I find the Master v Slave morality discussion not very useful. Which one did the Spartans adhere to? They were selfless and self-subjugating, they did not seek personal glory, they fasted and disciplined themselves, they did not pursue personal riches, and they worked exclusively for the collective Good of Sparta. Amongst themselves they adhered to slave morality, but as a group towards others they adhered to master morality. Why did the Spartans, which the Greco-Roman world esteemed, teach their master soldiers how to be slaves? Because humans are cooperative creatures. If you train humans to be hyper-cooperate then they will dominate other groups. It didn’t matter how many fierce, Superman-y fighters the Celts had; the Romans with their intense training of obedience and selfless cooperation destroyed them.
If you have a group and you are trying to set a standard, there are actually serious problems with making the standard “being the best”. It leads to people being the best at all costs, such as in ways that harm the group; it leads to potentially extreme waste for showboating (Bezos’ yacht); it is not useful for 99% of people who need positive reinforcement yet aren’t the best; it is psychologically damaging to those who fail, depending on the stakes. The proper balance IMO is the sophisticated Christian balance: doing your best to glorify God and glorifying God in the best of others. This means positive reinforcement for all, but no cutthroat competition to be the best SBF or Elizabeth Holmes.
Cooperation is not necessarily a sign of slave morality - individuals in warrior cultures cooperate because it is in their best interest to do so, rather than being quasi-forced to co-operate (primarily through commiseration) by the innate seethe and cope one experiences by being at the bottom of the totem pole. Fasting and discipline may be vital one's greater interest of becoming fit and healthy. In contrast, the modern day's Body Positivity movement is a direct slave moralist reaction to this and to fitness and health in general - it seeks to denigrate the achievements of those who are fit and healthy, deny the effects of their lifestyle on their health and repurpose their lack of Will Save vs Food as an expression of personality.
It is also not the case that a culture (or indeed a person) is entirely one or the other - N said that people and cultures are usually a mix of both in some proportion.
It may make sense for something like fat acceptance, but it loses coherence when you look at Christians in the wild, as OliveTapenade points out above. It’s not enough to get people to cooperate based on what is in their best interest, because an individual’s best interest often conflicts with the group. Once they have riches they may act like Nero, or maybe they realize that their best interest is to defect. It is never in a Japanese Kamikaze pilot’s best interest to fly his plane into a ship rather than surrender, but (were that tactic to work) it would be in Japan’s interest. If cooperation is the ultimate Good in a civilization then it makes sense to “quasi-force” members to develop an extreme and maximal commitment to cooperation, one predicated on dogma and stories and rituals rather than self-benefit.
Christian culture accomplished this well: A loving Messiah teaches loving maxims and standards, based on identifying with your peer as identical to you in worth, and being as prosocial as possible. Because it is a figure in a story it taps into the human instinct of social reciprocation and imitation, rather than logical persuasion. This loving figure suffers a gruesome death unjustly to save you (reminiscent of Plato’s mention of the truly just man being tortured and crucified), which furthers the reciprocation. And there are then rewards of punishment based on your imitation of the figure. This is the most efficient way to turn someone cooperative if done right, because it needs to come from a place of personality and social environment rather than flimsy philosophy.
Also, modern critics like Scott see a story about a self-denying saint and forget that these are the superhero cast of Christianity, not an actual standard that is set for believers. The extreme acts of the Saints are, in practice, a way to jolt a rich person into realizing they should donate a library or fund a school. Because their conduct was so unlivably self-denying, when you remember them you feel an obligation to do your small part. It’s definitely not as simple as “Christianity tells you to sell all your possessions”, which no one does.
Nero also has an even worse reputation in the era of Gibbon that he had in the era of Suetonius because he was particularly associated with early persecution of Christians.
On the other hand, he did murder his own mother...
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I find the Master v Slave morality discussion not very useful. Which one did the Spartans adhere to? They were selfless and self-subjugating, they did not seek personal glory, they fasted and disciplined themselves, they did not pursue personal riches, and they worked exclusively for the collective Good of Sparta. Amongst themselves they adhered to slave morality, but as a group towards others they adhered to master morality. Why did the Spartans, which the Greco-Roman world esteemed, teach their master soldiers how to be slaves? Because humans are cooperative creatures. If you train humans to be hyper-cooperate then they will dominate other groups. It didn’t matter how many fierce, Superman-y fighters the Celts had; the Romans with their intense training of obedience and selfless cooperation destroyed them.
If you have a group and you are trying to set a standard, there are actually serious problems with making the standard “being the best”. It leads to people being the best at all costs, such as in ways that harm the group; it leads to potentially extreme waste for showboating (Bezos’ yacht); it is not useful for 99% of people who need positive reinforcement yet aren’t the best; it is psychologically damaging to those who fail, depending on the stakes. The proper balance IMO is the sophisticated Christian balance: doing your best to glorify God and glorifying God in the best of others. This means positive reinforcement for all, but no cutthroat competition to be the best SBF or Elizabeth Holmes.
Cooperation is not necessarily a sign of slave morality - individuals in warrior cultures cooperate because it is in their best interest to do so, rather than being quasi-forced to co-operate (primarily through commiseration) by the innate seethe and cope one experiences by being at the bottom of the totem pole. Fasting and discipline may be vital one's greater interest of becoming fit and healthy. In contrast, the modern day's Body Positivity movement is a direct slave moralist reaction to this and to fitness and health in general - it seeks to denigrate the achievements of those who are fit and healthy, deny the effects of their lifestyle on their health and repurpose their lack of Will Save vs Food as an expression of personality.
It is also not the case that a culture (or indeed a person) is entirely one or the other - N said that people and cultures are usually a mix of both in some proportion.
It may make sense for something like fat acceptance, but it loses coherence when you look at Christians in the wild, as OliveTapenade points out above. It’s not enough to get people to cooperate based on what is in their best interest, because an individual’s best interest often conflicts with the group. Once they have riches they may act like Nero, or maybe they realize that their best interest is to defect. It is never in a Japanese Kamikaze pilot’s best interest to fly his plane into a ship rather than surrender, but (were that tactic to work) it would be in Japan’s interest. If cooperation is the ultimate Good in a civilization then it makes sense to “quasi-force” members to develop an extreme and maximal commitment to cooperation, one predicated on dogma and stories and rituals rather than self-benefit.
Christian culture accomplished this well: A loving Messiah teaches loving maxims and standards, based on identifying with your peer as identical to you in worth, and being as prosocial as possible. Because it is a figure in a story it taps into the human instinct of social reciprocation and imitation, rather than logical persuasion. This loving figure suffers a gruesome death unjustly to save you (reminiscent of Plato’s mention of the truly just man being tortured and crucified), which furthers the reciprocation. And there are then rewards of punishment based on your imitation of the figure. This is the most efficient way to turn someone cooperative if done right, because it needs to come from a place of personality and social environment rather than flimsy philosophy.
Also, modern critics like Scott see a story about a self-denying saint and forget that these are the superhero cast of Christianity, not an actual standard that is set for believers. The extreme acts of the Saints are, in practice, a way to jolt a rich person into realizing they should donate a library or fund a school. Because their conduct was so unlivably self-denying, when you remember them you feel an obligation to do your small part. It’s definitely not as simple as “Christianity tells you to sell all your possessions”, which no one does.
Nero was a pretty good ruler by the standards of the time. Just slandered by the winners.
Nero also has an even worse reputation in the era of Gibbon that he had in the era of Suetonius because he was particularly associated with early persecution of Christians.
On the other hand, he did murder his own mother...
By all accounts she kinda deserved it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link