Of course this is setting dependent but reading XenosGuardian's post I realize the way I think of undead may not be the way they are viewed in general. I think of them as soulless husks, necromancy just reanimates a hunk of lifeless flesh. Not much different than creating a carriage out of fallen timber, except for the connection others had in life with the undead corpse.
But is the idea that the spirit or mind of the individual is trapped along with the body? I mean that view is way more unethical than what I had in mind.
So if I’m reading this right there’s a potion that calms the undeads’ violent compulsions against the living, and people are volunteering their bodies to the system. That answers two ethical considerations right there, but not quite all. Firstly, I can’t find any way to construe using a wight’s addiction to the potion to compel labor as in any way moral. For skeletons and zombies, it depends on if there’s any consciousness in them. By default, zombies have INT 3 and skeletons INT 6 and mention a “hateful undead spirit” in their description, so it seems like there’s something looking back at you when you peek into its empty eye sockets. It comes down to the mechanics of undeath in your world.
I am one of those in the school of "Undead are simply magically animated bodies" which means when the person/creature died, it's soul or spiritual essence leaves and goes on to whatever afterlife is/was promised/due. The shell can follow commands like any other magically created construct. Telling a pile of dirt to do something (golem) is the same as telling a corpse to do something,
It's interesting to see, however, some folks who feel the soul is somehow prevented from moving on and/or imprisioned when a body is turned into an undead thing. I have never thought of it that way, even for the "intelligent" undead in many cases. I still pictured the actual soul vacating and necromantic magic kickstarts the body, allowing memories, knowledge and such to be retained so the brain would be intact, again, MY vision) but the soul itself, with it's motivations, desires and wants, isn't there to drive it any longer, making for a chaotic, unpredictable behavior.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I am one of those in the school of "Undead are simply magically animated bodies" which means when the person/creature died, it's soul or spiritual essence leaves and goes on to whatever afterlife is/was promised/due. The shell can follow commands like any other magically created construct. Telling a pile of dirt to do something (golem) is the same as telling a corpse to do something,
It's interesting to see, however, some folks who feel the soul is somehow prevented from moving on and/or imprisioned when a body is turned into an undead thing. I have never thought of it that way, even for the "intelligent" undead in many cases. I still pictured the actual soul vacating and necromantic magic kickstarts the body, allowing memories, knowledge and such to be retained so the brain would be intact, again, MY vision) but the soul itself, with it's motivations, desires and wants, isn't there to drive it any longer, making for a chaotic, unpredictable behavior.
if I were to roleplay as a humanoid with empathy, I would consider controlling a human corpse to be desecration and no better than cannibalism.
You might be surprised to learn that most living creatures haven't experienced what happens after death, and can only make assumptions based on observation. For example: dead - go to after life, resurrected - soul returns - body is alive, animated - body is alive - what about soul? It is easy to assume that if the soul is what made the body alive the first time, then animating a corpse must enslave the soul somehow.
Throw in some actually real and present gods that don't like necromancy, and the mass populace is going to view it as evil and immoral.
I am one of those in the school of "Undead are simply magically animated bodies" which means when the person/creature died, it's soul or spiritual essence leaves and goes on to whatever afterlife is/was promised/due. The shell can follow commands like any other magically created construct. Telling a pile of dirt to do something (golem) is the same as telling a corpse to do something,
It's interesting to see, however, some folks who feel the soul is somehow prevented from moving on and/or imprisioned when a body is turned into an undead thing. I have never thought of it that way, even for the "intelligent" undead in many cases. I still pictured the actual soul vacating and necromantic magic kickstarts the body, allowing memories, knowledge and such to be retained so the brain would be intact, again, MY vision) but the soul itself, with it's motivations, desires and wants, isn't there to drive it any longer, making for a chaotic, unpredictable behavior.
if I were to roleplay as a humanoid with empathy, I would consider controlling a human corpse to be desecration and no better than cannibalism.
