Famous Kenshi and Sword Sainthood...

[Fudo-Shin]

Is our image of famous Kenshi distorted through the passage of time...Are the stories we hear about them true? Or do we see them as something they were not?...This follows on from another thread in which Musashi was likened to be no more than a serial killer, other exponents of the Arts refer to him as a Kensei (Sword Saint).

If Mochida Sensei was born 300 years earlier (before film etc), would we hear stories about how he defeated "X" amount of men with his Ki alone? And if he took part in duels of that time (sometimes ending in death) would we see him in a different light also?

[neko kenshi]

I'd say it all has to do with the context of the time. If any of us were born in Musashi's day, we probably wouldn't have a problem with killing either. If Musashi were born today, he probably wouldn't kill. When viewing historical figures, it's important to consider their society. Not sure if that really addressed teh question, but that's my two cents.

[Kenshi]

People who kill other people, even under the heaviest of justifications, should probably not be esteemed for doing so. Justification or not, most people tend to be remorseful after the fact. Those that dont are the exception and are probably mentally unfit. Then or now.

You certainly cannot say "it was fine to kill people a few centuries ago but it isnt now" because it wasnt/isnt. That argument is too simple. It discounts the fact that we are 100% the same psychologically and physically now as we were then (whenever then was). Society has changed rapidly, but humans have not and do not.

Killing someone to advance a selfish spirtual path is, I think, a pretty low justification. Killing people for money, fame, profit, has a higher justification and - Im guessing (its impossible to know the truth) - this is what was behind the so called "musha shugyo" of so many swordsmen of old.

All koryu have a brand to sell. They cant go about saying "hey, the guy who founded our ryu honed his skills by murdering people" so they make their history and their brand more palatable over time. Where there are holes they fill them. Over time a mythology is made. People see only what they want to. They are obviously the people with the least objective view on the matter. I believe many koryu act in very cult-like manner... but thats another discussion.

[neko kenshi]

I don't think it's so simple as to say that human psychology hasn't changed and be done with it. There's countless examples of how our morals are dictated largely, if not entirely, by our surroundings and upbringing. Take slavery. You could have been born in the southern part of America just 150 years ago, and you'd be just fine with slavery. In fact, you'd fight a war to protect it. But having grown up today, you're probably very against it. It's the same with duels. Even in western society, duels were fine and dandy for a long time, and probably much more so in Japan. The point is, if you grew up with it, it doesn't seem so bad.

[Kenzan]

People who kill other people, even under the heaviest of justifications, should probably not be esteemed for doing so.


Death and killing, historically, are a part of our nature as human beings.
Without it, society, civilization, and probably you yourself would not exist.
You can only have the luxury to condemn killing as an immoral act because others have done so in the past that you may even have the freedom and the free time to even think of such questions.
It is also probably true to say that you live in a part of the world were killing may not necessarily be an option in order to survive.
The past is the past, and you cannot change it, nor can you judge it.
You can only learn from it.



You certainly cannot say "it was fine to kill people a few centuries ago but it isnt now" because it wasnt/isnt. That argument is too simple.


It is illogical as well as supremely arrogant to judge morality of the past by your own personal feelings; as your own morality is a reflection of your own present environment, so is ethics itself, as it always has been, a construct with temporal inflection.



It discounts the fact that we are 100% the same psychologically and physically now as we were then (whenever then was).


This statement is illogical as well as quite incorrect. A bit of honest research into the matter will ultimately reveal why.
Good luck with that.

[JSchmidt]

Is our image of famous Kenshi distorted through the passage of time...Are the stories we hear about them true? Or do we see them as something they were not?...This follows on from another thread in which Musashi was likened to be no more than a serial killer, other exponents of the Arts refer to him as a Kensei (Sword Saint).


I think you answered your own question and Musashi is probably the best example. Some people even claim that he's a mythical figure, whose exploits is a combination of several different characters.
But as George points out, it's very hard to discuss without stepping on anyones toes.

[ScottUK]

You can't do anything these days without stepping on someone's toes...


People who kill other people, even under the heaviest of justifications, should probably not be esteemed for doing so. Justification or not, most people tend to be remorseful after the fact. Those that dont are the exception and are probably mentally unfit. Then or now.Sorry, no. Do I look at pensioners and think they should be shot for defending our nation? They are esteemed for doing such an act - and there is no defending a country without killing.


All koryu have a brand to sell.Then you have no idea about Niten Ichi Ryu and the mindset of the current soke. He uses his holiday allocation to teach us when we visit, and goes to significant trouble to do so. In return he will accept zero payment, which is embarrassing to us, representatives of Capitalist England. I have had to snatch the food & drinks bill out of a waitress's hand in order to get it before he does.

His actions sell his ryu, not Musashi.


They cant go about saying "hey, the guy who founded our ryu honed his skills by murdering people" so they make their history and their brand more palatable over time. Where there are holes they fill them. Over time a mythology is made. People see only what they want to. They are obviously the people with the least objective view on the matter. I believe many koryu act in very cult-like manner... but thats another discussion.Musashi was a good swordsman and an excellent strategist. He killed a few (!) people while testing his skill during his youth and then in older age he realised he didn't need to kill in order to prove his technique. His ryuha was passed from student to student and has survived to this day. In his old age he discovered art, calligraphy, sculpture and a ton of other stuff he was good at. Thus, 'Sword Saint'...

As for Koryu cults, Musashi is important to us as he was the originator of what we do. He's not some mythical figure to us. Keiko with the Soke is more important.

As for Musashi the killer? We can all be forgiven our percieved errors over a long enough time period. No doubt George Dubya will get an aircraft carrier named after him like his old man did (http://www.nn.northropgrumman.com/bush/ship.html)...

[gir]

Just my 2cents worth.

Trying to interperet Historic events/individuals given todays Morals and norms is a bit like beating your head against a wall. Its an almost idiotic thing to do. Sure you may break a wall but so what? People act in a manner that seems right to them at that time. You can't judge another culture even today against your own. Its a ludicrous thing to try and do. Imposing your own moral and ethical beliefs by judging others based on them is one of the biggest roots of evil this world has. Entire countries go to war these days STILL based on this stupid and idiotic belief that they know better than sommeone else based on Moral Belief/Race/Etc.

You can only look at someone's deeds in relation to the norm of the day and in the cultrure in the day. Trying to do otherwise is biggoted.

