[Potemkin]

Why? If they did it they obviously thought it was ok and moral, seems like a pointless exercise to judge people according to whether they thought it was moral or not.

...

But that would **shock horror** involve making a moral judgement and moral relativism is rife in modern corrupt universities.

There is an implicit assumption in this debate that each historical epoch had only a single, universal set of moral values which were accepted by all individuals, classes and nations at the time. This is not true today and it was not true at any time in the past. The actions of people like Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Churchill et al were admired by some and despised by others even at the time. The Macedonians thought that Alexander was a great and a good man, the Persians... not so much. The point of historiography is to investigate these conflicting moral viewpoints - who held them, and why, and what effect did these moral judgements have? - without distorting that investigation by filtering it through our own modern sensibilities. It may not be possible to perfectly achieve that sort of objectivity, but that's no excuse for not trying. This is not moral relativism; it is a recognition that conflicting moral viewpoints existed (and still exist) and that any attempt to endorse one particular moral viewpoint as being 'correct' is necessarily subjective.

[Eran]

The Macedonians thought that Alexander was a great and a good man, the Persians... not so much.

Because he was their enemy, not because his moral standards were different.

So while it is undoubtedly true that no age presents a uniform and standard set of moral standards, standards are more common than you would think.

[Smilin' Dave]

There is no such thing as "history as it occurred". History is always a selective narrative of past events. It is always framed, always prioritised, always told with a specific perspective. History is not facts.

History clearly did occur in a certain way, the question is whether you can figure out exactly what. If you don't tell the history as close to the facts as it is possible to determine, then you are not writing history. Any polemical point you want to make based on history is hollow if you don't base it on facts.

I agree. My point, I guess, is that those who today glorify past leaders are wrong not to include an examination of the actions of those past leaders through a modern moral perspective.

Then you've missed the point. The 'cure' for partisan history isn't partisan history with a different slant.

If they did it they obviously thought it was ok and moral, seems like a pointless exercise to judge people according to whether they thought it was moral or not.

Yes there has never been moral outrage at the time a decision was made or an event occurred

[TruePolitics]

Yes
It is certainly legitimate to judge the past with today's standards when looking back on it.

[Eran]

History clearly did occur in a certain way, the question is whether you can figure out exactly what. If you don't tell the history as close to the facts as it is possible to determine, then you are not writing history. Any polemical point you want to make based on history is hollow if you don't base it on facts.

In part, we have a difference in definition. By my definition, the past happened, and certain facts about the past can be deduced from current evidence. "History" is not synonymous with "the past". "History" is our narrative of the past. Obviously, for that narrative to be honest, it has to be based on historical facts. But even setting aside the natural and inevitable uncertainty regarding historic facts, history still involves both (1) selection of which facts are interesting and relevant, and (2) tying those facts together into a coherent narrative.

A table of GDP statistics is not history. It represents a historic fact. To become history, the table must be accompanied by an analysis of that GDP history, relating it to government policies and world events is history.

Then you've missed the point. The 'cure' for partisan history isn't partisan history with a different slant.

I might have missed your point, but you certainly missed mine. Every history is partisan. There is no such thing as "neutral history".

[QatzelOk]

Ontological reality doesn't change over time - only human interference with nature does (culture/civilization).

So a TRUE morality would involve rules that enable all living creatures to thrive without human interference.

Judging other moralities is only useful for seeing what morals are potentially workable. In the end, humanity will find that only natural balance is moral. All the social constructs past and present are just a form of denial.

"I just know we can beat nature if only we..." has been the triumphant eureka of morality for 6000 years, and it has failed. We are heading for mass extinction and a greatly diminished earth - and it's all been done in the name of Good-vs-Evil.

Failure.

[Eran]

Ontological reality doesn't change over time - only human interference with nature does (culture/civilization).

So a TRUE morality would involve rules that enable all living creatures to thrive without human interference.

Could you expand on how your conclusion is related to your premise?

[zachd]

Ontological reality doesn't change over time - only human interference with nature does (culture/civilization).

So a TRUE morality would involve rules that enable all living creatures to thrive without human interference.

Judging other moralities is only useful for seeing what morals are potentially workable. In the end, humanity will find that only natural balance is moral. All the social constructs past and present are just a form of denial.

"I just know we can beat nature if only we..." has been the triumphant eureka of morality for 6000 years, and it has failed. We are heading for mass extinction and a greatly diminished earth - and it's all been done in the name of Good-vs-Evil.

Failure.

Maybe I'm just blinded by realism/behaviorism or something, but isn't ontological reality (ontological reality seems like a bit of a redundancy) determined by human interaction with nature? Eran asks a valid question here, your conclusion doesn't seem to follow.

