Tag: Nahuas

Nahuas General Ethical Theory:

Similarly to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Purcell dicusses the Nahuas ethical point of view in his article Eudaimonia and Neltiliztli: Aristotle and the Aztecs on the Good Life. Nahuas’ ethical point of view starts from a conception of what it means to live a good life and from there works backwards to decide what moral actions are right and wrong. While Aristotle defined the best life as one of eudaimonia, or fulfilled happiness, the Nahuas believed that the best life was one of rootedness. Key to understanding this ethical standpoint is the fact that the Nahuas believe that surroundings have great effect on a person and they describe the world around us as slippery and transient. Therefore, the best life is one in which a person is rooted “in one’s body, in one’s psyche, in one’s community by social rites and role, and in teotl,” (16). From this description of a good life, the Nahuas proceed to determine what is morally praiseworthy and how people should act ethically. The Nahuas greatly emphasized the importance of your community when it comes to acting morally. Accordingly, the “only way that people live decent lives is if they are excellent at living; If they do their job within a society and do it well,” (15). The Nahuas stress the need to perform one’s societal role excellently as this is how one will become rooted not only in themselves but also in their community. They define right actions based on whether or not they promote “a good human and communal life,” (15).

First Situation: https://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/j454wd/sick_mother_58f_wants_money_from_me_29m_but/

A man’s mother was diagnosed with cancer earlier in the year, and he has been paying for a caregiver for her ever since. Something to note, however, is that he has not had any sort of relationship with his mother in 11 or more years since he moved to the United States due to her abusiveness. He did have a job coding but now he is starting graduate school and will be living on a much tighter budget than before and will be unable to spend the required money on a caregiver for his abusive mother. Should he find some way to make the funds work out, or should he stop paying for her altogether?

From the Nahuas point of view, the moral action is determined by if it fulfills one’s societal role excellently and there are various societal roles at play in this moral situation. First of all, there is the commonly accepted societal duty of children to support their sick and aging parents as their parents supported them when they were too young to do so themselves. From this standpoint, generally the Nahuas would say the moral action would be for the son to perform his societal role well by taking care of his mother. Yet there is the issue of whether or not the fact that the mother was abusive would change the societal duty of the son. The mother very clearly acted immorally according to the Nahuas’ standards by forsaking her societal role as a mother and performing her duties poorly. The Nahuas do not explicitly discuss extenuating circumstances so it is impossible to be certain of their perspective. Yet it seems likely that the Nahuas would say that because the mother acted immorally and performed her societal role poorly, the son then has no obligation to fulfill his role as a good son. 

There is also the perspective of the son’s societal role as a student and a contributing member of society. The son’s place in society was as a computer coder and now that he is attending graduate school his role is to learn his craft as well as he is able. If the son is sending money home this would make his education more difficult to accomplish if not jeopardizing it entirely. By sending money home, the son would be performing less excellently at his societal role as a student and a contributing United States citizen. Therefore, it appears that the Nahuas would say that it would be moral for the son to stop sending money to his mother and as such he should cease the payments. 

Second Situation: https://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/ir2jwx/my_16m_parents_dont_approve_of_my_girlfriend_17f/

A 16 year old brought his girlfriend over to his parents’ house to have dinner with his family, and it was going well up until his parents asked his girlfriend where she was from. She is British, and when she told them this information, they became upset and soon asked her to leave. After she was gone, they told their son how angry and disappointed in him they were and how they can’t believe that he would do this to them, advising him that he should break up with her. He later told his girlfriend about this and she is understandably quite distraught. What should be done to remedy this situation?