This is not to say that the origional question is aimed in this manner but arguments about this type of topic are. Who are we to say that they were little more than glorified merderers? What will humanity say about the actions of our own countries/individuals in 1000 years? Evolution of Ideas, morals, cultures means that we cannot answer this question, much like we cannot answer the original question posed without trying to place our world onto the one where the acts took place.

[Sakari]

Sorry, no. Do I look at pensioners and think they should be shot for defending our nation? They are esteemed for doing such an act - and there is no defending a country without killing.


Are veterans esteemed for the actual pull of the trigger or putting their own lives at risk for the common, good, cause? I would think that latter is more accurate. The actual killing would be considered a regrettable but necessary act, not something to be praised.

As for the whole issue of ethics in maiming somebody with a stick in 17th(?) century Japan: I do agree that making moral judgements about something that happened in the distant past and place with ouer own set of beliefs is not clear cut. We could claim, and I think that George at least hints at such a claim, that there is a built-in mental disposition against killing others and persons that do not exhibit this disposition are mentally ill regardless of the era in question. On the other hand this, even if it would be true, does not help very much in making statements about morals.

One way of furthering the discussion would be to consider the attitude to death and killing at the time. It is not altogether clear to me that actions of the person in question matched even with the sentiments of the time.

[Martijn]

I despise the Samurai that went around and searching for fights and triumphantly killing. I think that they led distorted lives and that it’s wrong for them to be admired. They left nothing.

[neko kenshi]

We could claim, and I think that George at least hints at such a claim, that there is a built-in mental disposition against killing others and persons that do not exhibit this disposition are mentally ill regardless of the era in question.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if there was an innate objection to killing humans embedded in our instincts, however, as clearly demonstrated by history, this is something easily overcome by upbringing. I don't think I need to come up with any examples of people who were brought up thinking killing is fine (or killing a certain group is fine) given their abundance. The very fact that Musashi was exalted to hero status shows that he wasn't opposing the morals dictated by his society.

[Rob W.]

Looking at more recent and culturally accessible legends like Davey Crockett and Wyatt Earp (for Americans, sorry I don't know any Australian folk heroes) there are stories known to be false but accepted as part of the "legend" of the character. Over time I think the popular conception of a person becomes more powerful and in some ways more important than the verifiable literal facts of their lives. Place this phenomenon in a time where people didn't have access to multiple sources of historical documentation or instant long distance communication and...

On Musashi, there's an expertly researched biography by Kenji Tokitsu called Miyamoto Mushashi, His life and writings (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&endeca=1&isbn=1590300459&itm=9). It compares documentation written by Musashi's contemporaries and examines the historical reality and legendization (?) of his life. It's a great book, highly recommended.

As for the serial killer argument, I believe we assume much more of our culture and morals are "inherent in all humans" than is actually the case. I was reading an anthropology textbook that mentioned how Maasai create little play families when they're around 8 that include sexual relationships, which seems horrific through our cultural lens, but is perfectly natural and in some ways essential in their society.


...Its a ludicrous thing to try and do. Imposing your own moral and ethical beliefs by judging others based on them is one of the biggest roots of evil this world has. Entire countries go to war these days STILL based on this stupid and idiotic belief that they know better than someone else based on Moral Belief/Race/Etc.

That's what I'm sayin.

[Sakari]

I was reading an anthropology textbook that mentioned how Maasai create little play families when they're around 8 that include sexual relationships, which seems horrific through our cultural lens, but is perfectly natural and in some ways essential in their society.


Do they suffer as a result?

Taking the relativist stance makes all moral judgements impossible - you lose the ability to claim that something is bad or good. This is not very satisfactory result as we must make judgements of desirable and undesirable actions constantly. On the other hand we seem to cope quite well with the unfoundedness of other knowledge.

[Kenzan]

In the case of Musashi's time, I think this may add perspective:

1. Duels would be and could be and needed to be officially sanctioned, otherwise, yes, it was murder.

2. Revenge killings could also be sanctioned/licensed.

3. It is my understanding that duels of this kind generally were fought with Shinken Shobu style, and often to the death.

4. Because of the rigid caste structure of Shi-no-ko-sho, unless you were a very wealthy merchant or favored scholar, the only real way for a man to advance in station was recognition by others in his martial prowess.
The people Musashi supposedly killed were not just some random people on the street as far as I know, but rather, people who's job it was to engage in killing themselves, by either keeping the peace, or protection of the people from war. They were, in fact, other warriors. A warriors' primary job is to kill, is it not?

That said, if the general consensus from that time and culture was that killing in that instance was wrong, then why was it:

a.) Sanctioned.
b.) Allowed that dueling be primarily engaged in with live blades, and in the case of the loser being a Ryu-ha head, his schools possibly closed or otherwise disbanded?

So was Musashi and others of his time engaging in "murder" or "serial killing" as has been suggested in another thread? Or were they simply trying to advance their station and make a name for themselves by following established and accepted rules set forth by the Government at the time?

Again, it is pointless and arrogant to place our own temporal values on a culture of another time and place.

[Kenshi]

Got a hangover induced headache... its great for putting life in perspective. Its raining heavily too. Urgh.

I will leave this thread to better minds than mine.... as Sakari noted from my earlier post, my argument was going to be an evolutionary one (not moral... dont even think I used the word?). I will leave it there though (sore head,other worries,etc).


This statement is illogical as well as quite incorrect. A bit of honest research into the matter will ultimately reveal why.
Good luck with that.

Thats a pretty sharp knife you carry with you!! Can you point me to some good books on the matter? Im seriously interesed in this. Im a Pinker/Dawkins type of guy, so it will do me some good to expand my horizons. I currently still disagree with you, btw, but im open to discussion (are you?). Even if I carried a knife I wouldnt use one.

---------------

Koryu-as-a-cults: not aimed at anybody or anygroup, so defence not-needed. Basically, I could make a strong argument and probably show evidence for this. Any group that has a founder, a leader (soke, usually infallible), (usually mystical) writings used in a bible-like fashion (eg 兵法家伝書), initiation rites, (sometimes sycophantic) followers, etc etc etc can fall into this category. You can even see evidence for this online.

Anyway... I need to rehydrate.

[JSchmidt]

George, I tend to agree with most people here. Society's defintion of whats right/wrong/acceptable/etc has changed over the years while Musashi (if the stories are real), may have been 'unrefined' by the standards of the current society, I don't think he was immoral.

[Kenshi]

I don't think he was immoral.

Im actually not arguing with anyone. I made a deliberatly contentious remark and people started getting mad!! In fact, I was pretty suprised at the reaction of some of the people. Its not as if anyone knew him personally or he is someones dad.

