Is it fair to hold historical people to our moral standards?
I was watching a video on george washington and one of the comments stated that all the good he did doesn't matter because he partook in the slave trade.
Some in the comments argued that it was simply the norm back then and we can't say he's evil or a morally unjust person for partaking in it.
What do you guys think? Also, any historical figure's postmodernity so after the 1870s doesn't count in this debate.
Some in the comments argued that it was simply the norm back then and we can't say he's evil or a morally unjust person for partaking in it.
What do you guys think? Also, any historical figure's postmodernity so after the 1870s doesn't count in this debate.
I think just because it was "the norm" back then doesn't still mean that it was not morally wrong. at the end of the day slavery no matter when it was or what perspective you look at it is a bad thing. but saying all the good he did counts for nothing isn't true. I'm not familiar on the good George Washington did but I think with historical figures from those times you have to take the good and appreciate it whilst also acknowledging the bad things they have done. it would be a different story though if the good he did was at the expensive of the lives of those slaves. I can't think of someone of the top of my head but think in the realm of n@zi scientists doing unethical experiments on Jewish people or the use of black people to see the affects of untreated syphilis by infecting them unknowingly in the name of furthering scientific knowledge.
Of course it's stupid to judge people by the standards of today. What is even more stupid is for people to judge themselves by the standards of history. You get people now who say things like "I would not have been a slave owner in the x period of history" Yes. Yes you would. It was only the truly exceptional who became the abolitionists. Or people who say "Had I lived in 30s Germany, I would not have been a Nazi". Almost certainly you would- and from what I see of the behaviour of people in the last few years, they would not only have been part of the hysteria, hey would have enthusiastically supported it. It was only the truly exceptional that balked.
I don't think it's fair to hold historical figures to current moral standards. It was indoctrinated into everybody in society that black people were 3/5 of a person and that they were inferior to white people in every way, so they believed that the slave trade was acceptable because that was all black people were good for. There was even 'science' to prove this, so I agree that it was radical to assume otherwise.
We don't know how it would be like to grow up back then without any current knowledge, but I suppose you could look at countries with large-scale censorship (like North Korea) or countries with theocratic governments (like many in the Middle East) to compare their beliefs to widely-accepted ones.
However, it is wrong to use the same logic to suggest, for example, that discrimination against gay people in the early 2010s was okay because it was 'typical of the time period', considering there was evidence to show that being gay is natural, myths regarding them were disproven and there was no reason to treat them differently aside from 'tradition', 'religion' and false beliefs despite the evidence. This is likely what the commenter believed was similar back then, hence the strict attitude.
We don't know how it would be like to grow up back then without any current knowledge, but I suppose you could look at countries with large-scale censorship (like North Korea) or countries with theocratic governments (like many in the Middle East) to compare their beliefs to widely-accepted ones.
However, it is wrong to use the same logic to suggest, for example, that discrimination against gay people in the early 2010s was okay because it was 'typical of the time period', considering there was evidence to show that being gay is natural, myths regarding them were disproven and there was no reason to treat them differently aside from 'tradition', 'religion' and false beliefs despite the evidence. This is likely what the commenter believed was similar back then, hence the strict attitude.
Not generally, it depends upon the context and ancient eras involved.
Comparing many elements of the ancient worlds of thousands of years ago, their laws and the prevalent cultures with those of modern life is frequently an absurd 'fish v birds' type of exercise that will only ever yield unreasonable results.
People are the products of a combination of their external environments (physical & social) as well as their genetic inheritances and personal inclinations.
For example, comparing the earth of the early Mesozoic eras with the earth of 2018.
Very little basis of comparison and far too many crucial events that resulted in immense changes to Earth's sentinent life forms and geography, many altering the earth's physical & social landcapes virtually beyond recognition in a wide variety of contexts.
The splitting apart of supercontinent Pangea, the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event that wiped out most of land inhabiting dinosaurs more than 60 million years ago, ancient babylon, ancient persia, ancient maya, ancient china, ancient india, ancient egypt, ancient rome, male guardianship systems like tutela & pater familias, the rise of organised abrahamic faiths, papal inquisitions, Charles Martel, Tudor & Stewart eras, pilgrim fathers, Napoleon, American War of Independence, French Revolution, militant irish republicanism, WW1, invention of nuclear warfare, black september terror gang, rise of the internet, Sept 11 and the almost global 'war on terror' undertaken within the territories of 6 out of 7 of earths continents.
