What's wrong with judging the morality of historical actions through a modern lens? Is there never any value in doing it?
>>430284
It's not inherently wrong but it's a tricky business
econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/05/virtue_conformi.html
>>430284
its a utterly pointless exercise, if nothing else.
There's nothing inherently WRONG with the concept. It serves as a proper benchmark for one's progress in any direction.
What most people have trouble with is judging said morality through their modern perspective, and then leaving the exercise at that. All too often you find historical 'reviews' and 'summaries' which carry slanted views on events in the past, often condemning them or in rarer cases endorsing them. All of which is done through the modern lens, tempered more or less by the writer's personal preferences. As time passes, those writings get accepted more and more as fact as opposed to mere 'Editorials' on said facts, and soon enough you have a perceptible slant on history itself.
Go to /v/ sometimes, and you may note an extreme example of sometimes historical-based video games being given a modern slant. Likewise on /tv/ or /co/ or any entertainment medium.
>>430284
You can condemn the actions, but judging a person who was ignorant of modern values is the same as claiming modern values are self-evident, and you would hold modern values even if a society did not teach them or enforce them.
>>430327
Is it right to condemn their actions if they were ignorant of modern values?
>>430303
Interesting read. I don't understand how he can say that some things are clearly good/bad, though. Ancient figures who committed atrocities by today's standards surely would have thought they were doing something either clearly good/bad which would be different from now.
>>430322
/v/ is a great example of that, very good point. Do you think it's better to avoid judging historical actions with modern morality altogether as to prevent as much bias as possible, or do you still find enough value in it to think its benefits are worth the risk some of the time?
>>430310
How come it's pointless?
>>430360
I disagree, somethings are obviously wrong but people are very adept at rationalizing their desire to commit evil by dehumanizing people and such. You can't massacre my people but I'll be happy to massacre yours.
>>430373
I would like to add that I think if people in the ancient actually stopped down for a moment to think about their actions they might have acted differently. See for example the Melian dialogue.
There's nothing "wrong" with it, it's just short-sighted and distances us from a full, descriptive understanding of how society worked back then. How would you respond if you could peer into the future and neo-SJWs from the year 3000 were calling you a barbaric dick for eating meat, having a national identity, believing criminals should be imprisoned and not supporting direct democracy based on social networking? That's hypothetical, but you get the idea.
>>430373
Could very well be. What if we think about slaves as an example? The prevailing attitude long ago was that it was perfectly acceptable to own a slave and treat them in a certain way, which many societies today find absolutely reprehensible. Do you really think all those people that owned slaves rationalized their actions after initially thinking owning them was the wrong thing to do? I'm more inclined to believed they thought it was perfectly fine due to their environment. What do you think?
>>430382
Hmm, I'm a little unclear on how saying "they had slaves 2000 years ago and that's terrible" stops us from understanding how society worked back then. I mean, saying owning slaves back then is terrible (a judgment) and that they owned slaves back then and found it acceptable (descriptive understanding?) doesn't seem to be mutually exclusive.
>>430373
Even your use of "dehumanization" oozes your lack of self-awareness and the context of modern society. Being human was not considered sufficient to have "rights" in ancient and medieval times, because the concept of human rights hadn't developed yet. Humans were just creations of God(s), and subject to righteous and brutal punishment both on Earth by divinely appointed authorities and after death by the creator himself. It took centuries of an increasingly connected world, rising living standards and historical awareness of past atrocities before concepts like human rights could take hold.
>>430381
I'd never heard of that dialogue before, but looking at it now, are you implying that Melos would have acted differently when considering the reasons the Athenians provided (that they'd be wiped out if they didn't act differently)?
>>430389
I don't think most people *thought* about it at all because most people in almost any culture don't think at all. But those members of the society who did do the thinking would by and large try to come up with creative rationalizations that didn't deny basic moral rules but came up with cutesy ways of saying they didn't apply to everyone equally. See Aristotle's thoughts on slavery for example.
>>430402
I'm implying that idea of wiping out a whole city being immoral was not some out of nowhere position that people in the ancient world couldn't comprehend, which suggests that our ideas aren't so crazy after all.
>>430398
You ignored my hypothetical example of the future, which was my most important point. Calling people in the past "terrible" assumes you're at some kind of moral apex or high ground, when you don't actually know the trajectory that morality will follow in the future, and thus aren't applying the same standards to yourself as you would to people from previous cultures. It's a ridiculous standard, really. Intention and knowledge of wrongdoing are widely considered important in ethics, which is why we generally don't call animals immoral for killing each other, and our modern legal systems take things like retardation, mental illness and involuntary intoxication into account as diminished responsibility. In times where people lack concepts like "human rights", how can you fault premodern people for not adhering to them? Even if you're a consequentialist, consequences are only 20/20 in hindsight, premodern people didn't know that shit like ecological destruction would swing around to bite humanity in the ass. Viewing history through a lens of moral realism in this way lacks both self-awareness and a consistent application of ethical expectations that disregards the extent to which society dictates individual morals. As any parent will tell you, kids don't just spring up out of the ground with a sense of right and wrong, they have to be taught.