Everyone seems to have ignored this bit:


Im deliberalty being devils advocate here in case its not obvious!! (from here (http://www.kendo-world.com/forum/showpost.php?p=269238&postcount=23))

At the end of the day I still stand by this:


I reckon in a kendo situation I could take Musashi out.

[ScottUK]

Naah, we didn't ignore it - we were just up for a scrap... :D

As for the 'kendo situation', he'd just turn up after the shiai and stab you while you were strugglin' with your bogu in Mos Burger.

[Kenshi]

As for the 'kendo situation', he'd just turn up after the shiai and stab you while you were strugglin' with your bogu in Mos Burger.

How did you know that I frequent Mos Burger post shiai? Can you tell me what I usually order?

[ScottUK]

How did you know that I frequent Mos Burger post shiai? Can you tell me what I usually order?Dunno what they serve. I went there once and the meal was tiny so I went to KFC instead and blanked the Mos Burger incident out of my mind...

[JSchmidt]

Dunno what they serve. I went there once and the meal was tiny so I went to KFC instead and blanked the Mos Burger incident out of my mind...

You went to KFC whilst in Japan?. That's almost as bad as going to Japan without bringing your bogu!

[ScottUK]

You went to KFC whilst in Japan?. That's almost as bad as going to Japan without bringing your bogu!Hehe nonsense. Every breakfast was McDonald's (I hate jp breakfasts) but most evenings were decent food with the boss (with occasional lapses into those crappy family restaurants)...

As for bogu, I would have had to make Kenshi wait on an island for three hours before turning up - he'd be pissed with me.

[JSchmidt]

Hehe nonsense. Every breakfast was McDonald's (I hate jp breakfasts) but most evenings were decent food with the boss (with occasional lapses into those crappy family restaurants)...

So not only did you go to KFC, you also went to McD's every day? A shame considering the many decent coffee-shops/cafe/breakfast restaurants there is, which are far better than any of the crap they serve in McD's.:)

[ReKru]

George, I tend to agree with most people here. Society's defintion of whats right/wrong/acceptable/etc has changed over the years while Musashi (if the stories are real), may have been 'unrefined' by the standards of the current society, I don't think he was immoral.

Changed for the better or the worse?
Not so sure about that any more.
Sure, we have high standards on paper, but how does reality look like.

[JSchmidt]

Changed for the better or the worse?
Not so sure about that any more.
Sure, we have high standards on paper, but how does reality look like.

Oh, we've become a lot better at killing people in great numbers, but at the same time I think that the notion what is 'basic rights' has become a lot better, which (in theory) should prevents us from doing so.

Morals are, unfortunately, relative...

[ReKru]

Oh, we've become a lot better at killing people in great numbers, but at the same time I think that the notion what is 'basic rights' has become a lot better, which (in theory) should prevents us from doing so.

Morals are, unfortunately, relative...

Well, "thou shall not kill" is pretty absolute (it has no 'unless...', does it?) and rather ancient (old testament .. some centuries B.C.?).
We've still not accomplished that most basic right for life.
Might be a bit schmalzy, but I really like this quote from Lord of the Rings: "Many that live deserve death and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then don't be too eager to deal out death in judgement."

[ScottUK]

So not only did you go to KFC, you also went to McD's every day? A shame considering the many decent coffee-shops/cafe/breakfast restaurants there is, which are far better than any of the crap they serve in McD's.:)I don't drink, I don't smoke, do coke etc - McD breakfasts are my only weakness... :)

...and besides, I needed McShit Breakfasts to keep me going for the 10-hr keiko days...

[kartoffelngeist]

Well, "thou shall not kill" is pretty absolute (it has no 'unless...', does it?) and rather ancient (old testament .. some centuries B.C.?).


Depends who you ask. Lots of evangelical pro-death penalty types will tell you that 'thou shalt not murder' is a more accurate translation (which is pish).
Sounds a lot like 'some are more equal than others' IMO...

[Ignatz]

Is a "commandment" from a burning bush binding upon a country that has it's own god(s)?

Or do we just assume that the western judeo christian religion is the one true religion?

If so, then can we just go back to the good old days when the Catholics were the true believers and everyone else was condemned to burn in eternal hellfire? Made it a lot easier if you ask me.

You believe what I believe or you are a heretic and killing you is not a sin.

Back to the original issue, when I was younger I often hung out with Musashi. He was a loud mouthed drunk and he smelled bad. I like to think that my influence helped to civilize him a bit.

[The great I AM]

Back to the original issue, when I was younger I often hung out with Musashi. He was a loud mouthed drunk and he smelled bad. I like to think that my influence helped to civilize him a bit.SNAP! I F#*%ing knew you were older than you told.....

[ReKru]

Is a "commandment" from a burning bush binding upon a country that has it's own god(s)?

Or do we just assume that the western judeo christian religion is the one true religion?

He said "burning bush" .. :cheeky: .

Well, when I said 'we', I was referring to us 'western' guys. Loving god and country and firmly believing in our superiority. :ko:
Doesn't really matter if christianity is the one true religion for everyone, at least for a christian it should be.

edit and p.s.:

You believe what I believe or you are a heretic and killing you is not a sin.

Hmmm.. I guess killing nowadays isn't what it used to be. Guns and bombs miss that personal level of a good swordfight. Plus all that collateral damage ...

[Kenzan]

Can you point me to some good books on the matter? Im seriously interesed in this.

Certainly! :)
You local public library: Social Studies, Anthropology and History.
Preferably something written on works and theories more recent than the first half of the 19th century.

[Kenzan]

How did you know that I frequent Mos Burger post shiai? Can you tell me what I usually order?

A burger.
With extra um...Moss?
:D

Worst.....restaurant.....name....ever! :D

[Rob W.]

Do they suffer as a result?

Well, according to the report I was reading no, not at all. In their society this is a natural process to go through, all the eight to ten year olds living in a sort of little mini village where they have wives and husbands, resolve disputes, and basically learn by imitation how to function in the adult Maasai society. Since they are mentally prepared for it by their culture, and since sex has different values associated with it than in our culture, it's "normal" for them.