Comparing many elements of the ancient worlds of thousands of years ago, their laws and the prevalent cultures with those of modern life is frequently an absurd 'fish v birds' type of exercise that will only ever yield unreasonable results.
People are the products of a combination of their external environments (physical & social) as well as their genetic inheritances and personal inclinations.
For example, comparing the earth of the early Mesozoic eras with the earth of 2018.
Very little basis of comparison and far too many crucial events that resulted in immense changes to Earth's sentinent life forms and geography, many altering the earth's physical & social landcapes virtually beyond recognition in a wide variety of contexts.
The splitting apart of supercontinent Pangea, the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event that wiped out most of land inhabiting dinosaurs more than 60 million years ago, ancient babylon, ancient persia, ancient maya, ancient china, ancient india, ancient egypt, ancient rome, male guardianship systems like tutela & pater familias, the rise of organised abrahamic faiths, papal inquisitions, Charles Martel, Tudor & Stewart eras, pilgrim fathers, Napoleon, American War of Independence, French Revolution, militant irish republicanism, WW1, invention of nuclear warfare, black september terror gang, rise of the internet, Sept 11 and the almost global 'war on terror' undertaken within the territories of 6 out of 7 of earths continents.
It is the height of idiocy to hold those throughout history to modern moral framework. Not least in that odds are ours is just as 'evil' as we consider those historical figures to be.
Then again, as these people putting forwarded this intellectually moronic idea are also the ones who fervently believe in such stupid things as being accountable for your ancestors actions, collective guilt (e.g. if you're white apologizing for and paying for slavery) etc. its not exactly surprising equally as dim things, like this, get put forth.
As a bit of clarification though, that does not universally apply, things such as carpet bombing a city or such are rightfully viewed as repugnant. Albeit, its dubious they viewed such things as 'moral' for much of history as opposed to necessary evil (much like today)
Then again, as these people putting forwarded this intellectually moronic idea are also the ones who fervently believe in such stupid things as being accountable for your ancestors actions, collective guilt (e.g. if you're white apologizing for and paying for slavery) etc. its not exactly surprising equally as dim things, like this, get put forth.
As a bit of clarification though, that does not universally apply, things such as carpet bombing a city or such are rightfully viewed as repugnant. Albeit, its dubious they viewed such things as 'moral' for much of history as opposed to necessary evil (much like today)
Original post by SagaciousSag
I don't think it's fair to hold historical figures to current moral standards. It was indoctrinated into everybody in society that black people were 3/5 of a person and that they were inferior to white people in every way, so they believed that the slave trade was acceptable because that was all black people were good for. There was even 'science' to prove this, so I agree that it was radical to assume otherwise.
We don't know how it would be like to grow up back then without any current knowledge, but I suppose you could look at countries with large-scale censorship (like North Korea) or countries with theocratic governments (like many in the Middle East) to compare their beliefs to widely-accepted ones.
However, it is wrong to use the same logic to suggest, for example, that discrimination against gay people in the early 2010s was okay because it was 'typical of the time period', considering there was evidence to show that being gay is natural, myths regarding them were disproven and there was no reason to treat them differently aside from 'tradition', 'religion' and false beliefs despite the evidence. This is likely what the commenter believed was similar back then, hence the strict attitude.
We don't know how it would be like to grow up back then without any current knowledge, but I suppose you could look at countries with large-scale censorship (like North Korea) or countries with theocratic governments (like many in the Middle East) to compare their beliefs to widely-accepted ones.
However, it is wrong to use the same logic to suggest, for example, that discrimination against gay people in the early 2010s was okay because it was 'typical of the time period', considering there was evidence to show that being gay is natural, myths regarding them were disproven and there was no reason to treat them differently aside from 'tradition', 'religion' and false beliefs despite the evidence. This is likely what the commenter believed was similar back then, hence the strict attitude.
Not defending said practice but in fairness to the point, there may have been studies but they were neither popular not universally accepted. In the same way some 'studies' show that the world is 100k y/o and other such nonsense the existence of something to the contrary doesn't really mean much without wide acceptance.
Other than that MILD OBJECTION THOUGH, GREAT POST!
