but rather that our morals are a product of these impulses with a bit of human consciousness sprinkled in. Either way, while I understand in what way the question of how and why consciousness in humans developed is fascinating, but it is sadly one of those "how did matter come into existence"-things If the world has a start, then how did something emerge from nothing, how could nothing ever turn into something? If the world does not have a start and has been here forever, then, well, why is it at all? These are quite fascinating questions, but it is hard to imagine that we will ever crack them, luckily your question is at least a bit more feasible. In psychology, there is this concept called "The Hard Problem of consciousness" and it asks the question of how our brain turns the world around us into experiences. When you see the blue sky, you are seeing the photons that fall into your eyes, from there this information is sent to your brain, but how does your brain turn these signals into actually experiences? How can these photons be blue, how can we have a distinct impression of how the wind feels, the air smells, and the sun feels on our skin? This is the hard problem of consciousness, and it is fundamental to understand what consciousness even is, if we don't solve this bit, we can't even begin to ask why consciousness developed in the first place. What we know is that at some point in our evolutionary history, we gained the ability to communicate with our peers in a more intelligent and active way than all other species to ever have been recorded. This gave us a tremendous advantage as a species and allowed us to dominate the world, but why we even came to be the way we are now, is just a question too big for our still rather small monkey brains to answer. It could be that by sheer coincidence one genetic mutation just gave us this ability, maybe we are just so rare that there never was another species like us, maybe they exist, and we just don't understand how consciousness works in other animals. These are fascinating questions, but for now, they will most likely remain as questions nonetheless. I hope this was helpful, or at the least the tiniest bit informative, have a good one. ^^ |
LucianaelJul 30, 4:25 AM
| Hello, please don't take anything I say as an insult, it is not meant as an attack against you as a person. If I directly disagree with you, that does not mean I think you are wrong, I am just more correct. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Mushoku Tensei II: Isekai Ittara Honki Dasu Part 2 Episode 1 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )felixsifuri - Apr 7 |
270 |
by rakeAnime
»»
7 hours ago |
|
Poll: » Mushoku Tensei II: Isekai Ittara Honki Dasu Part 2 Episode 12 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )anime-prime - Jun 30 |
396 |
by Crusin_King
»»
9 hours ago |
|
Poll: » Mushoku Tensei II: Isekai Ittara Honki Dasu Part 2 Episode 10 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Homura24 - Jun 16 |
617 |
by sevley
»»
Nov 22, 4:32 PM |
|
» Why do people defend Rudeus? ( 1 2 3 4 )Leon888 - May 16 |
187 |
by nick533
»»
Nov 17, 8:24 AM |
|
Poll: » Mushoku Tensei II: Isekai Ittara Honki Dasu Part 2 Episode 7 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 )V1P3R0P - May 26 |
150 |
by Davidcartoons
»»
Nov 3, 4:08 PM |