The initial horror at the Aztec using innocents is tempered when you think about the crimes that many in Europe would likely have committed. I think medieval European justice is probably not much better.
Are you suggesting that it doesn't make a difference whether you're executing people for crimes or for fun? Yes, the medieval European justice system was far from perfect, yes, it was so imperfect that people now call things "medieval" when they're cruel and stupid, but surely there is something to be said for the fact that the people being executed in Europe had sometimes done something wrong to get there.
That's no different from human sacrifice to a god.
Tenochtitlán is said to have been a beautiful city of floating gardens. In Madrid, shit flowed in open sewers on sidewalks.
This doesnt make it morally more excusable, but it tempers your point as not everyone was a potential target of sacrifice.
Also you managed to miss the (in my mind) legitimate criticism of your characterization of their sacrifices as being 'for fun'.
I think the European criminal system was far more widespread than Aztec sacrifices, so net net maybe it would be similar. It’s also probably worth noting the religious aspect of it - people in religions sometimes seem willing to sacrifice their life for their gods, so I’m not 100% sure that the sacrifice victims or society didn’t get something out of it. In fact, they got the same thing as Europe - a tighter societal bond.
That being said, we know so little about the Aztecs compared to Europe that it would be impossible to make an informed if absurd decision as to which way I would want to be executed.
You have to evaluate ideological systems by their net good/evil per follower, otherwise their relative scales would dominate any comparison. For example, medical malpractice has killed unimaginably more people than any suicidal cult ever has. Still, that does not mean it's better to join a suicidal cult than it is to visit the doctor's office.
>we know so little about the Aztecs compared to Europe that it would be impossible to make an informed if absurd decision as to which way I would want to be executed.
The reason you'd want to pick the justice system is that justice systems, even when imperfect, can still declare innocent people innocent. A justice system sometimes makes mistakes, the Aztec temple only made mistakes.
It's plausible, in my opinion, that evaluating the Aztecs' ritual sacrifice practice in terms of the modern scientific POV leads to a categorically incorrect analysis. I.e. the questions--whether the Aztec gods exist, whether unfalsifiable claims "make sense" or can be operative, etc--might not be relevant or interesting.
I.e. the function describing the relationship between how closely our actions align with true facts as we understand them intellectually and broad outcomes in quality of life (defined however you want) is almost certainly not monotonic.
I guess in short all I'm saying is that our conscious, intellectual understanding of the world is not the only useful motivator. And I don't mean this in some sort of supernatural, metaphysical, spiritual way: I mean that objectively rational behavior sometimes results from subjectively irrational behavior.
> Prosecutions for the crime of witchcraft reached a highpoint from 1580 to 1630 during the Counter-Reformation and the European wars of religion, when an estimated 50,000 people were burned at the stake, of which roughly 80% were women, and most often over the age of 40.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_the_early_mode...
Edit I'm seeing 6 figure conquistador estimates and a 3 figure number acquired so far? Do you have a cite for 50k? Seems like a likely enough number just curious if anything has been refined since this https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5893933/The-...
the six figure estimate provided by the conquistador was written off as fabricated or exaggerated, unti the skull towers were discovered by archaeologists, and a few years later were discovered to roughly match the dimensions provided by the conquistador. i gave half his number as a conservative hedge.
the aztecs are believed to sacrificed tens of thousands of people a year; i do not think it is as outlandish as it may sound.
the aztecs were a truly, historically, uniquely bloodthirsty people.
this was a traditional rite; the skin would then be placed in a clay vessel underneath a temple or shrine alongside many others
1: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-skull-tower-rack-evidence-azte...
I also rarely hear people suggesting to learn from medieval europe.
But there is still respect, for example it does bother me, that all those kings still have a "great" in their name, when what it was what they were good at, was large scale slaughtering. King Karl the great? Not for me. By that standards Hitler would be a "Great", too.
And that our awesome justice system roots in ancient rome. Which was mainly a empire. Conquering the world to steal riches and slaves.
The word 'great' is not simply a more emphatic word for 'good', though in some contexts it might mean that. Great Britain isn't great because it's better than the other Britains, but because it encompasses all of the British Isles. I think it may also be the case that people are called great when their impact on history seems to have a great scale. For instance I think Catherine the Great is called great not because she was particularly benevolent (she personally owned half a million people), but because Russia became more powerful and expansive during her reign.
Yes, I am aware of that. But in classic history this seems to be the same. Good and great is having conquered much. And also in the general perception. The hollywood movies of Caesar or Alexander? Pure admiration. No serious criticism(or any at all), I remember of. Nothing against presenting history as it was. But there is still lots of glorification going on.
My school history classes were also speaking mainly great of the "great" people. Even though we would call them brutal dictators and barbaric enslavers if they would exist today.
"World's [blankiest] [blank]" is generally a pretty popular genre, regardless of the subject. Whether it's the tallest mountain, most venomous snake, longest railroad or fastest plane, people are fascinated with extremes. I think the obsession with the world's 'great' leaders like Genghis Khan or Alexander is just another manifestation of this.
It is, but would you not object to calling "Hitler the great"? Even though he was great by standards of conquering and slaughtering?