Why are we judging historical figures under modern morals?

[Kalis]

However, this was a political issue back then and they were on one side of the fence. One cannot judge them as absolute evil by todays standards, but can only judge them as being on one side of a political fence. Someone who owned slaves in the 20th century, is a different matter. Do you see my point?

Not really no, a lot of people regarded slavery as morally reprehensible in the 18th century, so to claim they didn't know what we know is a false position.

The educated ones in Britain and its colonies (judging by your use of Founding Fathers, presidents and mentioning revolutionary era, I presume you are a Yank) would have been aware of the moral opposition to slavery and can't be said to just be on the opposite side of a political fence.

In Britain the Abolitionist movement was led by Wilberforce (who would be left wing by today's standards) and taken up by Pitt the Younger (who would be right wing). It was a moral choice, often coloured by economic realities, but to claim it was a political position is probably jumping the gun, that seems to have come later in the US.

[May90]

Morals aren't genetic though, they are a learned behavior. Your view of LGBT rights is ultimately an opinion you formed based on information you gained in a society that taught you that information. Its not that most were too conformists, or more people were shitty people, its more of they were raised in a different society with different morals and had a different concept of right and wrong.

It would be akin to trying to say someone is a bad Muslim because they don't go to Church. They have different criteria for being "good" people. Alexander the Great, for example, was a conqueror. So was Napoleon. But by current standards, a conqueror is a horrible person. Does that inherently make both of them shitty people based on that?

Not really, I was growing in a society where LGBT rights weren't even a point of serious discussion, it was just something people joked about as if it was some insane concept - and yet somehow from my early years I've known that discriminating against people for any reason having nothing to do with their choices is silly. I don't think I would have thought differently, say, 2000 years ago, although I probably would have had less knowledge on the subject and my opinion wouldn't have been as informed. And there were such people back then too, who didn't buy into the mainstream morals.

I'm not saying that someone who accepted mainstream morals of the past and acted according to them is necessarily a bad person. Their actions, however, are what they are, despite the reasoning behind them. We don't have to judge them harshly, but we have to judge their actions harshly, in my opinion.

[s_bushido]

Because we don't live in the 1700s, and if you want to hold someone from that time up as an example, you can't do it without acknowledging their flaws. And a major flaw of that time period was the wanton disregard for human rights, despite all their pontificating about equality this and inalienable that.

[Teaklog]

Not really no, a lot of people regarded slavery as morally reprehensible in the 18th century, so to claim they didn't know what we know is a false position.

The educated ones in Britain and its colonies (judging by your use of Founding Fathers, presidents and mentioning revolutionary era, I presume you are a Yank) would have been aware of the moral opposition to slavery and can't be said to just be on the opposite side of a political fence.

In Britain the Abolitionist movement was led by Wilberforce (who would be left wing by today's standards) and taken up by Pitt the Younger (who would be right wing). It was a moral choice, often coloured by economic realities, but to claim it was a political position is probably jumping the gun, that seems to have come later in the US.

I didn't really want to debate about slavery, and more of the broader question. If you're correct, then you may be right - at least from my point of view because you are judging them based on the previous morals.

In the US we aren't taught as much British history, all I can say for sure is that it was much more acceptable in the US until around the early 1800's. I know less about British history or their side of it. The extent of it thats taught in the US is generally what led up to the colonies being formed. Even then the societies of US and Britain were separated enough that most raised in the US probably held a different "bar" of whats acceptable so to speak.

- - - Updated - - -

Because we don't live in the 1700s, and if you want to hold someone from that time up as an example, you can't do it without acknowledging their flaws. And a major flaw of that time period was the wanton disregard for human rights, despite all their pontificating about equality this and inalienable that.

Because they had a different concept of human rights than we currently do?

[Army Dreamer]

Why are we judging historical figures under modern morals?

Because of hypocrisy.

[Teaklog]

Not really, I was growing in a society where LGBT rights weren't even a point of serious discussion, it was just something people joked about as if it was some insane concept - and yet somehow from my early years I've known that discriminating against people for any reason having nothing to do with their choices is silly. I don't think I would have thought differently, say, 2000 years ago, although I probably would have had less knowledge on the subject and my opinion wouldn't have been as informed. And there were such people back then too, who didn't buy into the mainstream morals.

I'm not saying that someone who accepted mainstream morals of the past and acted according to them is necessarily a bad person. Their actions, however, are what they are, despite the reasoning behind them. We don't have to judge them harshly, but we have to judge their actions harshly, in my opinion.

Unfortunately I do not have access to the specific studies right now, I will try to find them tomorrow to link to you. Morals have generally been shown to be a learned behavior.

[Zuben]

Some day in the future each of us car-driving meat-eaters are seen as monsters and polluters. That's why I agree with OP's sentiment.

[May90]

Unfortunately I do not have access to the specific studies right now, I will try to find them tomorrow to link to you. Morals have generally been shown to be a learned behavior.

Well, I agree with it in general, and I have seen similar studies - but it is not the entirety of it. Individual character matter as much, if not more, in determining one's moral system. Even in our current society, there is a lot of variety in people's morals.

[Kalis]

I didn't really want to debate about slavery, and more of the broader question. If you're correct, then you may be right - at least from my point of view because you are judging them based on the previous morals.

