5 ms·

I deeply oppose the reading of history that judge historical events and persons with today's moral. With that measurement your grandparents would properly hold

I deeply oppose the reading of history that judge historical events and persons with today's moral. With that measurement your grandparents would properly hold immoral opinions. Historical context is essential and I hope future generations also apply this when judging us.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago
Oh but my grandparents do. "Historical context" doesn't make something right. Colonization has always been objectively bad - it decimated and exploited populations and cultures, to name just one of many effects. Many of said historical events and persons were immoral with the morals of back then as well. Murder has always been bad. Slavery has always been immoral. Genocide has always been bad, but guess what happened when the Spanish invaded the Americas?
- HKH2 4y ago
  On what basis are those things objectively bad?
  - tpush 4y ago
    Because of the killing, torturing, enslavement and exploitation of human beings.
    - FeepingCreature 4y ago
      What makes that "objective"? Are you confusing "objective" with "arguable"? A position does not become objective by being the consensus opinion.
    - HKH2 4y ago
      That is a circular argument, as those were the things I was referencing.
  - clappski 4y ago
    So are you arguing that genocide and slavery aren't objectively bad?
    - HKH2 4y ago
      No.
    - hirundo 4y ago
      I'd argue that morality and objectivity are orthogonal. Morality is an expression of values, which are subjective, never objective. I value human life. If another human values human death, there isn't a sense in which my value is necessarily more objective than theirs.
  - cfiggers 4y ago
    Consider Kant's Categorical Imperative.[0] There's an argument to be made that the CI isn't quite perfectly "objective." But then again, it might be as close to such a thing as ethics can get. A summary of the CI, for those unfamiliar with Kant: Suppose you'd like to do something. Could you wish that everyone everywhere all the time behaved that way? That is, consider the hypothetical world where everyone everywhere did that thing as often as they wanted, and see whether you like the outcome (or, would prefer that hypothetical world to the one where no one anywhere ever did that thing). If the world associated with the action you're considering is undesirable from a rational standpoint, then it's literally insane and a wholly despicable thing for you to do it. This is because, if you do it yourself while wishing no one else to do so, then you are considering your own self (or your own family or your own tribe) to be an exception to your own rational assessment of that behavior if everyone else were to do it. There is no rational basis for considering yourself such an exception just because you are yourself. So, don't do that thing. Kant goes to extreme lengths to show that the Categorical Imperative is not just a nice idea that he dreamed up, but is rather an intrinsic entailment of rationality itself. So, murder is objectively wrong because the idea of everyone, everywhere, in every time doing it would result in a horrible world that no rational person would prefer to the alternative where no one anywhere ever committed murder. Same with slavery and genocide. They're evil because if everyone everywhere did it, the resulting world would, if examined rationally, be worse than the world where no one anywhere ever did them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
    - HKH2 4y ago
      There are quite a few problems with the categorical imperative: We cannot all do the same things. For example, there are things that adults do that are necessary for the survival of humanity that children should not do. So your response would be to add more provisions, yet you can always add more provisions, because there are many ways that we cannot be the same. Here's a trivial one: if your name is Bob, you can kill people, otherwise it's wrong. You can replace that with all sorts of reasons why you are justified and others are not. You are not constrained in how you frame it. It's easy to use murder as an example, because we already intersubjectively agree it is wrong (murder is also wrong by definition). Let's get to an example closer to home for many people: I think it is clear that, using the categorical imperative, not having children is morally wrong because it would end horribly for the remaining aging population. I doubt you'd agree with that. You can only argue that the predicted result is not objective, but which predicted results are? Also, if I see someone doing something which I don't think is viable on a larger scale, am I to conclude that they're evil, or is the categorical imperative only meant to be applied personally?
