Let me ask that we keep this civil, let's just discuss the argument. I may be misreading things or presenting things poorly and if so I apologize.
Doesn't matter WHY they changed. Only matters THAT they changed. People respond to, as I said, cultural mores and institutions. Economic considerations can drive changes in behavior, duh. That's what I said. You disagreed.
Let me state that disagreeing with someone does not mean you necessarily take the contradictory point, of course I don't think that external factors have no influence on behavior. If you want to stab at that strawman feel free, it won't fight back. The way I see this is that you are arguing that cultural mores and institutions
govern human behavior. I am saying that mores and institutions
influence human behavoir and are one factor in the determination of behavior along with human nature.
I get this from you original post that stated,
PART of the fourth is intended. Rights and freedoms. That bothers me some, but not tons. What DOES bother me is the highly modernized sexuality of especially women, but some male characters as well.
Now I know, and I assume you know some women characters who do not have highly modernized sexuality, and apparently many male characters that don't ether. So it seems to me that you are arguing that the social mores predominant during medieval time should be strictly followed by all characters because the social mores and social institutions govern behavior.
I could be mistaken here, but if you accept that mores and institutions only influence behavior and do not determine it, than you also shouldn't have a problem with some characters, discretely through RP's being sexualized. As I stated earlier:
But I would argue that regardless of the time or society, people are the same. The rules they will play by change but they will still seek to satisfy their instinctual desires. Just as we have people today who conduct activities that society considers wrong, so did the medieval societies. The 'evil' we see today is not new to our society, it may be desires manifesting themselves in different ways, but the conduct of people does not change.
I admit that the final phrase is poorly executed, it should state the human nature does not change, but I believe the intent is understood from the rest of the paragraph and if this has mislead you to understand that I am arguing that social influences have no baring on behavior I apologize.
Regarding a definition of human nature I feel most people have a basic understanding of the term. to define it further would simply open a new vein of debate as it enters the realm of religion and presuppositions, lets try and keep things as focused as possible.
Regarding anthropology you are correct, I have not read much. My education involves much more classical Greek and roman literature, philosophy, and rhetoric. So although I do not know about the selfish society you speak of, I am quite aware of the recorded teachings on morality from ancient Egypt up through Islam, and from the eastern philosophers to the western ones. So although you might be able to point to some isolated village, I can show the breath of history and can tell you that all of these cultures have moral codes, and the codes seem highly correlated.
But before we discuss this, lets first make sure that we are understanding what each other are debating for. I am stating that human nature influences behavior along with social mores and institutions. And I think you may agree with me given your previous statement. But what I originally saw you stating is that you believe mores and institutions govern or dictate human behavior. If you could clarify your position it would be most helpful.