When I first read the article I had a visceral negative reaction, because in our society any sex with young humans implies a power differential and horrible harm to the younger person. I'm still sort of grossed out but am willing to accept that maybe what these people do in the context of their society isn't "wrong". It is hard to step outside of what we think of as "natural" and inherent and accept that some of our most deep seated beliefs are created by culture. Reading anthropology anthologies has changed my perception of reality, and has shown me that my idea of "how the world works, this is right and this is wrong" is 95% culturally conditioned. Despite that I think it's essential to follow the guidelines your culture has set down to be able to function within it. Are there some things that are basic and essential in human beings? I think so, but that's another essay.

IMHO this is a little off topic. Back to sword saints.

[Neil Gendzwill]

Hehe nonsense. Every breakfast was McDonald's (I hate jp breakfasts) but most evenings were decent food with the boss (with occasional lapses into those crappy family restaurants)...So not only did you go to KFC, you also went to McD's every day? A shame considering the many decent coffee-shops/cafe/breakfast restaurants there is, which are far better than any of the crap they serve in McD's.:)A couple of English people arguing about the quality of food? Isn't that like the French arguing about the quality of service?

[JSchmidt]

A couple of English people arguing about the quality of food? Isn't that like the French arguing about the quality of service?

A) I live in London, where you can actually get good food B) I'm Danish.

[Kenzan]

I'm Danish.
and I'm Taco.
:D

[Charlie]

Very interesting discussion! I can't remember where I was reading it but the gist of a recent historical study was that the world is less violent today than it's ever been in its history. I know when you look around that might seem hard to believe but if you compare historical periods it might look right.

In response to the original post, I say yes. In another time, the budo experience would have been very different. I liked George's take, too, even though I don't agree with it. Sounds like a good idea to kick around over a couple of beers.

You guys are hitting on a subject dear to my heart: history, comparative history, culture. I've no real answers or great thesis. Rob, sounds like you've done a great deal of thoughtful reading.


Reading anthropology anthologies has changed my perception of reality, and has shown me that my idea of "how the world works, this is right and this is wrong" is 95% culturally conditioned. Despite that I think it's essential to follow the guidelines your culture has set down to be able to function within it. Are there some things that are basic and essential in human beings? I think so, but that's another essay.

Ninety-five percent? I was with you until you got to that number. Surely there are some aspects of the human experience and worldview that exist independently of culture and conditioning? I agree that reading ethnographies and the like are very liberating to one's perspective! Could do with a bit more of that myself, I'm a history reader mostly, biographies and pop history in particular. (I minored in history at school.)

[enkorat]

I think in a lot of ways when we sit in our air conditioned rooms, sitting on our comfortable chairs, and typing on our computer terminals with comfortable anonymity, that its easy to feel morally superior. Compound that by differences in history and culture that seem hidden because we communicate globally because of the internet, and things get complicated.

The idea of death and suicide in Japan is still fundamentally different than the Western perspective. When Musashi was alive, it was a time of social upheaval and a period of constant civil war for a hundred years. Can we even imagine, with our heavily filtered and barely visible wars thousands of miles away conducted by people pushing buttons behind computer terminals what 100 years of hand to hand combat war in your backyard actually was like?

How many of us on this board live in the inner city, where gang wars make life cheap, and death a daily occurance? Life back then was cheap too. For everyone on this board who complains about how "we should train like the olden days", how many actually have trained in an environment where your life meant absolutely nothing and was worthless?

The central premise of kendo that I was taught on the first day and drilled into my head was that kendo is in essence, "kill them before they kill you". Nowadays in our suburban dojos and our university dojos patrolled by security people and their own police force we can nod while eating sushi after practice and drinking beer and say "of course yes, kill them before they kill you" and make all the polite noises, and go home and log on to kendo world and type away at our comfortable moral superiority, when in fact most of us have never really faced in real life with our real life on the line, someone who wanted to kill us.

Debating the difference between murder and "self-defense" is luxury we get to do while sitting in a nice chair drinking a nice ice cold beverage.

[ScottUK]

Cold, harsh post - but necessary, methinks...

[enkorat]

Cold, harsh post - but necessary, methinks...

I'm just being honest. After all I *am* sitting at a computer in a nicely air-conditioned room with a comfortable chair, and I am the first to suggest sushi for lunch after practice at my university dojo which is in a very nice and very unexciting suburban area with an absurdly low crime rate.

I would be the last person who is even remotely qualified to pass judgment on something that happened hundreds of years ago in a foreign country during a century of civil war.

[ScottUK]

My last post wasn't a criticism... :)

[Charlie]

"You must spread some reputation around..." etc. Nice, Ken!

[Oroshi]

"You must spread some reputation around..." etc. Nice, Ken!
Me, too...!

[Rob W.]

Ninety-five percent? I was with you until you got to that number...

OK, that was a bit of hyperbole. I believe there are qualities and attitudes inherent to most human beings regardless of culture, and these are the attitudes most worth cultivating. It seems to me though that in very divergent cultures these attitudes manifest themselves in different ways, especially when you add distant time periods into the mix.


...we can nod while eating sushi after practice and drinking beer and say "of course yes, kill them before they kill you" and make all the polite noises, and go home and log on to kendo world and type away at our comfortable moral superiority, when in fact most of us have never really faced in real life with our real life on the line, someone who wanted to kill us.

About five months ago I was held up at gunpoint outside of my job, by an older drug addict with nothing to lose in a neighborhood most often described as "a bombed out wasteland". I didn't get adrenalined or tearful or scared, just completely clear minded and direct. Everything around me came into pinpoint focus, there was no chatter in my brain, I reacted from the back of my spine and talked slowly while handing the guy my wallet (which was completely empty BTW, he was pissed). I felt like I was acting automatically, it seemed like my actions and words were coming from deep within my back instead of my head with the single purpose of getting away from a gun pressed into my kidneys. I suppose that's the mental state that historical kenshi talk about, facing life and death in a confrontation. It's almost completely foreign to anything I've experienced in a dojo, in normal life or while getting beaten up or fighting in grade school.

I won't say I'm glad it happened, but in retrospect the experience is really interesting and exciting, as an example of what the real spirit of having your life on the line is like. It's a level of focus and determination I'd like to work towards. Disclaimer: do not try to get jumped or shot for the sake of advancing your study of budo.

[Paburo]

imho i think we are missing a big point here and it's what i like to call 'the greatest paradox in kendo/JSA'.

we must have in mind that initially JSA/kenjutsu/ryuuha were actual warfare arts and techniques, not meant to be healthy, fun or flashy. they were meant to be as lethal as possible. in that sense the number of killings, duels won, opponents injured, was probably the top trait too look for. it was probably not looked at all like murder and random killing, but actual proof that the kenshi/ryuu in question was really effective and not just talk.

i'm not gonna go into the whole antropology/moral thing, but i'll just say that nowadays JSA and modern kendo/kenjutsu/iai 'heroes' are measured by other standards. not for actual battlefield victories, duel lethalness and effectiveness or number of human beings killed in combat.

also, i think that is why modern revisions of musashi fiction/biografy/work focus less on the actual human losses and killings and the kenjutsu execution and more on other aspects of his life, more romantic if you may.