>>430424
Adding to that, I think my position is, objective moral ideas exist and to some extent are discoverable by reason, but for most of history people didn't even try.
>>430408
Coming up with cutesy ways of saying they didn't apply to everyone equally is still a moral value though, so does it follow that they thought slavery was wrong but made excuses to justify it? Or did they really believe in those cutesy ideas?
>>430424
Oh, certainly, but in the case of that dialogue we're dealing with 2 separate societies, and therefore 2 separate value systems. The Athenians thought it perfectly reasonable to raze the city and slaughter everyone, but does this necessarily mean they, deep down, thought it wrong and only rationalized it in some way, or was it something they as a society considered "clearly good"?
>>430284
>What's wrong with judging the morality of historical actions through a modern lens
What "modern lens"? What do you mean? Do you think morality can be "modern"? I think you misunderstand both the point of historical research and morality itself.
>>430408
>I don't think most people *thought* about it at all because most people in almost any culture don't think at all.
This just seems like unsubstantiated smugness on your part. Of course everyone thinks, 99% of people aren't vegetables, they just don't have the same interests in shit like philosophy that you do.
>those members of the society who did do the thinking would by and large try to come up with creative rationalizations that didn't deny basic moral rules but came up with cutesy ways of saying they didn't apply to everyone equally
The notion that they should apply to everyone equally is not self-evident. Equality in general was not an important concept and is never completely consistent. Do you think children and animals should vote? That's basically how white southerners saw niggers.
>>430441
Your usage of the word "cutesy" is just an emotive word to deride them as incorrect. What basis do you have for your unproven assumption that modern morality is "correct" and premodern morality isn't? Why are you even acting like modern morality has a single lens? A contemporary Arab, a contemporary American and a contemporary Swede probably all see morality quite differently, not even counting individual variations within nations and variations based on mood and circumstances in individuals.
>>430434
I understood the hypothetical example, I'm just wondering about the things in the reply I made. How does saying someone acted terribly in the past [by modern standards] imply that you can't understand where they were coming from?
>>430442
By modern lens I mean prevailing attitudes of morality, applied to historical actions. I'm also not coming into this with any serious convictions of whether or not it's alright to do that, I'm just curious to hear the arguments because it's something I've seen posted here a lot, that you can't view history like that.
>>430440
>objective moral ideas exist and to some extent are discoverable by reason
Not really. Moral absolutists just assume an unfounded moral axiom, stretch it to its logical conclusions and call it a system.
>>430467
>I understood the hypothetical example, I'm just wondering about the things in the reply I made. How does saying someone acted terribly in the past [by modern standards] imply that you can't understand where they were coming from?
Don't ignore the rest of my posts, faggot.
>Viewing history through a lens of moral realism in this way lacks both self-awareness and a consistent application of ethical expectations that disregards the extent to which society dictates individual morals.
>It took centuries of an increasingly connected world, rising living standards and historical awareness of past atrocities before concepts like human rights could take hold.
>>430467
>I understood the hypothetical example
Yet you didn't respond to it. Since the future could hold any given moral trajectory, how do you know your current position is moral whatsoever? Why is modern morality more correct than premodern morality?
>>430441
they were both Greeks they had fundamentally the same cultural values.
>>430462
I didn't use "cutesy" to deride anything, I was quoting him,
>come up with creative rationalizations that didn't deny basic moral rules but came up with cutesy ways of saying they didn't apply to everyone equally
>What basis do you have for your unproven assumption that modern morality is "correct" and premodern morality isn't?
I haven't asserted this in the slightest and I don't believe it in any case.
>Why are you even acting like modern morality has a single lens?
Chances are most people posting in this thread are not contemporary Arabs with contemporary Arab values. But I should have clarified in the OP, you're right in that. I'm talking about history through the modern lens of generally accepted western morality with values that look down on slavery, concepts of fundamental human rights, that sort of thing. I don't think it needs to go much further than that since, chances are, everyone knows what I mean by it.
>>430488
>I don't think it needs to go much further than that since, chances are, everyone knows what I mean by it.
But it doesn't mean a single thing. Even given basic assumptions like human rights, modern society is totally divided over how to judge and apply them, let alone which ones matter.
>>430481
Neither of those things answer the questions I asked. How does looking at historical actions with modern views of morality stop us from understanding that their actions were the prevailing attitude of their respective societies (as are ours)? If neo-SJW's call me terrible far into the future, how does that necessarily mean they can't understand that I'm viewing things in a certain way as dictated, or at least heavily influenced by, the society I live in?
>>430486
I had no reason to respond to it. I'm not asserting that my current position (which I haven't even given) is correct or better than historical positions (like owning slaves) at all, and I don't see how it has anything to do with the original question.
>>430519
>Neither of those things answer the questions I asked. How does looking at historical actions with modern views of morality stop us from understanding that their actions were the prevailing attitude of their respective societies (as are ours)?
>If neo-SJW's call me terrible far into the future, how does that necessarily mean they can't understand that I'm viewing things in a certain way as dictated, or at least heavily influenced by, the society I live in?