- origin_path 4y ago
  "guess what happened when the Spanish invaded the Americas?" They put a stop to the practice of human sacrifice, which was rampant throughout the Aztec Empire?
  - zach_garwood 4y ago
    So was it in the Spanish empire. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
    - origin_path 4y ago
      Those two things aren't even close to comparable in scale. The Aztecs were truly horrible in ways not seen in Europe for a very long time. That's why Cortez could conquer so much territory despite starting out with basically nothing. The locals were desperate to overthrow the Aztecs and teamed up with the Spanish. The sheer scale of the pointless and arbitrary human sacrifice was horrific.
- scarmig 4y ago
  > Murder has always been bad. Slavery has always been immoral. Genocide has always been bad, but guess what happened when the Spanish invaded the Americas? The mass murder, slavery, and imperialism of the Aztecs was replaced by the mass murder, slavery, and imperialism of the Spaniards. But who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Otzoma? The issue isn't whether we apply ethics from a relativist or objective standpoint, but that we pick and choose when we do. Right now, Europeans must always be judged by contemporary standards (ironically rooted in the Enlightenment), while other cultures must never be judged.
HKH2 4y ago
What irks me more is that we can't have a discussion about the past without people automatically jumping to the conclusion that we are justifying it. An explanation is not a justification unless everything is deterministic.
goodpoint 4y ago
> I deeply oppose the reading of history that judge historical events and persons with today's moral. Should we apply this logic to time only or space as well?
- zajio1am 4y ago
  You can communicate through space but not through time (from future to past).
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    Missing the point?
    - Tainnor 4y ago
      I guess their point is that we can try to influence people who are from other cultures, e.g. about the value of universal human rights (and I think we should, though which method is the best is debatable). By contrast, we can't really tell a dead person to behave differently because, well, they're dead.
      - goodpoint 4y ago
        And yet we can and should evaluate the moral implications of past actions.
        Tainnor 4y ago
        We can, but if we do it without any historical context, then it will mean that basically everyone who ever lived in the past was immoral (and it will most likely also mean that we'll all be considered very immoral by people in the future), and I can't see that being a particularly useful point of view.
- Wicher 4y ago
  People naturally move through time. Everyone, all at the same speed. And in the same.e direction - you can't time-travel back in time. And intent plays no role. Moving across space: Not everyone, not all at the same speed, not all in the same direction. And intent plays a role (note that it can be someone else's intent that's propelling one of course). So I'm saying that time and space seem qualitatively quite different. That turns the question of > Should we apply this logic to time only or space as well? into one to be further explored with a "why? they're quite different" answer, rather than with a "yeah why not" answer.
bigbillheck 4y ago
> With that measurement your grandparents would properly hold immoral opinions. I didn't find out about it until after they were gone, but yeah they had a couple.
- n4r9 4y ago
  My reaction as well. Who are they to tell me my grandparents are perfect! And I'm sure that by the time they're adults, the kids two generations down will think some of my opinions are downright detestable. This is progress.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