[Martijn]

Nevermind.

[Kenzan]

Outside Japan, people think that Bushido is synonymous with hari-kari or sepukku. Actually, the meaning of Bushido is to achieve something in the world and then to be able to throw away this body and to accept death. But this concept is very easily misunderstood. It’s really quite different from just going out and dying. If you fail to achieve something and say “Oh, I must kill myself”, it’s not a very productive way of thinking. Bushido rejects that irresponsible way of thinking. If you have tried to perform some act and failed there is also in Bushido the concept of continuing to live even though you may have to live in shame. If there is a chance to right the wrong you’ve done, then you should do so. This is the real Bushido.

Ok..um..you stole that from somewhere, I almost certain of it.
I just can't from remember where at the moment.
A little help?

[Martijn]

Yeah. It was from that documentary about MJER. I edited my previous post because… I figured it wasn’t really relevant anyway. I apologise about the messup.

[Kenzan]

Yeah. It was from that documentary about MJER. I edited my previous post because… I figured it wasn’t really relevant anyway. I apologise about the messup.

No harm, no foul I say!

Too true no matter the origin!
:)

[michaelm]

Interesting discussion.
Dave Grossman has written a couple of books on the <off>subject.
On Combat (http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Dave-Grossman/dp/0964920514)
On Killing (http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316330116/)
A little dry reading if I remember, with some stretched conclusions, but he's done the dirty work of research, statistics, and interviews for us.

These were recommended by my brother, ex-Army Ranger Sgt, and now last surviving member of his original team (all KIA). We shared a house while I was going to college up in Seattle and he was stationed at Fort Lewis. He would sometimes be gone for many weeks at a time and when he would return, seemed to always be very distant and in a solemn mood. I knew he couldn't talk about it and needed time to re-enter reality. I also knew that my "playing" at kendo and various budo did not compare.

-Michael

[Kenshi]

Interesting stuff:

Col. Grossman's first book, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society is an analysis of the physiological processes involved with killing another human being. In it, he reveals evidence that most people have a phobic-level response to violence, and that soldiers need to be specifically trained to kill. In addition, he details the physical effects that violent stresses produce on humans, ranging from tunnel vision, changes in sonic perception, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

and

The book reveals that contrary to popular perception, the majority of soldiers in war do not ever fire their weapons and that this is due to an innate resistance to killing. Realizing this the military has instituted training measures to break down this resistance and has successfully raised soldier's firing rates to over ninety percent. However there are great psychological costs that weigh heavily on the combat soldier who kills.

His website. (http://www.killology.com/)

[ReKru]

The book reveals that contrary to popular perception, the majority of soldiers in war do not ever fire their weapons and that this is due to an innate resistance to killing.


I heard/read that one before, but I'm not so sure that's the entire picture.
There's also a quite big resistance to getting killed that you have to overcome. In order to shoot at other folks, you actually have to leave the safety of your shelter and you're probably getting shot at.

"do not even fire their weapons" is also a very blank statement.
I served in the artillery (MLRS system) - can't tell you how easy it is to fire a missle with the potential to kill hundreds, compared to pointing your gun (even if it's loaded with blanks) at a clearly visible target (that might shoot back), compared to arming your knife and charging at 'the enemy'.

[Hisham]

Realizing this the military has instituted training measures to break down this resistance and has successfully raised soldier's firing rates to over ninety percent. However there are great psychological costs that weigh heavily on the combat soldier who kills.


There are conspiracy theories that drug research can be part of those resistance breaking measures (see Jacob's ladder)

[Charlie]

How far back in history does Grossman's book go? Does he have any data on historic warfare, perhaps the Civil War? Be interesting to see how historical man compares to modern man in this regard. If we accept Grossman's premise and can find that historical man is as phobic about killing as modern man that would shed a very penetrating light on history: i.e., all those jousting knights, all those sword-swinging samurai, all those Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Boers, etc. etc. - did they have an aversion to what they were doing?

I don't know. Michael, is your brother atypical? Has he been psychologically adjusted to the soldier's lifestyle? I have a very good friend who until recently was career military and he's a bit of a nut but I wouldn't say he had to be conditioned in any way to do his job: he liked the action. Yes, he had some dark nights of the soul, but for the most part he liked what he did. I've met several military people like this.

[enkorat]

Hi Rob,

Wow that's pretty intense. I'm always surprised by the breadth of experiences of people here on kendo world.

One of my points though that I was trying to get across is that a debate between self-defense and murder only happens in the luxury of safety and not in the moment. When you describe the moment of hyper-clarity, which feels very similar to the time I was in a car accident, were you thinking of the "immediate now" and surviving the moment, or did you start having an internal debate about the morality of your actions as the gun was being pointed at you?

As for the people who are bringing up the idea that actually killing does have a great deal of resistance, I'd like to offer a counter example.

When I was in college we watched the filmed record of Dr. Stanley Milgram's experiments in the 1960s. This is the very famous (and now completely forbidden) experiment on people how they obey orders. In this experiment, men were brought into a room with a machine with a dial and buttons. The experimenter, who was dressed in a physician's coat explained to the subject that the machine controlled both the intensity and frequency of electric shocks given to a third person. The dial on the machine was labeled at one end with something like "DANGER FATAL", or something very obviously bad. The subject was then introduced to the third person, they shook hands and then the third person was taken from the room to be hooked up to the machine, out of sight of the subject.

The subject was told that the experiment had to do with learning, and was given a list of words to dictate to the third person. If the third person got it "wrong", the subject was instructed to push the button on the machine and administer a shock to the unseen third person. Everytime a shock was given, the setting on the dial was to be increased.

The set up of the experiment was that the third person wasn't really hooked up to a electrocution machine, but provided screams and louder and more verbose pleas for mercy. The real intent of the experiment was to see how many subjects actually administered "fatal shocks" to the third person.

Seeing the filmed record of this experiment is striking and disturbing. Something like 65% of subjects go all the way to electrocuting the third person that they've just shook hands with, and researcher doing this experiment found that if you either had the proctor who was dressed in the doctor's coat say things like "I accept full responsibility", or "the experiment must be completed", people were more likely to go along with it and not stand up and say "no I will not kill this person"

It was actually pretty depressing to watch, really.

