11 ms·

I don't like the reverential tone here; Ghengis Khan is one of the top contenders for the title of Worst Human Being in History, if the criteria are body count

I don't like the reverential tone here; Ghengis Khan is one of the top contenders for the title of Worst Human Being in History, if the criteria are body count and suffering inflicted. We have a tendency to worship power and dominance even today, but there is no virtue in power for the sake of power.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Caesar, Alexander the Great, Qin Shihuang, and many other warlords, generals, emperors, ... Was Genghis Khan appreciably worse than these guys? Or is the way history works amoral?
- fallingfrog 9y ago
  "Or is the way history works amoral?" This question suggests some confusion on your part in terms of the difference between history and ethics, as topics of study. The historical evidence shows that Ghengis Khan was responsible for a vast number of deaths - horrible deaths, and these are well documented. That's what history can talk about - the facts and the context. As for the moral question of whether or not mass murder is morally acceptable, well, I invite you to do your own research but the consensus- and my own opinion- is that no, it is not.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    It is "history", but it doesn't seem to too negatively affect our view of him. In fact, these atrocities sort of get drowned out in the noise of human history's numbers almost continual atrocities. We all know Genghis Khan killed lots of people, we all know what Caesar, Alexander did also. We know about the genocides that occurred as many cultures (often our own) displaced other cultures (many completely obliterated). Heck, that is even before we look at things like colonialism. Humans have a history of simply being barbarians, it is hard to judge morally more than a few hundred years in the past.
    - fallingfrog 9y ago
      And of course there are atrocities going on right now, and the future probably holds atrocities just as bad or worse. That's true enough. I don't react to the Mongol atrocities with anger or a desire for revenge, just a terrible sadness that this is what we've done to each other, and a hope (that may be naive) that we can learn not to do it again. I don't know what else to tell you- again, if you want to study ethics I'm probably not the best teacher but I do think that not glorifying violence is a good start.
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        You don't have to glorify violence to remember someone's achievements. So George washington killed Indians and owned slaves. Ya, that's bad of course, but he still helped found the USA, fought the British, and was a decent first president. History is just nuanced.
        mcguire 9y ago
        George Washington was a great first president. He would probably have been a crappy first king, though.
        seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        That he didn't want to be king was what made him great.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

Caesar, Alexander the Great, Qin Shihuang, and many other warlords, generals, emperors, ... Was Genghis Khan appreciably worse than these guys? Or is the way history works amoral?

fallingfrog 9y ago
"Or is the way history works amoral?" This question suggests some confusion on your part in terms of the difference between history and ethics, as topics of study. The historical evidence shows that Ghengis Khan was responsible for a vast number of deaths - horrible deaths, and these are well documented. That's what history can talk about - the facts and the context. As for the moral question of whether or not mass murder is morally acceptable, well, I invite you to do your own research but the consensus- and my own opinion- is that no, it is not.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  It is "history", but it doesn't seem to too negatively affect our view of him. In fact, these atrocities sort of get drowned out in the noise of human history's numbers almost continual atrocities. We all know Genghis Khan killed lots of people, we all know what Caesar, Alexander did also. We know about the genocides that occurred as many cultures (often our own) displaced other cultures (many completely obliterated). Heck, that is even before we look at things like colonialism. Humans have a history of simply being barbarians, it is hard to judge morally more than a few hundred years in the past.
  - fallingfrog 9y ago
    And of course there are atrocities going on right now, and the future probably holds atrocities just as bad or worse. That's true enough. I don't react to the Mongol atrocities with anger or a desire for revenge, just a terrible sadness that this is what we've done to each other, and a hope (that may be naive) that we can learn not to do it again. I don't know what else to tell you- again, if you want to study ethics I'm probably not the best teacher but I do think that not glorifying violence is a good start.
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      You don't have to glorify violence to remember someone's achievements. So George washington killed Indians and owned slaves. Ya, that's bad of course, but he still helped found the USA, fought the British, and was a decent first president. History is just nuanced.
      - mcguire 9y ago
        George Washington was a great first president. He would probably have been a crappy first king, though.
        seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        That he didn't want to be king was what made him great.