"The Aztecs believed in moderation", says ludicrously ignorant person

(Excuse me while I rant about this silly essay)

The moral philosophy of the Aztecs. Now, hypocrisy doesn't invalidate the ideas and all that, but could we please mention the sacrifices ? Just a little bit ? You know, all the stuff they did with ripping people's hearts out and wearing their bloodied skins inside out ? I mean, I'd also like to hear about their laws preventing generosity and sharing, but more importantly, IT'S THE FREAKIN' AZTECS. Not mentioning all the sacrifices in an article about morality is just bwuhooowhooouh (technical term).

Also, the author presents Greek ideas about morality flowing from individuals rather than society in a strange and at times absurdly simplistic way. Plato spent a fair chunk of time thinking on the ideal society in which to live which very explicitly has moral behaviour, if not morality itself, as a social construct.

If being good requires exceptional traits, such as practical intelligence, then many people would be excluded – such as those with cognitive disabilities. That does not seem right. One of the advantages of the Aztec view, then, is that it avoids this outcome by casting virtue as a cooperative, rather than an individual, endeavour.

I dunno, lots of people do seem to be pretty dang awful. Pretty much the entirety of the Republican party, so far as I can tell. Then again, a cooperative endeavour in no way whatsoever guarantees greater morality. Rather it tends to promote whatever systemtic thinking is popular. So lots of people could be jerks just because they're innately jerks or because everyone is making them behave like jerks. Seems to me they're probably naturally somewhat neutral if left alone and group behaviour can swing the majority one way or the other (the, ahem, FRICKIN' MASS SACRIFICES being a case in point). With interesting exceptions, mind you.

The Aztecs did not believe there was any conceptual link between leading our best lives on the one hand, and experiencing pleasure or ‘happiness’ on the other. This image of the virtuous man finds its closest Greek analogue in the Iliad’s Hector, the person to whom everyone flocked for refuge, the one who supported his whole house, but was nevertheless undone by Achilles.

Errr, also large chunks of Plato (both in negative and positive terms; e.g. Callicles is a total dick : https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RhysTaylorRhysy/posts/iYSyn7zywh3; whereas in huge amounts of other dialogues justice and pleasure being the same are discussed in much more positive ways).

The Aztecs held, in short, that it’s unrealistic to think that anyone can lead a perfectly good life, one in which you never slip up. A better goal, then, is to try to lead a rooted life, which they called neltiliztli: literally, rootedness. In this kind of life, one is able to manage the mistakes and slip-ups well, rather than avoid them altogether. The reward is not happiness necessarily, but the promise of a worthwhile life.

The Aztec’s answer is that virtuous actions follow the middle path, they strike the mean.

Again, Platonic. Also.... FRICKIN' BLOOD SACRIFICES ! How are these the middle ground ? Mwwwaaaaaaarrrghhh.

As the passage suggests, the mean or middle way (tlanepantla) is not so much an exact middle of something as it is a metaphor for the apt expression of a choice, action or feeling. In other passages, the middle choice is the one that represents the right form of dress, with clothes that are neither too shabby, nor too formal.

Sooo.... wearing your enemies skin inside out is nicely in the middle, is it ? Not too shabby, those bloodied human skins, eh ? Not too formal either ? Lovely.

The Aztecs, by contrast, thought that practical reason was best exercised in groups – and one finds evidence for this everywhere, from the merchant rites, to the choice of school for children, to the decisions of the king himself. Moreover, the Aztecs weren’t democratic about the matter. Rather than weigh all advice evenly, they gave greater weight in the deliberative process to those with the most practical experience (ixtlamatiliztli), who were often the elderly.

OK, that's a more interesting contrast of Greek ideals, where group behaviour is used to promote morality but ultimately can be judged by some absolute standard. Nevertheless it ends up with interesting parallels to the Greek ideals of having experts determine what is ethical. Stands in stark contrast to the notion that morality is a group effort if you give greater weight to some people than others though. At the extreme, both systems converge to the same ideal of a single super-awesome individual who learns perfect ethics. Doesn't really matter if morality is relative or absolute.

Even the assessment of ‘the middle way’ remains a collective rather than personal effort, since it was believed that practical wisdom worked best in groups that placed a high value on the opinions of the most experienced members. The Aztecs thought all this because they believed that we humans lead lives on the slippery earth (tlaticpac). The best guard we have against this eventuality, then, is each other.

Yes, because that worked out so well for them. Did I mention the FRICKIN' BLOOD SACRIFICES ? I think I did.

https://aeon.co/essays/aztec-moral-philosophy-didnt-expect-anyone-to-be-a-saint