[michaelm]

I don't know. Michael, is your brother atypical? Has he been psychologically adjusted to the soldier's lifestyle? I have a very good friend who until recently was career military and he's a bit of a nut but I wouldn't say he had to be conditioned in any way to do his job: he liked the action. Yes, he had some dark nights of the soul, but for the most part he liked what he did. I've met several military people like this.
I wouldn't say my brother was atypical. But he purposely lived off-base to provide some semblance of civilian reality. What might have been different is that he was in active service in the 90's between the Bush administrations' wars. However, he served under Military Intelligence leading a Long Range Surveillance/Patrol (LRS) team. This is typically a small 5-man team with little backup support, deployed deep into hot territory, with orders not to engage but just observe and not get caught. So any action he saw was classified (probably hot spots in Africa--think 'Black Hawk Down'). I'd say he was atypical in how quickly he gained rank and how much he achieved in 4 years--Sergeant, Ranger School, HALO, Jump Master. Everyone thought he was a 'lifer' because of these achievements and were lining him up for Special Forces. Man, were they disappointed (angry really) when they found out that he was just in it for the college fund.

He's still an adrenaline junkie now, and appreciates some of the things that his time in service has taught him about himself. I don't know that he would choose that life again, though.


-Michael

[Ignatz]

. . .The book reveals that contrary to popular perception, the majority of soldiers in war do not ever fire their weapons and that this is due to an innate resistance to killing. . . .

That may be his take on it or perhaps yours. The data does show that in WWII only a small percentage fired their personal weapons in close conflict with the enemy but by the time VietNam came around about 95% had.

The incidence of PTSD also rose

There are a number of expalnations for both.

In WWII the actual combat was spread out over an entire continent with major battles being the norm. By the time VietNam came along, the conflict was confined to a small space and there were regular skirmishes.

The PTSD can be explained by the same phenomenon. In VietNam there really was no "rear echelon" so everybody was under the gun all of the time whereas in WWII they werenot.

PTSD is also like ADD. When I was a kid it was "lack of sticktuitiveness" now it is ADD. PTSD is only recently defined so it is difficult to go back and try to diagnose it..

I don't really think that the problem comes from killing but rather the intense idea that you are about to be killed an any time and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. You are powerless.

[Rob W.]

When you describe the moment of hyper-clarity, which feels very similar to the time I was in a car accident, were you thinking of the "immediate now" and surviving the moment, or did you start having an internal debate about the morality of your actions as the gun was being pointed at you?

Haha, nope, no moral debate, no thinking at all. I was just reacting to get the gun out of my side and then to put distance between us. I've been in a car crash too, definitely a related feeling, but for me the car crash was more unreal, like a slow motion movie.

I know a couple of people who have come back from military deployment. They've all killed someone and they're all changed, like they have a lead weight attached to their insides. It's an odd feeling to be sitting at the bar with a person you know has killed another human being, both hunched over beers but miles away in experience.

[Charlie]

See, Rob, I know people that have done that, too, but they were a bit aggressive when they went away and they were basically the same when they came back. Wiser, sure, more mature, perhaps, but basically the same.

[Rob W.]

Well I'm sure everyone is different, this is just my personal experience.

[Charlie]

And again I'm back where I started with no unified theory. I don't think one can say, for example, that there's two kinds of people in the world, fighters and non-fighters, and the fighters always protect the non-fighters blah blah blah. That might make for pretty good prose in a Batman comic but I don't think it's good sociology.

[ReKru]

And again I'm back where I started with no unified theory. I don't think one can say, for example, that there's two kinds of people in the world, fighters and non-fighters, and the fighters always protect the non-fighters blah blah blah. That might make for pretty good prose in a Batman comic but I don't think it's good sociology.

Well, if you look at how mankind decided it's the most effective and efficient to split professions and everyone doing at what he's good at for a living, it does not sound that far fetched that some people are just better at fighting.

All of us should be able to fight (and kill), but not all are really good at it. All of us should be able to use computers, but not all are really good at it.

[Charlie]

Interesting! All throughout history civilizations have had to rely on citizen armies to fight their wars. Even in epochs and places where elites comprised the bulk of the fighting forces - ala feudal times in Europe and Asia, knights and samurai - regular joes still participated in the fighting. Each person in that situation had to rise to the occasion and deal with it in some way, whether to fight like a lion, die, cower, flee, stay out of harm's way and snipe from behind, what have you. I think there was and is probably a wide variety of personalities and experience that drive behavior in combat and danger, so much so that you can't say "there are only two types of combatants." More realistic, I think, is to say that each person has a varying capacity for violence, stress and enduring combat/battle/etc., and a widely varying response to that lifestyle, whether you're quiet and professional like Michael's brother or a heard-headed nut like my childhood friend. Just thinking out loud!

[ReKru]

Interesting! All throughout history civilizations have had to rely on citizen armies to fight their wars. Even in epochs and places where elites comprised the bulk of the fighting forces - ala feudal times in Europe and Asia, knights and samurai - regular joes still participated in the fighting.

You don't have to look that far. Germany (and quite a few other countries I think, though I'm not sure of the exact figure) still has public military service and considers it -at least officially and probably a leftover from the cold war- a (decresingly important) part of citizenship.

For defensive armies, it's a probably sound concept to tap into every citizen's (who is fit for military service) potential to fight. Training a guy to shoot a gun is not that hard (I'd say much faster lethal results than training someone in sword/bow/spear arts). And the own life, that of the family and beloved and the hard earned property at stake is enough reason for the regular joe to actually fire it.

[Charlie]

One of the great things about Japanese samurai-related literature, I think, and European chivalry literature as well, is its description of the pressures faced by people born into the life of the warrior class. Hagakure, for example, is littered with wisdom and examples of people meeting or trying to meet the expectations of the samurai lifestye. Le Morte de Arthur is a European example. In manga and the like this comes across as a thoughtful discussion of budo before two characters get to scrapping! (Say what you will, I think the Lone Wolf and Cub comics are very literary in this regard.)

Contrast this to the literature of civics from such civilizations as Greece, Rome or Renaissance Itay, where citizenship included military service.

Not sure what my point is here... I think I'm trying to say there are multiple approaches to being a warrior, from the populist to the elitist and things in between.

