Consider compassion, how can Australopithecus or Lower Palaeolithic man be compassionate toward animals, when they themselves were not yet masters of the animal kingdom or even worse still prey themselves? It is impossible, compassion simply did not exist. Compassion is technical, in that you must, for instance, first attain advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure such as gunpowder, muskets, rifles, nuclear weapons, automobiles, militaries, police, emergency services, roads, buildings, bridges and skyscrapers etc before you can be compassionate toward animals. It is not a case of hey compassion for compassion’s sake like the Buddha. Compassion is not free of charge, it is a definite and tangible deal or bargain. Only now that I am invincibly safe and secure from wild animals in my city, town or fortress and surrounded by guns, and now that I have an overabundance and surplus of food, energy and resources etc can or will I be compassionate toward animals. It is like saying to ‘bear’ “I have a nuke now, therefore I am compassionate toward you.” This is something bear will never understand, in that it is ironic that once you attain nuclear weapons that you are therefore by definition compassionate toward animals. To reiterate, compassion is something technical, it is only attained through a collective effort, through taming the wild and through civilisation. You can only be compassionate once there is no competition.
The more advanced you are the more responsible you are and therefore the more guilty you are of sin, therefore, the more primitive you are the less responsible you are and therefore the less guilty you are of sin.
There are two opposite ways in which one can be advanced or primitive: collective or individual.
1. Collective: The younger you are or the more modern you are the more advanced you are, therefore the more responsible you are and therefore the more guilty you are of sin. Therefore the older you are or the more ancient you are the more primitive you are therefore the less responsible you are and therefore the less guilty you are of sin. This means that Jeffrey Dahmer got into much more trouble for cannibalising than Homo antecessor did for cannibalism.
2. Individual: The older or more adult you are the more advanced you are therefore the more responsible you are and therefore the more guilty of sin you are. Therefore the younger or more juvenile you are the more primitive you are therefore the less responsible you are and therefore the less guilty you are of sin. This means that adults get into much more trouble than kids for sin.
For another ‘collective’ example, it was obviously much less of an issue for ancient, medieval, early modern and even Victorian people to slave than it is for us modern people to slave today. I have read many contemporary books on the discovery and exploration of West Africa, and two books particularly were related to slavery, one by Carl Bernhard Wadstrom and another by Jean Barbot. I learned that Carl Bernhard Wadstrom was a passionate abolitionist while Jean Barbot was a practicing slaver by trade. How was slavery more acceptable in Henry the Navigator’s or Jean Barbot’s time and more abhorrent in ours or Carl Bernhard Wadstrom’s time? Because medieval and early modern people were more primitive and modern people are more advanced. We should not judge primitive people such as Henry the Navigator or Jean Barbot, even the Old Testament, Plato and Aristotle spoke ambivalently of slavery. For example, prehistoric man did some unspeakable things such as rape, murder and cannibalism, but would we judge them? No!
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”
There is no morality in advanced relativity such as E = MC² and nuclear energy etc, in fact there is even no morality in simple https://mathsandtime.com relativity such as T², however there is morality and even forgiveness in generic or verbal relativity. For example consider the following. Crimes and sins are relative in that for example cannibalism was relatively no issue with such as Homo antecessor because Homo antecessor was so primitive and had no infrastructure, technology or medicine etc and because Homo antecessor came from such a distant ‘time’ or epoch, therefore, killing and cannibalism were relatively less of an issue for them. However, therefore, murder and cannibalism today by such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish are so ‘relatively evil’ compared with Homo antecessor because they are out of place and in the wrong ‘time’. For example with modern serial killers and cannibals something has gone seriously wrong with ‘time’ and relativity. However, ‘time’ and relativity give us hope that there could be a cure for and absolution of such anachronistic crimes and sins. Let us pray crime relativity or relativity of evil will shed ‘light’ on these darkest areas of human existence. Again for example, we would never judge Homo antecessor for killing and cannibalism, therefore, we should bare this in mind when judging and condemning such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish, as they are only ‘relatively evil’ because they are more modern and advanced. Therefore, as will be seen, if such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish became, thought like or accepted that they were primitive, prehistoric or even animal, then their sins are much lighter. ‘Time’ determines that they are ‘relatively evil’, that is the only difference.
There were two American academic explorers and naturalists who were attempting to make first contact with an indigenous native Amazonian tribe in the 1990’s. After months of searching and hacking their way through the Amazon rainforest with machetes, and dealing with insects, animals and disease, they finally found what they were looking for, a pristine and virgin un-contacted tribe of indigenous Amazonians. The initial contact was precarious, the American explorers offered the Amazonians trifles and food and the Amazonians tentatively accepted. However, all of a sudden like a wild animal one of the Amazonians clubbed one of the explorers over the head with a club, smashing his skull, the other explorer tried to defend himself but was also clubbed to death and struck with poison arrows. The Amazonians then took the corpses of the two American explorers back to their village and cannibalised them. The end. What is the moral of this parable? Would it be moral for the American or Brazilian governments to catch the un-contacted native Amazonians who killed the American explorers and charge, prosecute and incarcerate them? No! You might as well send a jaguar to jail. Why then? Because the indigenous Amazonians are more primitive and the American explorers are much more advanced. Relatively it would be unethical to prosecute the indigenous un-contacted Amazonians for killing the two Americans. Relatively, they have done nothing wrong! We should bare this in mind when judging and condemning our own murderers and those who have man-slaughtered in the developed world. It is only a matter of relativity.
There are actual recorded cases such as the killing of Englishman Richard Mason by indigenous Amazonians in 1961.
“Accompanied by a member of the Brazilian Indian Protection Service, Hemming left gifts such as machetes and fishing line at the spot where Mason had been killed to show they bore no ill will to his killers.“