Oh but my grandparents do. "Historical context" doesn't make something right. Colonization has always been objectively bad - it decimated and exploited populations and cultures, to name just one of many effects. Many of said historical events and persons were immoral with the morals of back then as well. Murder has always been bad. Slavery has always been immoral. Genocide has always been bad, but guess what happened when the Spanish invaded the Americas?

HKH2 4y ago
On what basis are those things objectively bad?
- tpush 4y ago
  Because of the killing, torturing, enslavement and exploitation of human beings.
  - FeepingCreature 4y ago
    What makes that "objective"? Are you confusing "objective" with "arguable"? A position does not become objective by being the consensus opinion.
  - HKH2 4y ago
    That is a circular argument, as those were the things I was referencing.
- clappski 4y ago
  So are you arguing that genocide and slavery aren't objectively bad?
  - HKH2 4y ago
    No.
  - hirundo 4y ago
    I'd argue that morality and objectivity are orthogonal. Morality is an expression of values, which are subjective, never objective. I value human life. If another human values human death, there isn't a sense in which my value is necessarily more objective than theirs.
- cfiggers 4y ago
  Consider Kant's Categorical Imperative.[0] There's an argument to be made that the CI isn't quite perfectly "objective." But then again, it might be as close to such a thing as ethics can get. A summary of the CI, for those unfamiliar with Kant: Suppose you'd like to do something. Could you wish that everyone everywhere all the time behaved that way? That is, consider the hypothetical world where everyone everywhere did that thing as often as they wanted, and see whether you like the outcome (or, would prefer that hypothetical world to the one where no one anywhere ever did that thing). If the world associated with the action you're considering is undesirable from a rational standpoint, then it's literally insane and a wholly despicable thing for you to do it. This is because, if you do it yourself while wishing no one else to do so, then you are considering your own self (or your own family or your own tribe) to be an exception to your own rational assessment of that behavior if everyone else were to do it. There is no rational basis for considering yourself such an exception just because you are yourself. So, don't do that thing. Kant goes to extreme lengths to show that the Categorical Imperative is not just a nice idea that he dreamed up, but is rather an intrinsic entailment of rationality itself. So, murder is objectively wrong because the idea of everyone, everywhere, in every time doing it would result in a horrible world that no rational person would prefer to the alternative where no one anywhere ever committed murder. Same with slavery and genocide. They're evil because if everyone everywhere did it, the resulting world would, if examined rationally, be worse than the world where no one anywhere ever did them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
  - HKH2 4y ago
    There are quite a few problems with the categorical imperative: We cannot all do the same things. For example, there are things that adults do that are necessary for the survival of humanity that children should not do. So your response would be to add more provisions, yet you can always add more provisions, because there are many ways that we cannot be the same. Here's a trivial one: if your name is Bob, you can kill people, otherwise it's wrong. You can replace that with all sorts of reasons why you are justified and others are not. You are not constrained in how you frame it. It's easy to use murder as an example, because we already intersubjectively agree it is wrong (murder is also wrong by definition). Let's get to an example closer to home for many people: I think it is clear that, using the categorical imperative, not having children is morally wrong because it would end horribly for the remaining aging population. I doubt you'd agree with that. You can only argue that the predicted result is not objective, but which predicted results are? Also, if I see someone doing something which I don't think is viable on a larger scale, am I to conclude that they're evil, or is the categorical imperative only meant to be applied personally?
origin_path 4y ago
"guess what happened when the Spanish invaded the Americas?" They put a stop to the practice of human sacrifice, which was rampant throughout the Aztec Empire?
- zach_garwood 4y ago
  So was it in the Spanish empire. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
  - origin_path 4y ago
    Those two things aren't even close to comparable in scale. The Aztecs were truly horrible in ways not seen in Europe for a very long time. That's why Cortez could conquer so much territory despite starting out with basically nothing. The locals were desperate to overthrow the Aztecs and teamed up with the Spanish. The sheer scale of the pointless and arbitrary human sacrifice was horrific.
scarmig 4y ago
> Murder has always been bad. Slavery has always been immoral. Genocide has always been bad, but guess what happened when the Spanish invaded the Americas? The mass murder, slavery, and imperialism of the Aztecs was replaced by the mass murder, slavery, and imperialism of the Spaniards. But who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Otzoma? The issue isn't whether we apply ethics from a relativist or objective standpoint, but that we pick and choose when we do. Right now, Europeans must always be judged by contemporary standards (ironically rooted in the Enlightenment), while other cultures must never be judged.

HKH2 4y ago

What irks me more is that we can't have a discussion about the past without people automatically jumping to the conclusion that we are justifying it. An explanation is not a justification unless everything is deterministic.

goodpoint 4y ago

> I deeply oppose the reading of history that judge historical events and persons with today's moral. Should we apply this logic to time only or space as well?

zajio1am 4y ago
You can communicate through space but not through time (from future to past).
- goodpoint 4y ago
  Missing the point?
  - Tainnor 4y ago
    I guess their point is that we can try to influence people who are from other cultures, e.g. about the value of universal human rights (and I think we should, though which method is the best is debatable). By contrast, we can't really tell a dead person to behave differently because, well, they're dead.
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      And yet we can and should evaluate the moral implications of past actions.
      - Tainnor 4y ago
        We can, but if we do it without any historical context, then it will mean that basically everyone who ever lived in the past was immoral (and it will most likely also mean that we'll all be considered very immoral by people in the future), and I can't see that being a particularly useful point of view.
Wicher 4y ago
People naturally move through time. Everyone, all at the same speed. And in the same.e direction - you can't time-travel back in time. And intent plays no role. Moving across space: Not everyone, not all at the same speed, not all in the same direction. And intent plays a role (note that it can be someone else's intent that's propelling one of course). So I'm saying that time and space seem qualitatively quite different. That turns the question of > Should we apply this logic to time only or space as well? into one to be further explored with a "why? they're quite different" answer, rather than with a "yeah why not" answer.

bigbillheck 4y ago

> With that measurement your grandparents would properly hold immoral opinions. I didn't find out about it until after they were gone, but yeah they had a couple.

n4r9 4y ago
My reaction as well. Who are they to tell me my grandparents are perfect! And I'm sure that by the time they're adults, the kids two generations down will think some of my opinions are downright detestable. This is progress.