Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist
    #956687 -

Was watching a documentary on Egyptology and the unearthing of ancient tombs and artifacts. The Minister of Egyptology decried the immoral grave robbers while committing exactly the same acts. Both groups completely violated the wishes of those who buried their dead. Both groups desecrated the tombs. However, the Egyptologists pilfered the tombs in the name of history and with the sanction of the state.

How much time must pass before it is socially acceptable to rob a grave? How many experts does it take to declare an act to be moral? Can an act be moral for some, but immoral for others?


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



The proof is in the pudding.

Edited by Swami (10/13/02 10:46 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist [Re: Swami]
    #956698 -

"Can an act be moral for some, but immoral for others? "

in reality, no.
socially today, yes


--------------------
if you can't find the truth right where you are, where else do you expect to find it?

this is the purpose

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist [Re: CleverName]
    #956722 -

The problem is that grave-robbing isn't all that immoral. The problem is that the robbers destroyed things that aren't easily replaced, instead of allowing them to be preserved for the knowledge of all. It's like the difference between a anthropologist trying to learn about a culture and invaders slaughtering it and taking it's gold.

Graves themselves are immoral if looked at from a ecological perspective. Nature gave us this biomass for us to live in for a while. When we're done with it, instead of making efficient use of it (anything from organ donation to cannabilism to burial without a casket), we shut it in a box so noone else can gain any benefit from it.

All moral judgements seem to break down like this. Perhaps there's no such thing as "wrong"? Is there really much difference between giving someone lots of mushrooms (knowing that if their egos truly understood what they were doing they would not be taking the mushrooms) and killing them? Maybe everything's really OK?


--------------------
Please remove all dollar signs from my listed contact information

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist [Re: xganon]
    #956746 -

its not that everythings ok, but that nothing is wrong. everything is where it should be


--------------------
if you can't find the truth right where you are, where else do you expect to find it?

this is the purpose

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist [Re: Swami]
    #956760 -

i was surprised that this post came from you. usually you fight on the side of science. any way, in response to your question, dead people do not (or should not) have rights. they have no awareness of their existence, they are not rational, and they cannot experience pain or frustration. it would be morally acceptable to manhandle corpses in any way that you please (including necrophilia), if it weren't for the distress it would cause on the living.


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


If i get into some trouble TURBO BOOST will set me free.
Michael Knight you watch the bass with the K I T T.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist [Re: Swami]
    #956765 -

oh, pardon me, i think i misread your post. carry on...


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


If i get into some trouble TURBO BOOST will set me free.
Michael Knight you watch the bass with the K I T T.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist [Re: Swami]
    #956771 -

Hehehe  I think I just watched the same documentary Swami.  :smile:

  I thought the same thing.  They are the same except in how people percieve them.  I know some will argue that the Arch's are studying them and blah blah blah, but if you consider the implications of their actions from the perspective of the egyptian, you will see that it is irrelevant. 
  They believed that the objects, servants, food, etc that was buried with them goes on with them to the afterlife.  The afterlife lasts an eternity in almost all religions.  If these objects are removed from the tomb, MAYBE the egyptian loses them in the afterlife.  If we remove the body from the sarcophagus, maybe the person themself is thrown out of the afterlife to some sort of hell. 
  This may all sound wacky but do we really know?  We still know hardly anything about these people and their beliefs.  But we are curious and they have gotten PhD's from college, so its ok right. 
  Grave robbers and archeologists are one in the same.  The only difference is that one had to waste 6-8 years going to school to do the same job.     


--------------------
"You people voted for Hubert Humphrey, and you killed Jesus." F and L in L.V.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist [Re: postalboy]
    #956776 -

Achaeologists dig up the dead to learn about their culture. Grave robbers dig up the dead for personal profit. One benifits society as a whole, the other does not. You are right that both would be considered grave robbing by the Egyptians, but they are gone and thus it doesn't matter.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist [Re: Anonymous]
    #956787 -

maybe they should take the artifacts, study them, make plasters, or whatever, then try to restore the tombs. or something like that.


--------------------
if you can't find the truth right where you are, where else do you expect to find it?

this is the purpose

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist [Re: Anonymous]
    #956793 -

In reply to:
Grave robbers dig up the dead for personal profit. One benifits society as a whole, the other does not.


So, wrong becomes right when there are more people benefiting from the wrong?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist [Re: Swami]
    #956817 -

Good post. Everyone is saying how grave robbing is wrong and archeology is for science and all that, but in both cases, the grave robber/archeologist is gaining something (material wealth or historical knowledge) at the expense of the dead.

There is no moral difference.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist [Re: Evolving]
    #956933 -

So, wrong becomes right when there are more people benefiting from the wrong?

That certainly is one take. Wrong becomes right from the perspective of those commiting the acts. Thus is the beauty of rationalizing one's actions.

How many Americans today would object to digging up Arlington cemetary, even for the "good of society"? A vast majority would be appalled at even the suggestion as that ground is considered sacrosanct. As people today do not honor the ancient Egyptian taboos (even though we hold similar but different beliefs), then it is "acceptable" to violate them.



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



The proof is in the pudding.