The Nahuas philosophy is interdependent with social rites, thus transgressions of these traditions would be considered a slip on the path to developing a more rooted life. From the parent’s perspective, the son failed to consider their wishes in his choice of partner, and brought a person into their home that they feel does not lead him along the right path. A proper partner for their son, based on our limited context, would have to satisfy the qualifications of being reserved in her physical presentation and from the same nation as their son. Their son’s relationship should also contribute to the wellbeing of their small family community. A benefit to this family would be the increased emotional intelligence of the son, as he is learning through this interaction to be sensitive to the emotions of his girlfriend and offer her care in a way that works for her. The development of this skill may be of huge help during future inevitable familial conflicts. Even with this post, the consideration that the son has of his parent’s wishes demonstrates that he values connection and rootedness with his family. Given the Nahuas lack of emphasis on happiness, the reaction of the parents to the girlfriend in terms of their discomfort is relatively negligible. In fact, the impact of their behavior on the choices of the son, who may end the relationship at their advice may impede his natural transition through social rites important to the other communities he is a part of and detract from his flourishing.

The Nahuas would most likely recommend that the son temporarily accept the demands of the parents and continue to see his girlfriend. Their restrictions on his meetings with her are not horribly stringent, and he will have an opportunity to develop further connectedness with her family if they spend more time at her house. The philosophy of the Nahuas would encourage the son to continue to attempt at integration with the family if the relationship turns out to be long term. He would be increasing the flourishing of his familial community by bringing someone into their lives that he values and increases his happiness and knowledge, and the rootedness of the family in a worldly community.

Adults think the darnedest things.

Last week we wrote from the perspective of Aristotelian morality. For a recap of his moral theories, click here; it will give more context to comparisons of Aristotle’s eudaimonia, which will aid in the overall understanding of this week’s theory of morality. This week, we will be writing from the perspective of the Nahuas, or the Aztecs who spoke Nahuatl in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, drawing on L. Sebastian Purcell’s “Eudaimonia and Neltiliztli: Aristotle and the Aztecs on the Good Life” (2017).

Like Aristotle, the Nahuas’ moral theories are based in virtue ethics, or the idea that character is an important component of morality. Rather than Aristotle’s theory of eudaimonia, or working towards a flourishing life as the best way of life, the Nahuas work towards rootedness. Rootedness means taking root in one’s body, mind, soul, and teotl, or earth. In the modern day, taking root may mean finding stability in these various aspects of your life. Part of achieving rootedness is maintaining one’s character, or “uniting one’s face and heart,” as rootedness is about performing life well, not just completing “right” actions (Section 4).

While Aristotle emphasizes that the good life is the happy life, this is a point of difference for the Nahuas; one should not anticipate happiness as the end result, but rather as a byproduct of pursuing a rooted life. Rootedness is based on the ideas that human life is slippery (people make mistakes), transitory (not only humans but all of nature), and not necessarily based in happiness. Based on these perspectives, the Nahuas believe “that one is seeking to lead a worthwhile life,” and living a meaningful life on earth is not necessarily conducive to happiness (Section 5). In order to be able to serve our community well and contribute meaningfully to our society, we must first be rooted, or stable in ourselves.

Parent’s Don’t Approve of Girlfriend

Tl;dr OP brings his British girlfriend over to his house to meet his parents for the first time. His parents are close-minded, racist, and xenophobic, so they dislike the girlfriend for being British. Immediately after having dinner, the parents rush the GF out of the house and berate the son for “going behind their back” and dating a “whore”. The parents don’t want her back in their house ever again, and want the son to break up with her but respect that it is his choice if he wants to or not.

The most prominent characteristic of the Nahuas is the idea of society being the focal point of life. They give the impression that individuals must be active members of society in order to even have the opportunity to have a “good” life. Additionally, from the Nahuas perspective,

“…if one looks at their analysis of good and bad performance of social roles, one sees that they justify assessment by appealing to a harm or help rendered.”

(Purcell 2017, 15)

As such, the first step to making a decision [regarding the protagonists’ dilemma] is to identify the society that you (the protagonist) would like to be a part of; after all, it is clear that (at least for the time being) the world with your significant other and the world with your parents are two opposing societies. Keep in mind that there is also a third society: that of your own.

