Inspired by another post regarding the WMD used on Japan, but I thought I should start a new post in order to keep that one focused.

My question is as it is seen in the title.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is my take:

You can judge the past by todays standards, to SOME degree. By saying you cannot is opening a can of worms. For example, how do you define the past and the present?

Regent said it was right that you cannot judge the past by today's in reference to the nuclear attack on Japan, insinuating AT THE TIME it was a legitimate action however when you look at this idea in greater detail, is becomes flawed.

In the forties - if we cannot judge by todays standards - does it make the holocaust acceptable? Does it make the bombing of Dresden or Tokyo acceptable? Does it make the use of Cluster Bombs in Laos and Cambodia acceptable? In other words you are legitimising an action simply because it was acceptable to that society at that time and we cannot condemn them for it.

To bring this into the present day political sphere, this argument suggests a level of moral relativism, in so far that is legtimizes the oppression exercised by groups such as the Taliban because their actions are acceptable to them in their society.

Reopened. Thanks for the clarification.

I think you're free to judge people in whatever light you wish, Lord knows people are going to judge you by their standards.

However when looking back at history I only make judgement calls in terms of whether or not they made the right decision for preservation of self, and country, whether or not they acted bravely with courage, on and on etc etc.

I will say this in response to where this thread came from. In deciding whether or not the actions of one culture or nation were right against another, it's also important to realize that no culture or nation is innocent, ever.

I think it depends. I doubt anyone here would argue that the Holocaust was morally ok because the Nazis said it was. At the same time, it's kind of ridiculous to condemn the Aztecs for violating the Geneva Convention.

Agreed, so where is the line drawn?

When is the past the past and the present present?

People have said to me that the British Empire did nothing wrong because morality didnt exist, and everyone was trying to do it - This hardly seems reasonable. At what point in human history has any human liked being killed? Just because the masses accept something as normal or atrocities occur on a large scale does not make them right. Killing someone has been a sin, since the creation of earth, so why can we not jusge the past by todays standards?

I think we usually can judge past actions by today's standards. It is more difficult to judge people that way. People are a product of their environment. I can't totally condemn Jefferson and Washington for owning slaves. I believe personal liberty is a natural right and slavery is, and was, always wrong.

Values change through the times, so it isn't really accurate to judge past actions by today's standard frame of reference. Example: Is eating meat wrong? Meat isn't a necessary evil anymore. We don't have to kill animals to eat, but we choose to for the taste. Does that make it evil? A future entire generation of vegans, in a world where killing an animal is murder, might think so. A ham sandwich might be the equivalent (in the future) of a human-sandwich today...It's all a matter of perspective. Similarly, all of history offers a one-sided view which often requires a perspective we cannot understand or share.

Edited to add: Hindsight 20/20 is always easy, but seldom honest.

[quote=Hugo,Dec 13 2003, 06:06 PM] I think we usually can judge past actions by today's standards. It is more difficult to judge people that way. People are a product of their environment. [/quote]
[/QUOTE]

if people are the product of their environment, then can an outsider to that environment judge them? similarily, if action are a product of the people, are they not also a product of the environment?

People are definitely the products of their environments, but that doesn't mean that the effects of their actions are irrelevant. I would run from a grand-inquisitor who wants to burn me as a witch and purify my soul, regardless of whether or not he (or the population at large) feels his intentions are pure. I DO believe that actions are the product of environment to a great degree. I think that is the fundamental basis for pacifism. The realization that resorting to violence is essentially the same as punishing a person for conditions beyond their control. I'm more of a pragmatist, but I believe I understand pacifism.

I think that as our knowledge of the world expands, our view of the world changes and so our views on morality change. WHat is moral 100 years ago is no longer moral today, because we know better. I also think that as our siutaion changes, the types of action we will tolerate change.

This can work both ways - for example, pre 9/11 I think very few people would have considered the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay, secret military tribunals etc as acceptable - but now people are a lot more scared of terrorism - so they are prepared to accept a lower level (IMO) of moral behaviour from their government in return for increased safety. So as the environment changes, so does morality.


okay _ i'm going to have to debate this one, because I'm from Britain ....at the time, the actions of the British Empire were considered extremely moral. It was perceived that there was a 'civilised' world (Europe and N. America) and an 'uncivilised' world (everywhere else). The 'civilised' world had developed technologies, financial systems, a degree of democracy, literature and was Christian. The uncivilised world had less technology, feudal systems, lower levels of health and was pagan (i.e not Christian).

There were many theories as to why this was, but the accepted theory (in Europe and N. America) was that white men were the most advanced, followed by Asians, then Africans, who were the least developed. The British Empire felt it had the 'white mans burden' - that it was morally incumbent upon Britain to take over the running of Asian and African countries to improve the quality of life of less civilised peoples (and to spread Christianity). Implicit in this belief was the assumption that they were incapable of running their own countries and that their own religions were false.

Nowadays we regard the assumption that white people are superior to other people as being repellent...however the world is a different place today. We can see Asian and African countries with democracies and the technological divide has greatly narrowed, so it is an obviously idiotic notion to say that any race of peoples is superior to another. But this view of the world did not exist 150 years ago, because the technological divide between the 'West' and the rest of the world was so great that people felt there had to be a reason.

So it wasn't that morality didn't exist - but that morality and ethics can be fluid and much more subjective than people think. Europeans consider the death penalty to be hugely immoral. Americans do not (or at least the majority do not). Can we say that anyone is right or wrong here?