[ReKru]

Have you read Erich Maria Remarque "All Quiet on the Western Front" (Im Westen nichts Neues)?
It's fictional, but the author was a soldier during WWI and the book is probably influenced by his own experience as 'simple soldier' during that war.

[Charlie]

I have read it! Horrifying and sad. American Civil War literature like Stephen Crane's Red Badge of Courage gives insights into this samek kind of thing as well.

[dohrt]

My dad served in vietnam, and his father was a combat veteran also from WWII and Korea. The scariest thing I have ever heard my dad say about war is that he hoped I never went to war because he hoped I never would have to kill anyone. I don't think my dad ever did kill anyone (he worked in a mobile hospital patching up guys who were shot up), despite his being wounded during a mortar attack, but he was around a lot of death and violence. I also have an uncle who was an infantry guy. He never ever talks about it, and from what I've heard from older family members, his battle experiences really messed him up psychologically.

I tend to agree that violence, death, killing and the like have always been a part of human society and culture in some way, and that there's a difference between someone who has killed versus a murderer. But I also believe that the wise ones in the world have always recognized the changes that come about when you become someone capable of killing, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. I do think that it changes you, even if the changes (based on social and cultural contexts) are subtle.
I'll hopefully never know what it's like to kill someone, but even if I do find myself in a situation where I've ended a life, I don't know how it could possibly be anything like living in a society where killing is even quasi-accepted.

Still, there is a difference even in our society between a child and an adult - children are born into the world, and until they learn different (sometimes very early, sometimes very late), they think the world is "fair". But inevitably, whether it's being hungry at 1 month old or being molested at age 13, or being beaten up at school at 6, or maybe just finding out at any age that not everyone has a kind heart, every child in this world loses their innocence at some point. But there are levels of loss of humanity, I think.

I had my apartment broken into, everything torn up or stolen, and I never could have imagined before it happened how violated I felt when I saw it, as I walked through what was left. It hurt me in a way I didn't know was possible. A friend at the time mentioned to me that it was nothing compared to the violation one feels at being raped. I've never been raped, but I am sure it's worlds away from anything I've ever felt. Of course, many people go through life without ever experiencing the violation of rape, or even the much lesser violation of having the sanctity of your home invaded and destroyed. On the other hand, some have known it from very early on, and will know it many more times, and it's just the way it is.

I guess I'm just of the opinion that the closer ones gets to seeing life as meaningless and believing that the only purpose for getting up each day is to either "kill or be killed" or to simply "survive", the more of your soul you've lost, the more of your humanity has been sacrificed for pragmatism. I'm not being religious here, just psychological. You stop caring about how the roses smell or what food tastes good when you become a close minded machine. Once your perspective changes to single-minded vision, you stop innovating, you stop experiencing, and life has little meaning. Diversity creates context, motion creates visibility, etc. I believe that many people are closer to losing such quality in their lives than it seems.

At the same time, I think certain aspects of older cultures that did experience violence and killing (or other types of adversity) had underlying philsophies which helped retain certain elements of "humanity" despite certain psychological steps away from it. In other words, I don't believe the path between perfect and innocent humanity to cold, calculated and meaningless existence is linear or static.

When I was younger, I used to hunt small animals that lived around my house (I grew up in a fairly rural area). Sometimes with a .22, but usually with just an air rifle (BBs, or pelets). The first bird I ever shot, I remember touching it. It was still warm. But it's eyes were dead. It was limp, soft, gone. That bird had been born, hatched, fed by it's mother, and in an instant, I ended that. Forever. No taking it back.

For a while, hunting was exciting, colorful, adrenaline inducing. After years of it, it was bland, expressionless, surgical. After a time, I started making it more difficult for myself, shooting from farther distances, going for moving targets, etc. But even that got boring, efficient, and tasteless. My skill improved, but my excitement diminished. But I never really understood that.

After several years of this, I finally went away to college. It was only after a few years away from it, when I came home for a visit and saw my younger brother casually drop a blue-jay with a relaxed, almost bored shot, I recognized myself in a new way by watching him. I realized that I had lost the beauty of a flying bird, and now only had . . . well, nothing, not even pride in being a good shot. I realized that my context and perspective had changed over the years, as it changed that day. I realized that shooting all those animals had affected me. Not just in how I felt about animals, but about life and death in general. I started thinking about how I felt about war and urban violence. I started thinking about how I felt about people around me. I realized I had changed, and that change was . . . inevitable and there would always be more change to come. I don't hunt for pleasure anymore.

Maybe my shooting all those animals was the cause of some of that change. Or maybe it was a symptom of some of that change. Some things, however, may change by not changing. To this day, if I am back home and a blue jay comes in and chases all the other birds away and terrorizes the other birds, and destroys the feeder, I may just grab the airgun, take the shot and toss the body into the compost pile out back without a second thought. Am I a horrible evil person for killing a creature that is just trying to defend it's home? Or am I a righteous protector of other birds who just want peace in their own home? Neither. I'm just a man who's lost some of his conscience and wants peace at the cost of violence in his backyard.

Or maybe I wouldn't do that, because now a cop would arrest me for it, instead of saying to my dad, "wow, your boy is getting good with that thing". Things in society have changed a lot since even I was a kid. The days of rural areas where you could shoot a .22 in the back yard or a .410 without neighbors even caring are going the way of the dodo.

But even if it still were that way, I wouldn't kill animals as indiscriminantly as I once did. It would be fair to say that I have regained some respect for life that I once lost. But only in effect, not in regression. It's not that I took steps back to the person I was before, but that I went farther along and maybe to the side. How my experience and exposure to the world manifests as "respect for life" has changed. I wonder if Musashi went through that with regards to human life.

Either way, no matter what, some innocence and purity that I once had is gone, and always will be. Whether I kill another squirrel or not, it doesn't matter. I'll never see squirrels the way I did before I ever killed one. Of course, I don't see squirrels the way I did when I used to kill them just for no good reason, either. Onward, forward. For weal or woe. I guess.

Yea, ok, maybe my own life experiences aren't worth a cent in a discussion about taking human life. I've never killed anyone; I have never personally watched anyone killed by another person. I'm speculating on things I just don't know about. Still, I always try to live my life in ways that slow down the speed at which I lose what few guarded scraps of childhood innocence still remain inside me. Who knows, maybe I've missed the point of life in that way.

[Charlie]

Thoughtful post as always, Marcos.

I think we are talking on many levels in this thread.

-What was it like to live in a time and culture where violence was a way of life?