You might be surprised to learn that most living creatures haven't experienced what happens after death, and can only make assumptions based on observation. For example: dead - go to after life, resurrected - soul returns - body is alive, animated - body is alive - what about soul? It is easy to assume that if the soul is what made the body alive the first time, then animating a corpse must enslave the soul somehow.
Throw in some actually real and present gods that don't like necromancy, and the mass populace is going to view it as evil and immoral.
I don't think that necessarily has to be true. Maybe the necromantic energy replaces the vitalizing force of the soul?
I am one of those in the school of "Undead are simply magically animated bodies" which means when the person/creature died, it's soul or spiritual essence leaves and goes on to whatever afterlife is/was promised/due. The shell can follow commands like any other magically created construct. Telling a pile of dirt to do something (golem) is the same as telling a corpse to do something,
It's interesting to see, however, some folks who feel the soul is somehow prevented from moving on and/or imprisioned when a body is turned into an undead thing. I have never thought of it that way, even for the "intelligent" undead in many cases. I still pictured the actual soul vacating and necromantic magic kickstarts the body, allowing memories, knowledge and such to be retained so the brain would be intact, again, MY vision) but the soul itself, with it's motivations, desires and wants, isn't there to drive it any longer, making for a chaotic, unpredictable behavior.
if I were to roleplay as a humanoid with empathy, I would consider controlling a human corpse to be desecration and no better than cannibalism.
You might be surprised to learn that most living creatures haven't experienced what happens after death, and can only make assumptions based on observation. For example: dead - go to after life, resurrected - soul returns - body is alive, animated - body is alive - what about soul? It is easy to assume that if the soul is what made the body alive the first time, then animating a corpse must enslave the soul somehow.
Throw in some actually real and present gods that don't like necromancy, and the mass populace is going to view it as evil and immoral.
I don't think that necessarily has to be true. Maybe the necromantic energy replaces the vitalizing force of the soul?
No it doesn't have to be true, all it has to be is what someone thinks is true.
It is just an assumption that someone who is not familiar with necromancy (99.99% of people) would make.
And did I mention how the most popular religions (usually toward a god of life, health, or agriculture) would be opposed to necromancy anyway?
Are the undead of your setting just monsters that pop out of the ground or did they used to be people? Most humans with the ethics of modern civilization would not be happy to know that their dead grandparents are being used to make someone else money.
I'd be fine with it, as long as the zombies get a wage used for purposes set out in their wills. With a 24-hour workday, they'd still be more efficient than humans.
Are the undead of your setting just monsters that pop out of the ground or did they used to be people? Most humans with the ethics of modern civilization would not be happy to know that their dead grandparents are being used to make someone else money.
I'd be fine with it, as long as the zombies get a wage used for purposes set out in their wills. With a 24-hour workday, they'd still be more efficient than humans.
Do you really think the kind of people who would use undead labor are going to pay them a wage?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Ownership is another issue here: using the corpse without appropriate permission is theft. We have precedent for people making arrangements for the disposal of their bodies (funerary rites, organ donor cards, leaving to science) so 'I leave my body to be reanimated by Bob the Necromancer' seems possible enough, though actually getting people to agree seems like it might require payment.
I am one of those in the school of "Undead are simply magically animated bodies" which means when the person/creature died, it's soul or spiritual essence leaves and goes on to whatever afterlife is/was promised/due. The shell can follow commands like any other magically created construct. Telling a pile of dirt to do something (golem) is the same as telling a corpse to do something,
It's interesting to see, however, some folks who feel the soul is somehow prevented from moving on and/or imprisioned when a body is turned into an undead thing. I have never thought of it that way, even for the "intelligent" undead in many cases. I still pictured the actual soul vacating and necromantic magic kickstarts the body, allowing memories, knowledge and such to be retained so the brain would be intact, again, MY vision) but the soul itself, with it's motivations, desires and wants, isn't there to drive it any longer, making for a chaotic, unpredictable behavior.
if I were to roleplay as a humanoid with empathy, I would consider controlling a human corpse to be desecration and no better than cannibalism.