You raise an interesting point in my opinion though because I think it's potentially possible to legitimize moral absolutism through behaviorist thinking. I haven't given this much thought though, however.

But that would **shock horror** involve making a moral judgement and moral relativism is rife in modern corrupt universities.

I actually remember explicitly being awoken from my post-structuralist "dogmatic slumbers" during my first semester of university. Perhaps I just take the wrong classes.

[Smilin' Dave]

"History" is not synonymous with "the past". "History" is our narrative of the past. Obviously, for that narrative to be honest, it has to be based on historical facts.

You tell me history and the past are not the same thing, then classify facts from the past as "historical facts". It seems to me that my view of what history is might be the least confused one.

history still involves both (1) selection of which facts are interesting and relevant, and (2) tying those facts together into a coherent narrative.

A table of GDP statistics is not history. It represents a historic fact. To become history, the table must be accompanied by an analysis of that GDP history, relating it to government policies and world events is history.

None of which has anything to do with any supposed imperative that history be used as a passion/mystery play.

Every history is partisan. There is no such thing as "neutral history".

Let me put it another way, on a scale between true empiricism and outright partisan historical narrative, where do you think good history ought to sit?

[Potemkin]

For someone on the political right, Eran seems to be astonishingly post-modernist in his approach to history. I'm pretty sure Ayn Rand would not have approved.

[Eran]

You tell me history and the past are not the same thing, then classify facts from the past as "historical facts". It seems to me that my view of what history is might be the least confused one.

The "historical" in "historical facts" doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "history". "Historical facts" is (as I used it) synonymous with "facts about the past". My point is that "history" is not the same as "facts about the past".

None of which has anything to do with any supposed imperative that history be used as a passion/mystery play.

Agreed. But a layer of prioritisation and interpretation is inevitable.

Let me put it another way, on a scale between true empiricism and outright partisan historical narrative, where do you think good history ought to sit?

I don't think the ideal of "true empiricism" applies to history. The answer also depends on the party of the historian. I would like to read history which "correctly" analyses facts about the past (not to mention presenting correct facts).

What I view as "correct" is not necessarily what you would. To give a trivial example, the Old Testament is, in part, a history. The historic narrative of the lives of the kings routinely comments on the relation between the king's lot and the degree to which he pleased God. Religious people might consider that as "good history". I don't.

In other words, I don't think there is a universal standard for "good history". Rather, different people would rightly prefer different historic narratives.

For someone on the political right, Eran seems to be astonishingly post-modernist in his approach to history. I'm pretty sure Ayn Rand would not have approved.

I have been greatly influenced by Ludwig von Mises' [url=http://mises.org/document/118/Theory-and-History-An-Interpretation-of-Social-and-Economic-Evolution]Theory and History[/quote].

My view on history is similar to my view on ethics generally. I see myself as a Ethical Subjectivist, a sort-of middle ground between being Objectivist and Relativist.

The Objectivist view is that there is a single, universal moral code, logically / rationally ascertainable and applicable to all humans.
Dave here represents the Objectivist attitudes towards history - there is a single, universal, best way to describe the past. Such description would make for "good" history.

The Relativist view is that there are many moral codes, each of which is only applicable in specific times and places. This is the post-modernist approach to both morality and history.

The Subjectivist view is that there is no logically-ascertainable universal ethical code. Each person determines his own code, typically strongly influenced by, and often wishing to influence, other members of society. But one's personal ethics can (and often does) apply universally. Thus I believe that raping young girls is wrong. It is always and everywhere wrong. It is even wrong in cultures that accept it (say in the context of forced marriage). But I acknowledge that I cannot "prove" that it is wrong. At best, I'll try to persuade others that it is.

My approach to history is similar. From my perspective (and those who see the world in similar terms), there is such thing as "good history". I don't think a historic narrative that explains past events through divine intervention, for example, is a good one. But I recognize that I cannot prove my point.

Does that make sense?

[Potemkin]

Does that make sense?

It does, and thank you for the clarification. Your position sounds like Perspectivism to me, which I regard as an entirely respectable position. However, I tend to adopt a more empiricist and objectivist approach to the field of historical knowledge. History, in my view, is distinct from ethics in the sense that it is available as a field of scientific enquiry rather than being an entirely subjective body of opinion or belief. Not all perspectives or historical narratives are equally valid.

[Eran]

I think the similarities are greater than you imply, though they are obviously not identical.

Clearly, historical study ought to be based on solid factual foundations. There is a scientific aspect to historical research. But to some extent the same can be said about ethics. The greatest divisions with respect to morality are not about differing end-goals, but about effective means towards those goals.

Virtually every political movement, from market anarchists to hard-core Marxists, would like to see peaceful and flourishing, wealthy and diverse human society. They differ on the "scientific" question of how to get there from here.

