For regular videos on ancient cultures and forgotten civilizations,
please subscribe. If you would like to support the channel and become part of
our ancient history fan community, visit patreon.com/worldofantiquity.
Welcome to the World of Antiquity channel. I’m David Miano,
and I am answering voicemails. Let’s give one a listen.
Hi Professor Miano. My name is Michael. I’ve been reading Under the Influence:
How Christianity Transformed Civilization by Alvin J. Schmidt. In it the value of life was shown to
be very different from how Judeo-Christian culture is and modern culture in general.
To, like, abandon babies and to have, like, partial-birth abortion, etc. And, like, why was
the value of life so little, and that like especially for females were regarded so lowly.
I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks. Have a great day.
Thank you for your message, Michael. I haven’t read Schmidt’s book, but I am happy to comment
on how ancient people generally valued life in comparison with modern culture. In my
studies I haven’t encountered any explicit statements in ancient sources about the
intrinsic value of human life. I don’t know if they ever commented on it directly.
But I can tell you that ancient sources do express the importance of things like sympathy,
empathy, fellow-feeling, and fair treatment of others.
In the ancient Near East, we have works of a genre we call Wisdom Literature,
which contains proverbs about how to live one’s life, and we have legal codes too,
and in these there is no doubt that human life was considered valuable. I mean,
you were punished if you took it from someone. And there is emphasis in many texts on taking care of
the less fortunate, like orphans and widows. This shows that they considered their lives valuable.
We have in Hammurabi’s laws, as we also have in the Bible, the principle of an eye for an eye,
a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life. If you take a life, you forfeit your life.
That being said, Hammurabi’s laws are class-based. That is, the property of a person of lower social
status does not have the same value as the property of a person of higher status, and
that includes life. In other words, a noble’s life is considered more valuable than a peasant’s life.
So there was no equality in those days, in any society. Poor people were not as valuable as rich,
women were not as valuable as men, foreigners were not as valuable as citizens, etc. That
really didn’t change much until fairly recent times, even in Christian countries. Actually,
there is still some question whether we value all lives equally. You ever notice how when
the news reports a disaster is some foreign land - 425 people dead, and 3 were Americans!
American lives, it would seem, are more valuable to us.
The ancient Israelite laws, as you may know, contain the principle “love your fellow as
yourself,” which shows that another person was believed to have the same value as yourself. The
Golden Rule, as we call it, about ‘doing unto others’ appears in various forms in several
cultures. Confucius had a version of it, for example. An important principle in Confucianism is
ren, which is benevolence, the proper treatment of others. Another Chinese philosopher, Mozi, upheld
the principle of jian’ai “impartial concern,” which is that people ought to be concerned for
the welfare of others without making distinctions between self and others, associates and strangers.
In ancient India, although the idea of human rights or human value was not explicitly stated,
there was there too teachings we could call humanitarian.
The Buddhist doctrine of ahimsa, non-violence,
is a fundamental principle of behavior. There’s a statement in the Bhagavad Gita that, "he who
has no ill will to any being, who is friendly and compassionate, who is free from egoism and
self sense and who is even-minded in pain and pleasure and patient" is someone dear to God.
But I expect that Schmidt’s book mostly deals with Classical Civilization, Greece and Rome.
As in other places, people of the Mediterranean world in those days saw inequality as normal.
It was just assumed that there was a hierarchical order, and the lives of those
in the upper echelon were believed to be more valuable than the lives of those further down.
It also was commonly assumed, particularly among the intellectuals, that human value was acquired
through one’s actions. The more virtuous a person was, the more their lives were worth. In the
sources, there isn’t much talk about the concept of inherent human value. Enslaved people, for
example, had no rights. It was believed by many that they deserved to be in that position. But
the potential was there, theoretically, for that person to get out of that situation and to obtain
a better place in society. If that happened, their life would be considered more valuable than it was
before. Your worth was dictated largely by what societal group you were a part of - your family,
kinship group, or country. And if you were not part of any family - say, you were a foundling,
an orphan - your life was not protected. A newborn baby, for example, had no worth until it was
accepted into a family. In Rome, legally, a father could choose not to accept a baby as his own,
and it had no rights. If it was sickly or disabled, he could choose to dispose of it.