You might be surprised to learn that most living creatures haven't experienced what happens after death, and can only make assumptions based on observation. For example: dead - go to after life, resurrected - soul returns - body is alive, animated - body is alive - what about soul? It is easy to assume that if the soul is what made the body alive the first time, then animating a corpse must enslave the soul somehow.
Throw in some actually real and present gods that don't like necromancy, and the mass populace is going to view it as evil and immoral.
I don't think that necessarily has to be true. Maybe the necromantic energy replaces the vitalizing force of the soul?
No it doesn't have to be true, all it has to be is what someone thinks is true.
It is just an assumption that someone who is not familiar with necromancy (99.99% of people) would make.
And did I mention how the most popular religions (usually toward a god of life, health, or agriculture) would be opposed to necromancy anyway?
That sort of thing might make for some good story for the OP's world. Maybe necromancy doesn't enslave the soul and the people who use them understand that but others who encounter them are misinformed and superstitious. Maybe they gather mobs with pitchforks, or whole armies to end the enslavement of souls only to find they were mistaken all along and committed all kinds of harms to actual souls out of ignorance? Or maybe the PCs come from outside the necromantic culture, are tasked with ending the practice only to find out the truth. Having to go back to their people and try to tell them they are mistaken, there's some nice fodder for conflict there, especially if you bring religion and the gods in.
Are the undead of your setting just monsters that pop out of the ground or did they used to be people? Most humans with the ethics of modern civilization would not be happy to know that their dead grandparents are being used to make someone else money.
I'd be fine with it, as long as the zombies get a wage used for purposes set out in their wills. With a 24-hour workday, they'd still be more efficient than humans.
Do you really think the kind of people who would use undead labor are going to pay them a wage?
In a society where necromancy is considered bad, no. But necromancers are only more evil than everyone else if necromancy is considered to be evil. If people were like me and fine with conditional necromancy, then yes. People would animate them for employees that don't get tired or complain and probably work for less than anyone else. It's still worth paying wages.
My first thought was that it would be fine. Then I thought, well, what if that was my grandparents bodies they were using; I would not be ok with that. And from there is was a pretty short walk to: it’s just not ok.
In a society where necromancy is considered bad, no. But necromancers are only more evil than everyone else if necromancy is considered to be evil. If people were like me and fine with conditional necromancy, then yes. People would animate them for employees that don't get tired or complain and probably work for less than anyone else. It's still worth paying wages.
I was commenting more on the greater evil of capitalism than necromancy
I mean, it's a labor force that would be literally viewed as disposable
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Well, that depends on the culture. You could have a society where burying your deceased elders in the ground to decompose is considered disrespectful.
There's a lot of room between "don't bury" and "re-animate a corpse to use for slave labor."
Not trying to say that it's an either/or situation, just that it's something that's entirely dependent on cultural norms and you can easily design a culture where what we consider normal would be highly offensive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Well, that depends on the culture. You could have a society where burying your deceased elders in the ground to decompose is considered disrespectful.
There's a lot of room between "don't bury" and "re-animate a corpse to use for slave labor."
Yet both and everything in between are still possible. There are a lot of things in real human history that are considered immoral that were once a normal part of some cultures. Cannibalism for example fits well in this discussion.
IMO, if the souls are untouched and people consent to having their bodies used for this purpose while they're alive, it's okay.
If people don't consent to having their bodies used for it, it becomes unethical. The same if there are any side effects of using necromancy on this sort of scale, but I'm assuming this isn't an issue by default.
If the souls of people are brought back and forced into it, it's outright evil.