In the US we aren't taught as much British history, all I can say for sure is that it was much more acceptable in the US until around the early 1800's. I know less about British history or their side of it. The extent of it thats taught in the US is generally what led up to the colonies being formed. Even then the societies of US and Britain were separated enough that most raised in the US probably held a different "bar" of whats acceptable so to speak.

Pre-revolution American colonies were heavily influenced by British philosophical thought (unsurprisingly), the arguments against slavery were at least a century old by the time the American colonies revolted (John Locke was 17th Century) and the leaders of the revolt were educated men who would have been well aware of Locke, in fact I believe they were heavily influenced by him.

Slavery not being abolished in the fledgling United States is arguably more surprising than if it had been abolished, as the people you call the Founding Fathers were influenced by the cutting edge of British philosophical debate and would have been the ones more likely to be sympathetic to abolitionism. I am guessing that economic reality intervened and made abolition a non-starter.

[Aeula]

Because the majority of people like to think that their morals are superior and everything that came before is full of quaint savagery.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I don't think "different times" is a good excuse for doing monstrous things, so I judge people of all times the same way. It is not like, say, 2000 years ago people were genetically different and unable to, say, think about LGBT rights; most people were just too conformist, but not all were, nor is it a good excuse for being one.

weren't there gay people all over rome?

[Xeranath]

Some day in the future each of us car-driving meat-eaters are seen as monsters and polluters. That's why I agree with OP's sentiment.

Yeah, exactly. Though we may look down our noses at these 'barbarians' who came before us, how badly are we to be remembered by our descendants?

Regardless, we will always view historical figure in the lens of our times, for that is how we are used to seeing the world. Dedicated historians usually are trained not to do this, but Thor the layman it is somewhat problematic.

There's a few issues that this has a practical impact. For example, Captain Cook was a noted explorer, and yet, like Columbus, was an invading asshat. There are some statues of him in my country of New Zealand that have been recently defaced simply because of a disconnect between moral certaintudes.

[Moon-Man]

Usually stupid ass SJW will find something to bitch about, and History is a gold mine for their stupidity.

It is history, no matter how their warped mind tells they should "change" it, it will never ever be changed.....Ever.
And they are the FIRST one to start violence too. But to their own warped mind, its justified, when its clearly not. Just plainly violent retards.

SJW usually have IQ of less than 5. It proven too, how they behave. It is a fascinating Documentary.

"Observing the average day of a SJW Animal" Documentary.

[May90]

weren't there gay people all over rome?

I think it was a bit different. Gays were discriminated against, but some homosexual behaviors were practiced quite widely, they just weren't considered homosexual activities as such. For example, it was somewhat common among influential Romans to have their boy sleep with another boy upon reaching adulthood, as it was considered to be making them more "manly"; however, them having an actual relationship with another man would be strongly frowned upon, and possibly punishable, depending on what history period we are talking about.

[Gevoth]

You're right, if the golden rule hasn't changed in 300 years and thats your criteria for judging them, you are judging them based on morals of their time no?
Go back 2000 years? 4000? There was a point when the golden rule probably didn't exist. Can we still judge them based on it?

Not sure if ancient prophets ever said "Do unto others..." but it would be difficult for me to not see Jesus, Buddha, Mohamed, and others as moralists. It's fair to judge people based upon the morality their time period, yes, but it's also a good idea to gauge them on the ideas of today as well. I believe in judging one's actions personally rather than the trying to judge the person based upon what we still know of their actions today.

[Tijuana]

From a legal standpoint, we do not imprison people for things they did that at the time were legal and are now illegal. This is because at the time what they were doing was perfectly acceptable - This makes me ask the question of why are judgements being made and why is history being rewritten based on our judgements of these people as if they lived in our current society today? Ex. Hiding/downplaying the accomplishments of famous figures in the 1700's who owned slaves, in a time where nearly every prominent figure owned slaves and at the time it was acceptable. Today its immoral, but they did not know what we knew, they have 300 years less of history than we do. "Human rights" was less of a thing back then. How can people judge them when we also do not know how those doing the judging would function in a society like that?

Basically morals are learned, how can one judge a different society based on the morals they learned from their own society. If they grew up in the 1700's they wouldn't have the same opinions on these things that they do now.

I.E. Christopher Columbus, founding fathers, previous presidents, pretty much the current trend of rewriting history around the revolutionary era because of todays morals.

So, by this logic, Germans should not judge Hitler harshly? I mean, wtf are you talking about...

[Alvito]

It is far easier for people to try and knock others down a peg rather then raise themselves up one.

[Kapadons]

Only way to judge people is " might is right". Were they physically,mentally,politically,militarily - strong enough to crush those beneath them and further their goals.

[MatadorMedia]

I get annoyed at this, too, OP. Like whenever I'm watching Game of Thrones and there are dumbos like "that person didn't consent to sex" and it's like THIS IS A FANTASY MIDDLE AGES SETTING they don't exactly operate under 21st century gender equality. Bunch of derps.

[Bodakane]

Because the point of judging the past is to learn from it and progress. That's one of the reasons people's desire for turning everything important by claiming "its tradition" is dangerous, it literally impedes progress.