Because it neglects the position of oneself at a point in history relative to the past and development between the two. To fully understand this would render your own position as arbitrary as theirs, thus breaking the "modern moral lens", or any objective standard of it.
>I had no reason to respond to it. I'm not asserting that my current position (which I haven't even given) is correct or better than historical positions (like owning slaves) at all, and I don't see how it has anything to do with the original question.
I explicitly said there was nothing wrong with it, there's just no real value in it. It's an expression of your personal opinion which adds nothing to historical accuracy in any way. Just like saying chlorine triflouride is "bad" doesn't increase our understanding of chemistry. It's a prescriptive value judgment apart from the description aimed for in history that frequently confounds peoples' ability to understand it. Look at how neo-Nazis quickly accept pseudohistory about the Holocaust in order to justify their ideological narrative. Denialism and pseudo-historical revisionism are almost always tied to these prescriptive motives.
>>430626
>Because it neglects the position of oneself at a point in history relative to the past and development between the two.
By this do you mean that looking at things at a certain date in history, with values from a certain date (right now), ignores the development of attitudes in the span of time between the two points?
>I explicitly said there was nothing wrong with it, there's just no real value in it. It's an expression of your personal opinion which adds nothing to historical accuracy in any way. Just like saying chlorine triflouride is "bad" doesn't increase our understanding of chemistry. It's a prescriptive value judgment apart from the description aimed for in history that frequently confounds peoples' ability to understand it. Look at how neo-Nazis quickly accept pseudohistory about the Holocaust in order to justify their ideological narrative. Denialism and pseudo-historical revisionism are almost always tied to these prescriptive motives.
Very well said, and I can't help but agree.
>>430670
>By this do you mean that looking at things at a certain date in history, with values from a certain date (right now), ignores the development of attitudes in the span of time between the two points?
Wrong way around. Following the development to its logical conclusion would shatter your perception of the objectivity of the "modern lens", which doesn't really exist in the first place and is really just your individual moral lens.
>>430683
I think I understand now. One last thing: who's saying that the modern lens, which I confess must really just be my own rather than any "prevailing attitudes" as others and yourself have pointed out, is objective? For myself, I fully acknowledge that my views are subjective and capable of changing, but still I can, with the views I hold at this very moment, put a value on historical actions, right? (Granted that there's no value in doing this, as you said)
>>430310
"If it isn't anything else, it's pointless."
Learn how to language.
>>430711
Pardon me, I had you confused with another poster in claiming objectivity.
>>430711
>For myself, I fully acknowledge that my views are subjective and capable of changing, but still I can, with the views I hold at this very moment, put a value on historical actions, right?
Well, you inevitably will, I just advise wariness for the reasons I gave above. A sort of off-switch, if you will.
>>430731
Yeah, it's sound advice. Thank you for the discussion
>>430369
Well it IS a benefit. The phrase "those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it" comes to mind, though it's only part of the thing.
If anything, I would say you should know history in its purest form, and have the personal willpower to never distort it. Or in some radical cases erase it entirely. Because you can't learn a lesson when you alter the source it originates from.
>>430322
Agreed. But I feel like leaving moral judgements out of history entirely is both impossible, and only the 'easiest' solution.
A proper historian needs to embrace his intersubjectivity with the topic of his historical investigation, and the moral aspect that entails.
>>430355
Should you be condemned for being ignorant of the values that will come a thousand years hence?
>>430284
Understanding the mentality and the vision of the people of the past is often very hard. Probably even impossible to do it completely. Nonetheless, it's extremely important to try if you want to understand what you're reading or studying and not get false conclusions.
By trying to judge the historical actions through a modern lens, you're shooting at your own foot making an already difficult task even harder.
This anachronism almost always comes with the idea that we are the pinnacle of humanity, and that post-modern ideology trumps all.
Those people don't even know we exist. None of them.
>>430911
Doesn't that imply that a proper traditionalist SHOULD judge history freely, however?
>>430284
>What's wrong with judging the morality of historical actions through a modern lens?
It is anachronistic and contaminates "the archive" with material that has no appropriate context.
>Is there never any value in doing it?
There's value in doing it for the >>>/pol/itically engaged.
>>430398
There's nothing wrong with that
But a problem comes in when :
[example]
>This society had slaves
>But also achieved great things
>those greats are now, by association, evil.
The problem with is that you end up not learning anything. You never know WHY a society had slaves or WHAT the people thought of it. As a result your judgement of the event is going to be easily dismissed.
>>430284
It's ok if you strictly do it to compare the moralities of the different time periods.
If I was a history teacher, I'd be sure to ask my students about that, because it's an interesting debate. Especially if you try to make them understand the period's point of view.
But when you're trying to record history in any way, you're better off skipping morals and sticking with cold facts. We have enough opinions cluttering up our ancient history as it is.
>>430322
>sometimes historical-based video games being given a modern slant
t. Ass Cred
>>431625
Why do you think Americans don't use Metric? It's because Napoleon instructed his brother in law to reinstate slavery in Haiti.