There's another old adventure in a 2e video game called Planescape: Torment (PST for short) which grapples with this issue a bit. One of the factions the PC can join during the adventure, known as the Dustmen, has a dead contract. How it works is you sign the contract and get money now. After you die, the Dustmen faction can (and shall) animate your corpse to work in the mortuary. Evidently this is an eternity of service, or at least as long as your bones can last, because you are first animated as a zombie, and then as a skeleton as your corpse ages. Like any contract, there is an escape clause. Namely, you can buy your way out of it with the funds paid (maybe plus a premium. I don't recall the details of that mechanic too well.) Granted, in 2e, zombies and skeletons were more like mindless constructs than other corporeal undead, such as ghouls who did crave living flesh. IIRC, they were even non-aligned like monsters of the creature archetype were then and are now. Usually the argument in 5e goes something like "using necromancy to create undead is an evil act, because you are creating evil beings." However simplistic, it has some truth, but it doesn't really address the ethics of it. Ethics are more like a LN character's personal code for example, than a set of laws, even though laws are usually informed by ethics. That said, the example I gave is a legal example given that it's a contract. However, it does strike me as an ethical (if not moral) use of undead labor. If you're interested, you can read about the Dusties here.
I can give another example using a player character in a campaign I ran. The PC in question was a LN Death domain cleric of Jergal. He was an interesting character - aarakocra who wore a black cloak and looked like a great vulture of doom. Gotta love it when players have vision. Anyways, the cleric took some bandits or somesuch from one of the first encounters in the adventure and flayed their bones from the corpses in the fire and then proceeded to cast Animate Dead on the skeletal remains. I had to look this one up. Were clerics of Jergal allowed to create undead? It seemed anathema to their tenets. Sure enough, there is an exception: the creation and use of undead is sanctioned, provided that they advance the cause of death in the world. Indeed, some scriveners seek sanctioned undeath to continue in their scribe duties after dying. I tend to think of this as a much more ethical use of undeath created by necromancy, as it has clear rules sanctioning its use, and even a branch of the same religion dedicated to destroying undead who do not meet the criteria for sanctioned use. I would not go so far as to call either of these examples moral for the same reasons that have already been discussed - e.g. nobody wants to see grandpa continuing to work as a miner (in whatever capacity) some 10 years after his demise.
Of course, I don't intend this post as a proof that it is ethical to use the animated dead as a labor force because Dusties, Jergal, Q.E.D. I just wanted to illustrate how it can be ethical with some specific examples (I'm well aware that examples do not a proof make.)
Edit for clarification on how the Jergal example meets the criteria: the undead labor force were used to battle a cult of Myrkul (i.e. non-sanctioned undead) in the surrounding area, and as labor to construct a shrine to Jergal.
Well, that depends on the culture. You could have a society where burying your deceased elders in the ground to decompose is considered disrespectful.
There's a lot of room between "don't bury" and "re-animate a corpse to use for slave labor."
Yet both and everything in between are still possible. There are a lot of things in real human history that are considered immoral that were once a normal part of some cultures. Cannibalism for example fits well in this discussion.
I would argue they are considered immoral, or unethical as the OP’s question puts it, because they are immoral.
Its a pretty slippery slope to say that because some culture or another once found something acceptable, that we just have to accept it as ok, because well, it was a cultural norm.. Those cultures were wrong to do those things, and the people living in them should have known better. There are lines that should never be crossed, the fact that some societies have crossed those lines doesn’t mean it should be allowed.
So I’m going to stick with it is unethical. And if a given society has fooled themselves into believing it’s not unethical, that society is wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Of course this is setting dependent but reading XenosGuardian's post I realize the way I think of undead may not be the way they are viewed in general. I think of them as soulless husks, necromancy just reanimates a hunk of lifeless flesh. Not much different than creating a carriage out of fallen timber, except for the connection others had in life with the undead corpse.
But is the idea that the spirit or mind of the individual is trapped along with the body? I mean that view is way more unethical than what I had in mind.
