5 ms·

It strikes me as pure arrogance that people think they are somehow morally superior because they have the benefit of looking back. Hindsight and all that. I hop

It strikes me as pure arrogance that people think they are somehow morally superior because they have the benefit of looking back. Hindsight and all that. I hope they are judged with the same unreasonable severity that they judge others.

rayiner 5y ago
It’s also myopic to think that moral changes are only a function of “progress” in an abstract sense. Moral changes often accompany technological changes that significantly change circumstances. For much of human history, human life was just a lot less valuable. The child mortality rate in 1800 was 46%. That means that one out of two children didn’t make it to their 5th birthday. A death of a child is a life altering experience for people today. Back then it happened to nearly everyone all the time. What did that do to people’s estimation of the value of life? I think you can see this in other areas as well. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the legal and social equality between men and women has increased greatly alongside economic and technological developments that have diminished the advantages flowing from men’s greater strength and endurance. An economy built around heavy factory work and construction, like the early 20th century, is going to affect perception of social roles very differently than an economy built around office work.
- skedaddle 5y ago
  Jefferson was a wealthy and powerful man who abandoned his own children to slavery. What kind of technological context might be relevant? The hindsight concern is valid in some cases but his was far from an "any one of us might be next" kind of failing. The motivation for even attempting to excuse Jefferson is obviously to protect ideas about government and liberty from being contaminated. But they're at far more risk IMO when instead we say, well his own estate was medieval but xyz, or it's not pertinent, or won't we all be judged wanting, etc
  - rayiner 5y ago
    The moral relationship between people and their children has changed a lot. People back then abandoned illegitimate children all the time. Studies show, for example, that childhood mortality rates for illegitimate children were often twice as high as for legitimate children. E.g. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Infant-mortality-among-legitimate-and-illegitimate-children-in-Sweden-1801-1900-Deaths_fig6_26465833 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Infant-mortality-among-l.... Nobody is excusing Jefferson, because that’s not the purpose of this exercise. The history is what it is. But it’s important to understand and appreciate Jefferson. Many people have ideas about “government and liberty.” But Jefferson’s ideas produced one of the most prosperous societies in the history of the world.
    - skedaddle 5y ago
      I'm confused by why you'd point out that historically parents were more ambivalent, if not to excuse Jefferson having enslaved his own offspring (which was not actually happening to everyone all the time).
      - rayiner 5y ago
        You don’t need to excuse anything to try and understand something. For example even in 2021, we have Afghans who refuse to send their girls to school. We can’t even comprehend that mindset here in America. We don’t need to excuse it to acknowledge that there may be more to it than us simply being better than Afghans. Pastoral societies are often strongly male dominated even compared to similarly undeveloped agricultural societies. The point is that morality isn’t simply about “we are better than the ignorant people of the past.” That’s part of it obviously, but scientific and technological change often changes the context of how we think about things.

rayiner 5y ago

It’s also myopic to think that moral changes are only a function of “progress” in an abstract sense. Moral changes often accompany technological changes that significantly change circumstances. For much of human history, human life was just a lot less valuable. The child mortality rate in 1800 was 46%. That means that one out of two children didn’t make it to their 5th birthday. A death of a child is a life altering experience for people today. Back then it happened to nearly everyone all the time. What did that do to people’s estimation of the value of life? I think you can see this in other areas as well. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the legal and social equality between men and women has increased greatly alongside economic and technological developments that have diminished the advantages flowing from men’s greater strength and endurance. An economy built around heavy factory work and construction, like the early 20th century, is going to affect perception of social roles very differently than an economy built around office work.

skedaddle 5y ago
Jefferson was a wealthy and powerful man who abandoned his own children to slavery. What kind of technological context might be relevant? The hindsight concern is valid in some cases but his was far from an "any one of us might be next" kind of failing. The motivation for even attempting to excuse Jefferson is obviously to protect ideas about government and liberty from being contaminated. But they're at far more risk IMO when instead we say, well his own estate was medieval but xyz, or it's not pertinent, or won't we all be judged wanting, etc
- rayiner 5y ago
  The moral relationship between people and their children has changed a lot. People back then abandoned illegitimate children all the time. Studies show, for example, that childhood mortality rates for illegitimate children were often twice as high as for legitimate children. E.g. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Infant-mortality-among-legitimate-and-illegitimate-children-in-Sweden-1801-1900-Deaths_fig6_26465833 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Infant-mortality-among-l.... Nobody is excusing Jefferson, because that’s not the purpose of this exercise. The history is what it is. But it’s important to understand and appreciate Jefferson. Many people have ideas about “government and liberty.” But Jefferson’s ideas produced one of the most prosperous societies in the history of the world.
  - skedaddle 5y ago
    I'm confused by why you'd point out that historically parents were more ambivalent, if not to excuse Jefferson having enslaved his own offspring (which was not actually happening to everyone all the time).
    - rayiner 5y ago
      You don’t need to excuse anything to try and understand something. For example even in 2021, we have Afghans who refuse to send their girls to school. We can’t even comprehend that mindset here in America. We don’t need to excuse it to acknowledge that there may be more to it than us simply being better than Afghans. Pastoral societies are often strongly male dominated even compared to similarly undeveloped agricultural societies. The point is that morality isn’t simply about “we are better than the ignorant people of the past.” That’s part of it obviously, but scientific and technological change often changes the context of how we think about things.