Violence and the Sacred is a book that tries to answer, among some other things, why ritual sacrifices used to happen. I haven’t finished it yet, René Girard could perhaps be a bit meandering, but it’s an insightful read so far (and impossible to do justice in a summary).
He observes that in older human societies a transgression could easily lead to an infinite loop of vendetta-like bloodshed. He also observes that sacrifices always targeted a victim that is nearly a member of society (if not an actual human outcast or child, then an animal which people like and are reasonably close to on a daily basis) but never quite.
Part of his theory appears to be that ritual sacrifice (a murder that follows a particular procedure) eventually emerged as a viable steam vent that made societies more resilient. It lets out the impulse that causes members of society to be violent to each other, but focuses this impulse on someone who is adjacent to yet outside of that society, carries no social function, and is unable to push back or seek revenge, thus defusing the impulse safely (for society).
(A functioning justice system in modern civilization performs a similar role, taking revenge out of the hands of the victim.)
Any references, or we are supposed to go off your word? René Girard gives plenty in the book.
He also notes that sacrifice of an outcast is a thing, I think I mentioned it already: once a person is stripped of his or her membership in society, that person becomes a perfectly valid sacrificial scapegoat—no matter whether that person used to be a warrior or a noble.
Note also that, while we are talking about ritual sacrifice here, plain simple murder was as much of a thing back then. The two are very different things.
Most classical histories include some ethnographic descriptions of foreign rituals. Check out Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, etc.
For a modern and extensive compilation, Frazer famously wrote a huge multi-volume work that documents sacrificial myths from all over the world in The Golden Bough. He selects and uses them to make his own argument, but you’re not likely to find a more comprehensive compilation.
I’m not sure why you are bringing abortion into this. The Carthaginian’s would not consider what they were doing abortion and most modern people would also not consider this related to abortion. Is there some correlation that you wanted to make?
Perhaps they knew something we didn't know. I'm convinced human sacrifice is more than just, lets appease this deity or usher in a form of eugenics/genocide. These people were far more advanced then we give them credit for.
> It is interesting that civilizations have engaged in ritual sacrifice. The question is why?
A few thoughts:
- Sacrifice and civilization are closely related. To live in a society you have to sacrifice some autonomy, some of your (and your family's) goals and some resources. Further, to prepare for the future you have to make a sacrifice in the present. Many people even sacrifice their present selves for their future (not born yet) offspring. It is only logical (if a bit esoteric) then, to think that making a bigger sacrifice will transmute into bigger positives.
- Christianity (not that familiar with Judaism or Islam) was revolutionary because Jesus already made the ultimate sacrifice, essentially freeing everyone from the obligation.
- If one takes a sober view, the history of ritual sacrifices has not ended (and probably never will). Mao was willing to sacrifice millions to bring about Communism (read: Paradise / heaven on earth). Similarly for the Bolsheviks, Nazis, Red Khmer, Robespierre etc. They all explicitly stated in their own writing that the deaths were a worthwhile sacrifice. That is the psychopathic variant of ritual sacrifice, slaughtering a goat to Zeus looks a lot more tame and rational in comparison, no?
We can safely add plenty of liberal democracies to that list if the criteria is "willing to cause the deaths of millions to realize their political project". At the very least Britain and the US.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth bringing it back around to politics (I wish I lived in a world where I didn't have anything to say about it), but cancel culture has shown that people still love to gather 'round for a good old fashioned sacrifice.
Homeboy just compared human sacrifice to [current social justice talking points]. Most who died of covid were overweight, old, and had preexisting medical conditions related to lifestyle. They contributed to their own "sacrifice".
People who wonder how we justified sacrificing humans before. This is how.
We legitimately believed that sacrificing humans was helping prosperity, etc. We’re doing the same now with a few extra steps of indirection and abstraction.
Authoritative religious figures stealing baby from a mothers arm and the local shaman sacrificing it on an altar = same as driving a car. Hacker news is a RIOT.
I think it still exists in some extreme groups. Just think about any cause worth dying for an you essentially find an argument for a sacrifice.
In fact I remember the Texas governor Dan Patrick saying a lot of grandparents would be willing to sacrifice themselves during Covid for the economy (oddly he did not seem to be willing to lead by example).
To be clear, I do not object to the concept of abortion. I welcome it, in fact, because I don't generally like other people and I don't expect them to get better. That being said, I still consider the practice to be barbaric. The very same practice that I support, yes. Does that make me a barbarian? I think it actually does. If that is what I am, then I have accepted it.
