- 10 Jul 2012 11:31
#14002463
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.
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.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Marx (Groucho)