So if I’m reading this right there’s a potion that calms the undeads’ violent compulsions against the living, and people are volunteering their bodies to the system. That answers two ethical considerations right there, but not quite all. Firstly, I can’t find any way to construe using a wight’s addiction to the potion to compel labor as in any way moral. For skeletons and zombies, it depends on if there’s any consciousness in them. By default, zombies have INT 3 and skeletons INT 6 and mention a “hateful undead spirit” in their description, so it seems like there’s something looking back at you when you peek into its empty eye sockets. It comes down to the mechanics of undeath in your world.
I am one of those in the school of "Undead are simply magically animated bodies" which means when the person/creature died, it's soul or spiritual essence leaves and goes on to whatever afterlife is/was promised/due. The shell can follow commands like any other magically created construct. Telling a pile of dirt to do something (golem) is the same as telling a corpse to do something,
It's interesting to see, however, some folks who feel the soul is somehow prevented from moving on and/or imprisioned when a body is turned into an undead thing. I have never thought of it that way, even for the "intelligent" undead in many cases. I still pictured the actual soul vacating and necromantic magic kickstarts the body, allowing memories, knowledge and such to be retained so the brain would be intact, again, MY vision) but the soul itself, with it's motivations, desires and wants, isn't there to drive it any longer, making for a chaotic, unpredictable behavior.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
if I were to roleplay as a humanoid with empathy, I would consider controlling a human corpse to be desecration and no better than cannibalism.
You might be surprised to learn that most living creatures haven't experienced what happens after death, and can only make assumptions based on observation. For example: dead - go to after life, resurrected - soul returns - body is alive, animated - body is alive - what about soul? It is easy to assume that if the soul is what made the body alive the first time, then animating a corpse must enslave the soul somehow.
Throw in some actually real and present gods that don't like necromancy, and the mass populace is going to view it as evil and immoral.
I don't think that necessarily has to be true. Maybe the necromantic energy replaces the vitalizing force of the soul?
No it doesn't have to be true, all it has to be is what someone thinks is true.
It is just an assumption that someone who is not familiar with necromancy (99.99% of people) would make.
And did I mention how the most popular religions (usually toward a god of life, health, or agriculture) would be opposed to necromancy anyway?
I'd be fine with it, as long as the zombies get a wage used for purposes set out in their wills. With a 24-hour workday, they'd still be more efficient than humans.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
Do you really think the kind of people who would use undead labor are going to pay them a wage?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Ownership is another issue here: using the corpse without appropriate permission is theft. We have precedent for people making arrangements for the disposal of their bodies (funerary rites, organ donor cards, leaving to science) so 'I leave my body to be reanimated by Bob the Necromancer' seems possible enough, though actually getting people to agree seems like it might require payment.
That sort of thing might make for some good story for the OP's world. Maybe necromancy doesn't enslave the soul and the people who use them understand that but others who encounter them are misinformed and superstitious. Maybe they gather mobs with pitchforks, or whole armies to end the enslavement of souls only to find they were mistaken all along and committed all kinds of harms to actual souls out of ignorance? Or maybe the PCs come from outside the necromantic culture, are tasked with ending the practice only to find out the truth. Having to go back to their people and try to tell them they are mistaken, there's some nice fodder for conflict there, especially if you bring religion and the gods in.
In a society where necromancy is considered bad, no. But necromancers are only more evil than everyone else if necromancy is considered to be evil. If people were like me and fine with conditional necromancy, then yes. People would animate them for employees that don't get tired or complain and probably work for less than anyone else. It's still worth paying wages.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
My first thought was that it would be fine. Then I thought, well, what if that was my grandparents bodies they were using; I would not be ok with that. And from there is was a pretty short walk to: it’s just not ok.
Well, that depends on the culture. You could have a society where burying your deceased elders in the ground to decompose is considered disrespectful.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I was commenting more on the greater evil of capitalism than necromancy
I mean, it's a labor force that would be literally viewed as disposable
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There's a lot of room between "don't bury" and "re-animate a corpse to use for slave labor."