Edited by Swami (10/14/02 11:55 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist [Re: Swami]
    #957980 -

Perhaps you've watched some of those TLC programs on TV and seen Dr. Bob Brier - a gaunt, curly-haired Egyptologist who made the first mummy in 2000 years at the University of Maryland. Bob is a former professior of mine, who might point out to you the differences between the 'Ka' and the 'Ba' souls, and further point out that these archaeological discoveries will help to preserve the sanctity of those mummies who are now in museums. Their fate, as the fate of many other mummies, may have become the mere desecration in search for riches. Tutankamon in the hands of grave robbers would be considered a greater profanation by a modernity that the Pharoahs never could have foreseen even with all of their magicians.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself

Edited by MarkostheGnostic (10/13/02 08:03 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist [Re: Evolving]
    #958018 -

that is the whole basis for consequentialism. there is no absolute wrong or right. the only right is that action which causes the greatest good (pleasure) and the least evil (pain) to the greatest number of sentient beings. kill 1000 babies if it means saving 1001. you are probably an absolitust, which means that killing is always wrong for you, even if killing 1 baby will save 10000000.


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


If i get into some trouble TURBO BOOST will set me free.
Michael Knight you watch the bass with the K I T T.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist [Re: krispyfi]
    #958051 -

Wow someone used a philosophical term.

Excuse me while I faint.

Thud

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist [Re: Swami]
    #958244 -

What a splendid argument!
I liked this concept :

"in both cases, the grave robber/archeologist is gaining something (material wealth or historical knowledge) at the expense of the dead."
I think that the issue is really one of Society as a whole deciding that it is acceptable. Instead of an individual benefiting from inconsiderate desecration for a singular gain, an "entire Society" can benefit from inconsiderate desecration and therefore it is ok.
I think that if so many "acts that benefit society" weren't spun with such convincing media force all the sheep would not go along with it or at the least not be fooled into thinking that it will actually benefit them in a real way. And besides, how many people from that part of the world do you think actually benefit fom their ancestors being displayed in western civilizaton with all the pretty neon signs saying $1 admission. I think It's P.T.Barnum syndrome with the spin being on historical relevance.

Ah, what the hell do I know. I just think if I went and dug up my neighbors' mothers' grave to examine her antique petticoat so that I could furter my knowlege on that part of history he would be a scotch miffed.


--------------------
"...spite to all the genre elitists."
"...just because you feel sorry for someone is no reason to be nice to them."
"May all your corvettes be stingray convertibles, and may all your doses be heroic"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist [Re: Beauville]
    #958362 -

I read your profile... your homepage is rather interesting.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist [Re: krispyfi]
    #959139 -

In the words of Dave Mustaine:


...And when you Kill a man, you're a murderer
Kill many, and you're a conquerer
Kill them all.... OOoooOOOoohhhhhhh You're a God!


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist [Re: Swami]
    #959429 -

Exactly.

There is a reason for the cliche line: "Might makes right."
It is true. The victors write the history books and the dead don't complain about any shady misinterpretations of the facts.
In 200 years the kids will be learning how the GREAT DUBYA vanquished evil. Even though in reality, he is a fucking moron and he couldn't accomplish tying his shoes without daddy's help. I wonder how many of are founding fathers were stupid. We wouldn't know because history is inherently biased towards our "rightful" perspective.

And to answer stonedfish:
Hitler believed that he was benefitting society by eradicating (Vernichtung) the Jews.

Can anybody name one thing that we learned from robbing dead egyptians that benefitted their life?? Other than useless knowledge I can't think of anything.


--------------------
"You people voted for Hubert Humphrey, and you killed Jesus." F and L in L.V.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist [Re: postalboy]
    #959571 -

"Can anybody name one thing that we learned from robbing dead egyptians that benefitted their life?? Other than useless knowledge I can't think of anything."

theres no such thing as useless knowledge.
why just say the egyptians got screwed? even in christianity artifacts are researched and studied, and if they ever found jesus' body, believe you me, they would autopsy that shit. NOTHING IS SACRED.
remember, its the egyptian gov't allows this to go on.


--------------------
if you can't find the truth right where you are, where else do you expect to find it?

this is the purpose

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* On Materialist Dialectics Leading To Dismay akira_akuma 835 18 01/11/18 11:39 PM
by sudly
* Have the Materialists been defeated on PS&P?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 12 13 all )		 viktor 5,995 243 10/02/17 08:42 AM
by Ferdinando
* Materialistic, Nihlistic, Egomaniacs.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 teknix 5,714 134 01/12/12 03:04 PM
by NetDiver
* The last ever materialist debate thread
( 1 2 3 all )		 OrgoneConclusion 2,940 55 06/30/13 09:23 PM
by Cactilove
* Why non-materialists are cuckoo
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 OrgoneConclusion 4,966 65 12/06/13 04:07 AM
by pokitman
* Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify.
( 1 2 3 all )		 Desert Elf 2,744 56 03/05/12 01:50 PM
by BlueCoyote
* Materialists vs. non-materialists
( 1 2 3 all )		 OrgoneConclusion 3,223 40 10/04/10 06:14 PM
by Poid
* What makes a materialistic person? TacticalBongRip 2,595 16 05/23/06 01:14 AM
by Disco Cat

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,877 topic views. 0 members, 17 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 16 queries.