I think it depends.
I see morality essentially as a social contract formed for mutual benefit. By default, we’re selfish creatures primarily looking after our own interests (albeit with some empathy). But we make reciprocal agreements not to do certain things to each other, because such rules they make us all better off. For example, the rule that we must not kill people makes me feel safe every time I step out of the house. Without it, I would suspect other people of potentially wanting to kill me, and they would suspect me in return. And that might even cause us to try and kill each other, for fear of getting killed first - it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. To avoid this, we have all agreed that killing other people is immoral.
In historical times, that social contract may not have been so well developed. For example, people may have agreed amongst their own tribes not to kill each other, but had no such agreements with members of other tribes, and couldn’t trust them not to strike preemptively. So in that case they may have considered it fair game to kill members of other tribes. The same goes for other things like stealing resources, capturing land etc. I don’t think you can necessarily blame for that, because the argument might be “well they would do the same to us given the opportunity, so why shouldn’t we?”
Aside from that, there are also some things we consider immoral, but quite arbitrarily so. For example in the West we don’t eat animals like cats and dogs and might consider it “immoral” to do so. But in some Eastern countries they do. This is just the result of different cultures; who’s to say we’re right and they’re wrong? In India they don’t eat beef, and might just as easily think we’re wrong for doing that. Things like the age of consent vary hugely by country and by era. Cultural morals are different in different times and places, and in these instances I don’t think it’s fair to expect people of one culture to abide by the morals of another.
Then again, I think some moral features are simply built into us innately as humans. Unless there’s something mentally wrong with you, we all have some degree of empathy built into us, a voice in our head telling us that causing suffering is undesirable. We’ve evolved with those instincts for good reason, and I think that it is universally immoral to ignore them.
I see morality essentially as a social contract formed for mutual benefit. By default, we’re selfish creatures primarily looking after our own interests (albeit with some empathy). But we make reciprocal agreements not to do certain things to each other, because such rules they make us all better off. For example, the rule that we must not kill people makes me feel safe every time I step out of the house. Without it, I would suspect other people of potentially wanting to kill me, and they would suspect me in return. And that might even cause us to try and kill each other, for fear of getting killed first - it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. To avoid this, we have all agreed that killing other people is immoral.
In historical times, that social contract may not have been so well developed. For example, people may have agreed amongst their own tribes not to kill each other, but had no such agreements with members of other tribes, and couldn’t trust them not to strike preemptively. So in that case they may have considered it fair game to kill members of other tribes. The same goes for other things like stealing resources, capturing land etc. I don’t think you can necessarily blame for that, because the argument might be “well they would do the same to us given the opportunity, so why shouldn’t we?”
Aside from that, there are also some things we consider immoral, but quite arbitrarily so. For example in the West we don’t eat animals like cats and dogs and might consider it “immoral” to do so. But in some Eastern countries they do. This is just the result of different cultures; who’s to say we’re right and they’re wrong? In India they don’t eat beef, and might just as easily think we’re wrong for doing that. Things like the age of consent vary hugely by country and by era. Cultural morals are different in different times and places, and in these instances I don’t think it’s fair to expect people of one culture to abide by the morals of another.
Then again, I think some moral features are simply built into us innately as humans. Unless there’s something mentally wrong with you, we all have some degree of empathy built into us, a voice in our head telling us that causing suffering is undesirable. We’ve evolved with those instincts for good reason, and I think that it is universally immoral to ignore them.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Morality is subjective in character with an objective compulsion.
- Five SAS soldiers arrested for alleged war crimes in Syria
- BMAT Section 3 | Post & Reflection | 2023 FINAL SESSION
- Would you end all human life instantly if you could?
- Best university for history
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 7172/1 - 19 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- a guy with high bodycount
- OCR A Level Law Paper 3
- Gofundme question (very sensitive issue)
- UK Masters Accreditation
- How does birkbeck compare to UCL
- Desire for net zero referendum growing among public, poll finds
- Will you be celebrating the King's Coronation?
- Critical essay an inspector calls
- NHS are a joke
- NCA/ Civil Service failed pre-employment checks
- People obsessed with a babies looks e.g. green greyish eyes fair skin
- mixed signals and confusion from a guy
- is it wrong to not forgive bullies?
- I didn't watch a single minute of the coronation today!
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
