Ok. May I suggest you consider the idea of an idea.
Some cultures have supported the sacrifice of the weak for the benefit of the populous, others have rejected this concept.
An "idea" might, in this context, be the proposition that it is good to sacrifice the lives of some for the benefit of others. Others might propose this is unacceptable; as on the case of ant-abortion activists.
An "idea" is nothing more than a proposition. And propositions don't necessarily require human input. "Leafs are green" would be true if no human person had ever seen a leaf (don't get bogged down in the use of vocabulary in this case: leafs would have whatever you call color with or without anyone's observation)
On further reflection, I realized I've done a piss poor job of arguing my point. I don't agree with much of what you have put forth, but I'll take down my colors. Best to you.
This idea has ceased. Because Cortez killed it. He did so by killing virtually everyone who espoused it.
You chose this context, and I reject it. Cortez killed the Aztecs, but did he kill the idea? Can you tell me the difference between an Aztec priest cutting out a heart for a good harvest and a Canadian MD asphyxiating a veteran for the benefit of the national healthcare system?
Morally it's the same level of evil. Conceptually, the Canadian euthanist isn't chanting prayers to Quetzalcoatl and piling up pyramid basements full of children's skulls.
Just because they're both evil doesn't make them similar in every other regard.
Ok. May I suggest you consider the idea of an idea.
Some cultures have supported the sacrifice of the weak for the benefit of the populous, others have rejected this concept.
An "idea" might, in this context, be the proposition that it is good to sacrifice the lives of some for the benefit of others. Others might propose this is unacceptable; as on the case of ant-abortion activists.
An "idea" is nothing more than a proposition. And propositions don't necessarily require human input. "Leafs are green" would be true if no human person had ever seen a leaf (don't get bogged down in the use of vocabulary in this case: leafs would have whatever you call color with or without anyone's observation)
That's unnecessarily vague. In this context we're talking about the practice of human sacrifice to a specific set of arguably demonic entities.
This idea has ceased. Because Cortez killed it. He did so by killing virtually everyone who espoused it.
No believers, no idea. To kill an idea requires death, a lot of it. And that's something human history has in spades.
On further reflection, I realized I've done a piss poor job of arguing my point. I don't agree with much of what you have put forth, but I'll take down my colors. Best to you.
You chose this context, and I reject it. Cortez killed the Aztecs, but did he kill the idea? Can you tell me the difference between an Aztec priest cutting out a heart for a good harvest and a Canadian MD asphyxiating a veteran for the benefit of the national healthcare system?
Morally it's the same level of evil. Conceptually, the Canadian euthanist isn't chanting prayers to Quetzalcoatl and piling up pyramid basements full of children's skulls.
Just because they're both evil doesn't make them similar in every other regard.
Sorry missed your post, see my other comment.