Once this decision has been made, your goal should be to act in such a way that these societies see the “best” consequences. Given that the protagonists’ parents have always been racists, etc., it would appear unlikely that they will ever truly change their minds. In this sense, minus their dislike of the protagonist, there would not be much consequence in their regard. In contrast, any decision made will have drastic consequences for the protagonists’ significant other. Appeal to the parents, risk further mental harm in SO’s regard and parents retain their hatred (they might even feel empowered about their hatred). Appeal to SO, create an environment that fosters SO’s positive mental health and parents will remain unlikely to change their views.

If it was not already clear, the decision that is best for society as a whole is the one that fosters positive mental health in SO. 

Not Parenting Sister’s Children

Tl;dr A college student who is also employed works from home. She used to babysit her sister’s kids in high school but ever since she graduated high school, her sister drops off her kids without any warning or compensation; assuming that she will just take care of her kids. The sisters’ mother is supposed to be taking care of the children but has not taken responsibility for them and is leaving all of the work to the college student daughter. She does not have the time to watch the kids and ends up making sure they are fed and watching TV or not making a mess, nothing more than that. She is not focusing as much in her classes as she should and could be because of the kids. She is wondering if she is the asshole for not taking responsibility for these kids that her sister drops off and does not take responsibility for.

The Nahuas had systems that guided moral integrity within the society based on the extent and the quality of communal cooperation. The individual remains the focus for moral decisions and behavior, but the ultimate motivating factor remains the overall good and rootedness of the community.

“Assessments of right action, then, follow from an understanding of what it means to lead a good human and communal life. I think it clear, then, that the Nahuas reasoned about the good and the right in the same sort of way as eudaemonists do.”

(Purcell 2017, 15)

Right and wrong is governed by its effect on the overall health of the group and therefore in survival modes, is easy to understand as individuals do the best of their ability to provide for themselves and family members. Today, these interactions become more complex as our community size has increased greatly. Yet, expectations for individual task completion remains and is crucial for successful daily interactions. In the case of the sister, because her family members were not successfully completing their responsibilities, she was failing to complete tasks assigned to her as well as the original job of watching her sister’s children.

In the Nahuas’ community, the mother’s actions as well as the older sister’s, would receive blame as both are unable to successfully provide proper care for the children while simultaneously overburdening a valuable member of the family with more responsibility than can be taken on. Even with multiple warnings, the mother and sister fail to make changes that ultimately degrades the states of everyone, including the children who aren’t getting the attention they require. 

Conclusion

While reading the two moral prompts, the reader can clearly see that there are similarities between how the Nahuas would view these distinct scenarios. The main focal point of their views is that morality is based on being rooted in “one’s body, in one’s psych, in one’s community by social rites and role, and in teotl” (Purcell 2017, 13). They stress the importance of being rooted in your actions and doing whatever you do with excellence, as well as being a big part of your community and helping society.

In both examples, there are certain functions that the people must successfully do. In the first example, the function of the narrator is to be a good boyfriend and keep the girlfriend’s feelings in mind. This is being achieved as the guy has clearly made time for his girlfriend and is trying to make her feel better. The function of the parents is to support their son and his choices, however that is not the case as they want him and his girlfriend to break up due to their own racist ideology, therefore it can be stated that they are acting morally wrong.

Just like this example, the second moral prompt also looks at the functions. The mom’s responsibility is to take her care of her kids and the grandma’s responsibility is to take care of the grandkids whenever they can’t be taken care of by their mother. Both these functions are not being achieved as neither of them are taking care of the kids and are dumping this responsibility on the mom’s sister (grandma’s second daughter) who is in college. One can say that her responsibility is her education and helping out whenever she can. However, the mom and grandma are not doing their part of taking care of the kids and instead are overburdening the college student, which is not giving her the chance of successfully achieving her responsibility, thus the Nahuas would assume that they are acting morally wrong.