-How did that affect the people participating in that time and culture?

-We agree that violence has an impact on a person. How would that have differed in various cases considering the above cases? (As you said, "I wonder what Musashi went through.")

No big answers from me.

[Kendoka 2000]

Maasai create little play families when they're around 8 that include sexual relationships, which seems horrific through our cultural lens, but is perfectly natural and in some ways essential in their society.

Do they suffer as a result? you lose the ability to claim that something is bad or good. This is not very satisfactory result as we must make judgements of desirable and undesirable actions constantly. On the other hand we seem to cope quite well with the unfoundedness of other knowledge.

I think one of the points Rob W. was trying to express was that we judge others based on our cultural norms. Good or bad is only relevant when placed within these norms. What’s bad in my cultural norms may be perfectly fine in another.

[Kendoka 2000]

Kenzan’s remarks were in response to your remark of
“It discounts the fact that we are 100% the same psychologically and physically now as we were then (whenever then was).”
We were note physically or psychologically the same as our ancestors. Were aren’t even physically or psychologically the same as our neighbors in other countries. Case in point, the average man is taller now than he was 50 years ago. As for psychological differences, take a look at Islamic extremists.

So to reiterate Kenzan. Your statement is illogical as well as quite incorrect. A bit of honest research into the matter will ultimately reveal why.
Good luck with that.

[Charlie]

Were aren’t even physically or psychologically the same as our neighbors in other countries.

Eh?

Case in point, the average man is taller now than he was 50 years ago.

Sorry to quibble, but do you mean 500 years ago? Because I think I'm as tall as my grandad.

[phillyTSK]

I believe that the person who said you must look to the cultural context is correct. A person's moral character is largely determined by his upbringing, the laws of his society, and the culture he lives in.

Those who have religious training generally have regulations that teach that taking life is wrong, but that does not mean that all religious trully appreciate what is so beautiful about life and why in fact taking life is wrong.

Just as we have highly intelligent people who are born that way and then become even brighter through study, some people are also born morally gifted, and if they apply themselves can learn more as well.

The opposite is true as well.

There are many things we know about Musashi that can tell us about his character. One is he trained hard to be a good swordsmen. The next is that his pursuit of swordmenship eventually led him to become a monk. Clearly to me this means he was spiritually atuned, regardless of his start, and learned why life is precious.

I would also say that all imoral acts carry a price to one's spirituality and psychology. Guilt, shame, depression, anxiety, and post traumatic stress disorder can all come from this. Things that are inherently wrong do carry a burden for most, though some never suffere the psychological and even moral repercussions for their acts for a variety of reasons.

My personal opinion is that Musashi has some anti-social traits to his personality, probably from an overly harsh father. The lack of emotional contact with his mother did not help. If he had someone who loved and caired for him, at least one person, that would have given him enough to aviod serious personality pathology, and it would seem that he may have gotten a considerable amount of self help from monks and other individuals over time. I tend to think that he had helped himself become a good man because any person who strives to improve himself often comes across other people of similar thinking, and they learn enough to grow in more positive ways.

Also, Musashi's interest in the arts, is a good sign. Though it is often a part of samurai training, generally the arts are a celebration of life. Any serious student of life will learn to appreciate its value and beauty.

It is often people with suttle psychological traits some consider slightly abnormal that accomplish great things. Take OCD for example. People with these traits may annoy some, but theses are the types that often become doctors and lawyers. There is a higher percentage of people with mood disorders, such as BAD in the arts. Abraham Licoln suffered from chronic depression and may have had a depressed personality type. People who are depressed ususally have a very accurate picture of reality and make more pragmatic decisions.

I personally admire Musashi because in order to achieve his level of swordsmanship, it took a great deal of perseverance. Even raw talent can not make you good. It takes many things. Even talent and hard work can only take you to a certain point. There is a point beyond that where divine providence and deep moral understanding can then lead you even further in my opinion.

phillyTSK

[dukboy123]

I read an anthropology report (wish I could remember the name and author) where the author espoused that our current view that every life is important and that life itself is precious, is pretty much a modern phenomenom and wasn't always so. In the middle ages, an individual's life was not considered something towns, villages, indeed even nations, would fight for. Hundreds of thousands if not millions died from the combined effects of the crusades, the bubonic plaque, revolutions, etc. Life was cheap.

So, like many people on this forum have stated, you really can't judge something like this without taking into consideration the times and the moral and societal attitudes of that time.

From my own experiences in Desert Storm, there is no greater wake-up call than the realization that someone is trying to kill you. Trying to kill you simply because of your nationality. It's truly a bizarre feeling. I remember standing there, waiting for the bombs to hit, thinking "What am I doing here? How did I get myself in this situation? I'm just a kid from Texas...". I also remember looking around the room through my gasmask, and I could see other guys, eyes bugging out, thinking the same thing.

And on the other side of that equation, I was doing the same thing to some poor Iraqi on the ground as I flew overhead, pushing my buttons, talking on the radio, contributing to killing the poor fellow. I try and push this aspect of my experience to the back of my mind but I occasionally mull over it for not too long periods of time. If my thinking happens to stray over to the self-critical, self-loathing viewpoint, I remind myself I was a member of the U.S. Armed forces, following orders, in a U.S. government sanctioned war.

Killing and being killed. All in the context of the situation.

[Sakari]

... our current view that every life is important and that life itself is precious, is pretty much a modern phenomenom and wasn't always so. In the middle ages, [...] Life was cheap.

And yet thousands of years ago there were even written rules forbidding killing. On the other hand saying that the thinking has changed does not necessarily mean that there is no objectivity. A poor, but blunt example: it is also the case that the views on the relative motion of earth and sun have changed during this same time.


I think one of the points Rob W. was trying to express was that we judge others based on our cultural norms. Good or bad is only relevant when placed within these norms.

Surely culture, upbringing and such do affect these judgements. On the other hand it is possible to sensibly change ones outlook to differ from the surrounding norm making the case for a necessary cultural background a bit iffy.

What I was trying to poke at with the question of suffering was that if nobody gets hurt in this "play family" custom then one could suppose that it is not at the bottom something that is bad despite it going against what we are used to.

On the other hand if that or some other custom would produce terrible, unnecessary suffering to some parties, then we could and I hold with some caveats that we should condemn it and try to alleviate the situation. The caveats I hold concern my own fallibility - in no way do I presume that I am magically right when making these judgements, like with the initial response to the question of "play families" and that surely has to be reflected on the actions taken and the thoroughness of consideration.