The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

[Gradine]

There are also always, always people, contemporaries of historical atrocities, who are very clear that it was wrong while it was happening. You just have to know where to look, and spoilers, it's very often the types of folks whose narratives don't get put in history textbooks.

 

[Ryujin]

Dammit. Now I really need a "I didn't comment in the I didn't comment in another thread" thread.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That's funny. That's basically a restatement of presentism in a nutshell. "We have the right moral position now, but they didn't back then...well, actually, some people back then shared the moral position we have now...so we can judge those in the past who didn't share our present moral position by the standards of today." That's literally the problem. It's the assumption we now have the right moral position which is further compounded by judging the past by current moral positions. It utterly ignores that we don't have the right of all things and that in even a few years things we think of as perfectly moral can and likely will be seen as utterly monstrous. We're certainly getting better in a lot of ways and making progress, sure. But we too will be judged by some unknowable standards of the future.

I don't think we have the right/completely perfect moral position right now . . . but I think we're better. Not all of us. There are clearly a lot of bad people around. But progress has been made. Here are some examples just from the United States within the past couple of centuries.

It's no longer illegal for "ugly people" (aka, disabled and extremely poor people) to go out in public. Women can vote. Slavery is (mostly) illegal. People of color can vote. LGBTQ+ people are being discriminated against way less and are more accepted than ever before.

That is not to say that we are perfect and don't have issues. We do. We have a lot of them. Disabled people, women, people of color, and the LGBTQ+ community are still discriminated against. Slavery is still legal in prisons. The "justice" system punishes the poor and BIPOC more than the white and rich. Climate change is a problem that keeps getting worse and progress is happening slowly. Wealth inequality is worse than ever before. The internet is increasing extremism and allowing for extreme groups to coordinate better.

We have a lot of problems and some of them are getting worse. But there has been a lot of progress. In a lot of ways, we are better than we used to be. Women have almost as many rights as men. The majority of people of color aren't enslaved. LGBTQ+ people are safer to be themselves in public. That is progress. That is better than it used to be. It is okay to look back on the past and judge people for not being better because recognizing the problem is the first step to improving. And I hope that in the future people will look back at modern society's many, many problems and judge us as remnants of a deeply troubled period of time. If we get to a state where systemic oppression, prison slavery, the climate crisis, extreme wealth inequality, and internet-fueled extremism are things of the past, they will be right to judge us for not being better.

Things have gotten better and things can get better. Ignoring that and saying "humanity is always the same, we never change and shouldn't judge people from previous time periods" is a bad ideology. If we do that, we get filled with apathy and will never take the first step towards progress.

 

[RealAlHazred]

If there's a biography about "Mr. Rockstar" and it mentions all the great tours he goes through but seems to omit the fact that he stabs grandmas before every concert, then it is both an incomplete biography and it is morally biased.

Well, now I'm feeling called out...

 

[Asisreo]

Well, now I'm feeling called out...

Good, maybe you'll learn not to STAB MY GRANDMA!

 

[overgeeked]

I am totally willing to be judged wrong by future generations.

We won’t have a choice. Short of ensuring there will be no future generations to judge us.

For example, I frequently think that my willingness to eat factory slaughterhouse meat (or meat of any kind) might be broadly considered monstrous in some future. Many people consider it monstrous now. I know I might be wrong to do so.

Good example. Another being the use of fossil fuels and the destruction of the environment.

Anyway, if judging people of the past is presentism and wrong, I don't want to be right.

Judging people of the past by today’s standards is presentism. As the poster above mentioned, it’s not the job of the historian (even amateurs) to bias history. Presentism is bias.

I am pretty sure that if you asked people in Jefferson's time, if raping the 14-year old unrecognized half-sister of his wife they'd know it was wrong, except many didn't see her as a person. You may not want to judge that, but I have no issue with it, but do have an issue with those that won't.

The problem is assuming we’re right without acknowledging the possibility of being wrong. Ignoring that morals change over time. Pretending there’s no bias inherent in that. Our morals are a product of our time, they’re not special in any way. Again, we will inevitably be viewed as just as monstrous as Jefferson. Or, morality will swing darker. And those in that present will judge us by their standards. There’s no objective morality to point to so pretending as if there were is a terrible idea.

I have no problem saying rape, slavery, and racism is wrong. And I’d be happy to be judged for that. But we could all use a bit of humility and maybe slow down on the stupid assumption that our views are somehow morally superior when they just as trash as any other time. Just trash in different ways. Gain ground here, lose ground there.

Harming people is always wrong in every time. That is not complicated.

It’s far more complicated that you’re presenting.

For example, is it wrong to harm someone to prevent them from harming you or your loved ones? According to your simplistic statement of morality, yes, it’s wrong to protect yourself and your loved ones. But what are the chances of you not stepping in and inflicting harm to prevent someone from hurting you or a loved one? Zero? One in a million?

Or is it wrong to inflict harm in protecting strangers from harm? Again, your simplistic statement of morality says, yes, it’s wrong.

Good thing the Allies disagreed with you or the world would be speaking German. There are certain times when violence is not only justified but necessary, unfortunately.

 

[overgeeked]

I don't think we have the right/completely perfect moral position right now . . . but I think we're better. Not all of us. There are clearly a lot of bad people around. But progress has been made. Here are some examples just from the United States within the past couple of centuries.

Agreed. It’s the assumption that we’re right and judging the past by the standards of today that’s the problem. We’re not perfect. We should step down from our high horse.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Agreed. It’s the assumption that we’re right and judging the past by the standards of today that’s the problem. We’re not perfect. We should step down from our high horse.

But we are right to judge them for all the terrible things they did. Slavery, women being property, LGBTQ+ people being shunned and killed, disabled and neurodivergent people being extremely mistreated, and all of that terrible stuff that happened in the past is objectively bad and we should judge the past for doing those terrible things.

But we also do some pretty bad stuff. And we need to stop. And if/when we stop doing all of the terrible things involved in modern society, a future society not burdened by those problems will be 100% justified to look back on us with scorn and say that we were wrong for doing those things. Admitting faults in society (past and present) is the only way that we can make progress and grow better. We should judge people of the past for doing bad things and people of the future should judge us for doing bad things.

 

[trappedslider]

I got the gloves done for my cosplay

 

[overgeeked]

is objectively bad

In the few thousand years of “Western Civilization” and philosophy stretching back to the ancient Greeks, we’ve yet to discover what is objectively good or bad, right or wrong. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Seneca, Kant, Camus, Hume, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer…none have done it. Many have made claims and made arguments. Many others have refuted those claims and poked giant holes in those arguments. If you’ve discovered objective morality I’d write down your argument and submit it to a journal. You might win a prize.