[Kman]

Let me put it another way, on a scale between true empiricism and outright partisan historical narrative, where do you think good history ought to sit?

The two things are not mutually exclusive, every good historian will try and find reliable sources, every historian will have to pick what information to put in his book or article though and that means his historical research will always be partisan to some degree.
History is like news, you can choose your angle on every story and you choose what stories to tell and what information to bring to the viewer, the difference is just that news stations do history that is only 1-24 hours old typically instead of lets say 50-500 years old.

A historian doing a book on Abraham Lincoln can pick and choose quotes by Lincoln to make him out like as if he cared about black people (this seems to be the most popular variant of history about him), another historian like for example the historians connected with the Mises Institute tend to emphasize the quotes by Lincoln that showed that he did not care about black people but instead more interested in keeping together the United States at all costs.
Each historian is technically correct, they just focus on different things and that means that even though they are empirically correct they are not unbiased in any way, that is simply impossible while doing history, just like it is impossible in news.

[QatzelOk]

but isn't ontological reality (ontological reality seems like a bit of a redundancy) determined by human interaction with nature?

When the earth's complex systems are impacted by mass human trend-following, ontological reality (the earth's natural condition) has been altered by human behavior.

This leads to mass extinctions as these natural systems attempt to expunge the contaminant that we have become.

This will ALWAYS happen, as it is natural law.

Which is why I say that the only viable and sustainable morality involves NOT altering the balance of large natural systems.

This is an ETERNAL morality, rather than the seat-of-your-pants ones we have now (Abrahamic religion, political ideologies, status-seeking games, etc.)

[Smilin' Dave]

The "historical" in "historical facts" doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "history".

Oh be serious. Are you going to argue that seperatism doesn't actually have anything to do with the word seperate

In other words, I don't think there is a universal standard for "good history".

You have yet to explain why your preference in history could be considered, objectively, good. You've noted that you like to read stuff that is "correct" in its narrative, and in a manner that has shades of the Soviet ideal of being 'correct'.

Rather, different people would rightly prefer different historic narratives.

So why did you enter this thread insisting all history should judge morality by a universal standard, when clearly different people are going to expect different approaches to the topic?

Dave here represents the Objectivist attitudes towards history - there is a single, universal, best way to describe the past.

Wrong. Go back to page 1 and read my post and tell me if that was a ringing endorsement of there being a single linear narrative. I actually believe there are many view points on events etc. I've come across as taking a hard line on empiricism essentially because of your argument which still seems to amount to "history should be made to conform to my expectations", with the later variation that your change 'my' with 'the audience'.

Then of course we have your periodic insistance that morality is universal and timeless anyway (hence its not contorting history so much as being accurate)... yet somehow it is so universal we need to re-establish narratives to better suit the more moral goal.

The two things are not mutually exclusive

Which is why I said they were on a scale...

[Eran]

So why did you enter this thread insisting all history should judge morality by a universal standard, when clearly different people are going to expect different approaches to the topic?

Because this is my view of the proper way to narrate history.

I'll try again.

1. All history is told from a particular viewpoint. There is no such thing as "neutral history".
2. Different people can have different preferences for how history ought to be told.
3. My preference is to comment on past actions by reference to both contemporary and universal moral standards.

Then of course we have your periodic insistance that morality is universal and timeless anyway (hence its not contorting history so much as being accurate)... yet somehow it is so universal we need to re-establish narratives to better suit the more moral goal.

I advocate a moral system which is universally applicable, even if not universally accepted.

Murder is wrong. Murder has always been and always will be wrong. Murder is wrong even when the people doing the murdering do not consider it wrong. Historic narrative of murder should (in my opinion) refer to it as what it is - a crime.

[Potemkin]

Murder is wrong. Murder has always been and always will be wrong. Murder is wrong even when the people doing the murdering do not consider it wrong. Historic narrative of murder should (in my opinion) refer to it as what it is - a crime.

What about warfare, which is essentially legalised murder?

[Eran]

In my opinion, murder is wrong. It has always been wrong, and will always be wrong. Regardless of its legal status.

War need not involve murder. Defensive war in particular, as carried out by the defence forces on their on territory, will rarely target innocents. It will target the aggressive invasion forces of the enemy which, by virtue of being on the defensive side's territory are aggressors and consequently not innocents.

[Potemkin]

War need not involve murder.

All actual wars in human history have done so.

Defensive war in particular, as carried out by the defence forces on their on territory, will rarely target innocents. It will target the aggressive invasion forces of the enemy which, by virtue of being on the defensive side's territory are aggressors and consequently not innocents.

Let us hope that you are not in charge of your nation's armed forces if and when it is ever invaded, because it would be a very short and very unsuccessful war for your nation.