So you could make the case that they definitely did not see any inherent value in human life.
But I think this practice is overmagnified in the discussion sometimes. Legally,
a baby may not have had an intrinsic right to life until accepted into a family, but
there is no evidence that newborn disposal was done often. It seems that most fathers happily
accepted their children into their families and valued their lives from the get-go.
There has been some debate among scholars about whether there ever was a philosophical basis
for the concept of human worth or dignity. Roman stoicism, a philosophy that developed
in the Hellenistic period, was known for its humanitarianism, which affirmed the fraternity
of all people and that everyone, no matter free or enslaved, civilized or barbarian, should be
treated justly and kindly. The famous Stoic Roman emperor, Marcus Aurelius, in his book Meditations, writes:
Note how he says they deserve to be helped,
suggesting some inherent worth.
He also writes an aphorism calling the Golden Rule to mind:
Stoicism’s influence led to the ameliorating of the treatment of slaves in the empire.
But some have pointed out that Stoicism’s emphasis on accepting with indifference what life brings
one’s way, to put up with suffering, prevented it from doing much to protect the weak in society.
But Stoicism promoted the helping of others, so I think that is a misreading of their belief system.
In the classical political systems, just as we have today, there were factions that
supported the status quo, the traditionalists, who were interested in keeping power in the hands of
the few, and there were the ancient progressives, who wanted to enfranchise more members of society.
Remember that democracy was invented in ancient Athens, and that movement put power into the hands
of men of lower classes. The whole structure of their society was altered, so that all men were
to be considered equal. Mind you, this didn’t include women. But a feeling of egalitarianism
fueled this movement. And what that means for human worth is that, in this society,
all male citizens, whose lives were once believed not to be worth the same, legally were
to be considered the same. And there was a push by some to continue moving towards complete equality.
In Rome, the political faction known as the populares advocated for social welfare programs,
for food to be distributed to the poor, and the giving away of public land to the needy.
The leaders of this party used language suggesting that the lives of these people
were valuable. The opposing party was against such things, of course, but it
wouldn’t be correct to say that in ancient times people’s lives were simply not valued very much.
The word philanthropy comes from ancient times. It’s derived from the Greek word philanthropia,
which means love of humans, and it was used quite literally. The ancient Greek physician
Galen, when writing about the reasons why someone might want to become a doctor, wrote,
I should add that love of fellow humans was also a reason given
for why people became teachers in ancient times.
So I guess what I am saying is that it would be a mischaracterization of ancient society to claim
that human life wasn’t valued. I agree that it might not have been valued as much as it is today.
Even in the later Roman empire and throughout the medieval period in Europe,
even into the early modern period, all lives were still not viewed as equally valuable.
But we should be careful not to paint with a broad brush for any time period. Society is complex,
and different people in it have different values. I would be wary of anyone who makes judgments
about whole societies. They usually lack the nuance necessary to make an informed assessment.
I hope that answers your question. Thank you very much for sending it.
If anyone else would like to leave me a question on my voicemail, you can do so
at speakpipe.com/DavidMiano. I can’t guarantee that I will answer every voicemail I receive. It
depends on how many I get and what you ask about. If it is a question about prehistoric times,
or about medieval times, I am less likely to answer it. Ancient history questions are best,
and how interesting I think the general audience will find it is important too.
Thanks for watching. We’ll see you next time.
You might like my little e-booklet, Why Ancient History Matters. It’s designed to persuade people
that the subject is important, even in the modern world. You might also wish to use it to help
spread the word. So feel free to share it with someone you know. It’s free for anyone who wants it.
I’ve left a link in the description box below the video for you to grab a copy. Catch you later!