In comparing the two prompts, the reader can also see that the community in which the author of the Reddit post is a part of is toxic. The Nahuas emphasize being good to the community. The parents of the first example and the mom and grandma of the second example are not being good to the other people in their community, therefore are in the wrong. As much as the others are being treated badly, they continue to want to stay in the community by trying to reason with the parents (as in the first moral problem) and taking care of the children even when they can’t (as in the second moral problem).

The Philosophy

The Nahua’s maintain a community-based morality, where if one’s actions are rooted the community, those actions are perceived as good. Although Purcell (“Eudaimonia and Neltiliztli: Aristotle and the Aztecs on the Good Life“, 2017) never defined what a community to the Nahuas is, it seems that people must satisfactorily serve their social roles in order to be good.

“If one looks to [the Nahua’s] analysis of good and bad performance of social roles, one sees that they justify assessment by appealing to a harm or help rendered”

Purcell 2017: 15

In the Nahuas’ eyes, every person in a community has social roles that they must participate in, and the effect of a social role on other people is the measurement of its goodness or badness. So, if a person feels helped by another community member, it is perceived as a good fulfillment of a social role, while if a person feels harmed by another’s actions, this is a bad fulfillment of a social role.

Girlfriend vs. Parents

tl;dr: Do you often find yourself having to choose between your parents’ wishes and your partner’s? Tom (not real name) struggles with these things too, here is his dilemma: Tom brings over his British girlfriend for dinner, but his parents act minorly hostile during dinner and promptly rush her out of the house following the completion of the meal. When Tom talks to his parents, they only yell at him that he should not be dating her because she is a whore, tell him to break up with her, and make it clear that she is no longer welcome in their home. So, Tom must decide if he should try to make his parents accept her, or if he should just drop the matter and never bring her over again.

Based on the morality system of the Nahuas, our group decided that, while the parents need to adjust their actions, Tom should attempt to balance the worlds of being a good boyfriend and being a good son. Tom has a social obligation to both his girlfriend and his parents, so he must try to please both. Breaking up with his girlfriend would result in a bad social role fulfillment because it causes harm, while at the same time bringing the girlfriend over more often would represent a bad social role fulfillment with the parents because she is unpleasant to them. So, Tom should attempt to maintain his relationship with his girlfriend while also subtly seeking to have his parents warm up to her. While this could cause minor disappointments in both the parents and girlfriend, this harm is less than it would be if either of the other extremes (breaking up / forcing them to get to know her) were acted upon.

Fiance vs. Family

tl;dr: Have your friends ever blamed you for their marriage? If they have, this post is for you! Meet a girl (the protagonist) whose family adamantly believes in arranged marriages. The protagonist is engaged to her fiancé, whom she chose, and knows her family would hate her and be hostile to her fiancé if she were to tell them. So, she acts like she is having an arranged marriage to assuage her family. Her uncle is perhaps the most adamant about arranged marriages, and he forces his daughter into one, telling her that the protagonist is also in an arranged marriage. But, as the protagonist and her fiancé are not in an arranged marriage, she ends up telling her cousin the truth after she is married. The cousin was so mad that the protagonist was not in an arranged marriage that she refuses to talk to her and blames her for her own arranged marriage, claiming that if she had known that her cousin had chosen her husband, she would have rebelled against her uncle’s wishes and not gotten married. So, the protagonist feels horrible and does not know what to do about her cousin who is unhappily in an arranged marriage.

Applying the Nahua’s morality to this situation, it becomes clear that the girl should dump her chosen fiancé and align with her family’s wishes of arranged marriage. The girl has already performed badly in her social roles, and if she tries to maintain the lie that her fiancé is arranged, she will only hurt more people around her. Both her uncle and her cousin are harmed by her decision to not be in an arranged marriage, and once the secret gets out, her whole family will be outraged. She must try to please her family because they are her community and the majority of her social roles are with them. Therefore, she should dump her boyfriend and tell her family that she wishes to have an arranged marriage.