I am struck with the importance of judging our founders and history by the standards of their times. After all, any historical figure has failed in grievous ways we know better now. And we shall fail in grievous ways our descendants will know better as well. But we must not imagine ourselves more virtuous than our ancestors, nor less vir…
I am struck with the importance of judging our founders and history by the standards of their times. After all, any historical figure has failed in grievous ways we know better now. And we shall fail in grievous ways our descendants will know better as well. But we must not imagine ourselves more virtuous than our ancestors, nor less virtuous than our descendants, due to being raised in a time that had access to the moral reasoning of today and neither more nor less.
What we must celebrate are those who helped move our world forward. Who dared dream of rights and systems of government then unspoken (who falls in such category is by inevitability clearer in hindsight than present). This standard is not always exculpatory. Wilson was a bigoted scoundrel by the standards of his own time. Figures like Jackson and maybe even Jefferson may fall short as well but it is the right way to view persons and how they helped shape the world.
Why can we not appeal to the highest possible moral standards, those known today or imagined for tomorrow? Because that year 1 mentality treats us as if we are morally sounder in some more meaningful way and fails to recognize that our morality is built on that slow ascent. Without the building blocks, freely imagining morals confident in our wisdom and detached from our history, we tend to imagine atrocity time and time again.
Agree with this. I sometimes wonder how our descendants will view us in light of modern factory farming. Not too many of our current heroes are vegans.
Vegan myself. I suspect factory farming will be... frowned upon haha. But low epistemic certainty, if the morals of the future were obvious today they'd just be the morals of today.
Thoughtful comment. I just have one quibble. Wilson survives the standard you put forward here, in my opinion. His accomplishments should rank him as one of the great progressives of world history. A few of them: restructuring and democratizing American higher education; advancing labor laws, anti-trust laws, women's suffrage; pushing for League of Nations. His racism reduces his stature but should not define it.
For at least some of those items, one's views are likely dependent on where one falls on the political spectrum but I will quibble on suffrage. Wilson endorsed the amendment in 1918 after it had already passed the House. He opposed it in 1916 when his Republican opponent, Charles Hughes, supported it. I would see suffrage (along with the racism) as a knock against Wilson not for. He was later than his peers and endorsed a done deed after opposing it.
Very right. I would add that it is far easier for us to act morally because of our relative abundance compared to the past. The future generations will likely have even more wealth and abundance. These future people will likely look down on the fact that we didn't spend $30 for grass fed Bison burgers in horror. It's only money after all. This is a dumb example, but it points to how much easier it is to be morally superior when you don't have to scratch and claw for every little ounce. Again, thank you Klemens. Your comment is a good addition.
I am struck with the importance of judging our founders and history by the standards of their times. After all, any historical figure has failed in grievous ways we know better now. And we shall fail in grievous ways our descendants will know better as well. But we must not imagine ourselves more virtuous than our ancestors, nor less virtuous than our descendants, due to being raised in a time that had access to the moral reasoning of today and neither more nor less.
What we must celebrate are those who helped move our world forward. Who dared dream of rights and systems of government then unspoken (who falls in such category is by inevitability clearer in hindsight than present). This standard is not always exculpatory. Wilson was a bigoted scoundrel by the standards of his own time. Figures like Jackson and maybe even Jefferson may fall short as well but it is the right way to view persons and how they helped shape the world.
Why can we not appeal to the highest possible moral standards, those known today or imagined for tomorrow? Because that year 1 mentality treats us as if we are morally sounder in some more meaningful way and fails to recognize that our morality is built on that slow ascent. Without the building blocks, freely imagining morals confident in our wisdom and detached from our history, we tend to imagine atrocity time and time again.
Agree with this. I sometimes wonder how our descendants will view us in light of modern factory farming. Not too many of our current heroes are vegans.
Vegan myself. I suspect factory farming will be... frowned upon haha. But low epistemic certainty, if the morals of the future were obvious today they'd just be the morals of today.
I'm not vegan but in the past few months I've switched to pasture raised meats:
www.wildpastures.com
Thoughtful comment. I just have one quibble. Wilson survives the standard you put forward here, in my opinion. His accomplishments should rank him as one of the great progressives of world history. A few of them: restructuring and democratizing American higher education; advancing labor laws, anti-trust laws, women's suffrage; pushing for League of Nations. His racism reduces his stature but should not define it.
For at least some of those items, one's views are likely dependent on where one falls on the political spectrum but I will quibble on suffrage. Wilson endorsed the amendment in 1918 after it had already passed the House. He opposed it in 1916 when his Republican opponent, Charles Hughes, supported it. I would see suffrage (along with the racism) as a knock against Wilson not for. He was later than his peers and endorsed a done deed after opposing it.
I forgot that he was against it before he was for it. John Kerry style.
Very right. I would add that it is far easier for us to act morally because of our relative abundance compared to the past. The future generations will likely have even more wealth and abundance. These future people will likely look down on the fact that we didn't spend $30 for grass fed Bison burgers in horror. It's only money after all. This is a dumb example, but it points to how much easier it is to be morally superior when you don't have to scratch and claw for every little ounce. Again, thank you Klemens. Your comment is a good addition.