Not trying to say that it's an either/or situation, just that it's something that's entirely dependent on cultural norms and you can easily design a culture where what we consider normal would be highly offensive.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yet both and everything in between are still possible. There are a lot of things in real human history that are considered immoral that were once a normal part of some cultures. Cannibalism for example fits well in this discussion.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
IMO, if the souls are untouched and people consent to having their bodies used for this purpose while they're alive, it's okay.
If people don't consent to having their bodies used for it, it becomes unethical. The same if there are any side effects of using necromancy on this sort of scale, but I'm assuming this isn't an issue by default.
If the souls of people are brought back and forced into it, it's outright evil.
There's another old adventure in a 2e video game called Planescape: Torment (PST for short) which grapples with this issue a bit. One of the factions the PC can join during the adventure, known as the Dustmen, has a dead contract. How it works is you sign the contract and get money now. After you die, the Dustmen faction can (and shall) animate your corpse to work in the mortuary. Evidently this is an eternity of service, or at least as long as your bones can last, because you are first animated as a zombie, and then as a skeleton as your corpse ages. Like any contract, there is an escape clause. Namely, you can buy your way out of it with the funds paid (maybe plus a premium. I don't recall the details of that mechanic too well.) Granted, in 2e, zombies and skeletons were more like mindless constructs than other corporeal undead, such as ghouls who did crave living flesh. IIRC, they were even non-aligned like monsters of the creature archetype were then and are now. Usually the argument in 5e goes something like "using necromancy to create undead is an evil act, because you are creating evil beings." However simplistic, it has some truth, but it doesn't really address the ethics of it. Ethics are more like a LN character's personal code for example, than a set of laws, even though laws are usually informed by ethics. That said, the example I gave is a legal example given that it's a contract. However, it does strike me as an ethical (if not moral) use of undead labor. If you're interested, you can read about the Dusties here.
I can give another example using a player character in a campaign I ran. The PC in question was a LN Death domain cleric of Jergal. He was an interesting character - aarakocra who wore a black cloak and looked like a great vulture of doom. Gotta love it when players have vision. Anyways, the cleric took some bandits or somesuch from one of the first encounters in the adventure and flayed their bones from the corpses in the fire and then proceeded to cast Animate Dead on the skeletal remains. I had to look this one up. Were clerics of Jergal allowed to create undead? It seemed anathema to their tenets. Sure enough, there is an exception: the creation and use of undead is sanctioned, provided that they advance the cause of death in the world. Indeed, some scriveners seek sanctioned undeath to continue in their scribe duties after dying. I tend to think of this as a much more ethical use of undeath created by necromancy, as it has clear rules sanctioning its use, and even a branch of the same religion dedicated to destroying undead who do not meet the criteria for sanctioned use. I would not go so far as to call either of these examples moral for the same reasons that have already been discussed - e.g. nobody wants to see grandpa continuing to work as a miner (in whatever capacity) some 10 years after his demise.
Of course, I don't intend this post as a proof that it is ethical to use the animated dead as a labor force because Dusties, Jergal, Q.E.D. I just wanted to illustrate how it can be ethical with some specific examples (I'm well aware that examples do not a proof make.)
Edit for clarification on how the Jergal example meets the criteria: the undead labor force were used to battle a cult of Myrkul (i.e. non-sanctioned undead) in the surrounding area, and as labor to construct a shrine to Jergal.
I would argue they are considered immoral, or unethical as the OP’s question puts it, because they are immoral.
Its a pretty slippery slope to say that because some culture or another once found something acceptable, that we just have to accept it as ok, because well, it was a cultural norm.. Those cultures were wrong to do those things, and the people living in them should have known better. There are lines that should never be crossed, the fact that some societies have crossed those lines doesn’t mean it should be allowed.
So I’m going to stick with it is unethical. And if a given society has fooled themselves into believing it’s not unethical, that society is wrong.