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.
Heroes are never perfect. They're human beings, trapped (as we all are) in the folly and wickedness of their own times. What makes them heroes is that, in spite of that, they are able to see past the wretchedness of their moment, and take the first courageous steps toward something better.
They will never entirely transcend it; that's usually left for later generations. But they build the gates through which those later generations will march toward progress.
The fact that they are able reach out over their own personal limitations to do this makes them more admirable, not less. Their achievements so remarkable precisely because they were so flawed -- but did bold things anyway.
"Denunciations of Jefferson the man can quickly morph into disdain for the principles of freedom from which he brought a new nation to life."
This line is the one that sticks with me. For all the debate about who to vilify and who to lionize, what really matters is what ideas we stand behind as a country. People can come to their own conclusions about whether Jefferson was a "good" man or a "bad" one and whether his sins outweighed his contributions. They can debate about whether and where he should be honored with statues. Jefferson himself, long dead, certainly is not getting too worked up about that. The important, relevant subject is those ideas themselves that are so important to America and to worldwide democracy and liberalism more generally. The ideas are bigger than the man, and their track record outlives and outperforms him.
I think it is true that denunciations of Jefferson can - are are - morphing into (or maybe just manifesting) a disdain for America's founding principles. But ironically, that same disdain is also motivating plenty of those on the Right who will fight to keep Jefferson the man on his pedestal. At the end of the day, I care about Jefferson's modern reputation only in so much as it is a proxy and a symbol for the reputation of foundational American values of Constitutional government and personal liberty. Folks would do well to defend those as vigorously as they do a statue.
The merit of the idea that human beings can unite around their shared commitment to certain rules and norms rather than around ties of blood or soil, does not depend on the merit or hypocrisy of the individual humans who wrote about or support the idea. Nor on the flaws and corruptions of the country that tried to organize itself around the idea.
Has America done more harm or good to the world? What about Jefferson, G. Washington? The obivous answer to these questions is more good, much more. The left cannot refute this without resorting to Marxism or racial identity as ultimate standards. A sensible majority will reject their reasoning. So, I say phrase it like that: more good or more harm? A corollary: will American withdrawal from the world do more harm or good? Again, the answer is clear.
Try as we might, we can never escape entirely from our evolutionary history. Much of it is beneficial: opposable thumbs, walking upright, gift of intellect and self awareness, etc.,etc But with it comes also “monkey see - monkey do.”
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.
Heroes are never perfect. They're human beings, trapped (as we all are) in the folly and wickedness of their own times. What makes them heroes is that, in spite of that, they are able to see past the wretchedness of their moment, and take the first courageous steps toward something better.
They will never entirely transcend it; that's usually left for later generations. But they build the gates through which those later generations will march toward progress.
The fact that they are able reach out over their own personal limitations to do this makes them more admirable, not less. Their achievements so remarkable precisely because they were so flawed -- but did bold things anyway.
"Denunciations of Jefferson the man can quickly morph into disdain for the principles of freedom from which he brought a new nation to life."
This line is the one that sticks with me. For all the debate about who to vilify and who to lionize, what really matters is what ideas we stand behind as a country. People can come to their own conclusions about whether Jefferson was a "good" man or a "bad" one and whether his sins outweighed his contributions. They can debate about whether and where he should be honored with statues. Jefferson himself, long dead, certainly is not getting too worked up about that. The important, relevant subject is those ideas themselves that are so important to America and to worldwide democracy and liberalism more generally. The ideas are bigger than the man, and their track record outlives and outperforms him.
I think it is true that denunciations of Jefferson can - are are - morphing into (or maybe just manifesting) a disdain for America's founding principles. But ironically, that same disdain is also motivating plenty of those on the Right who will fight to keep Jefferson the man on his pedestal. At the end of the day, I care about Jefferson's modern reputation only in so much as it is a proxy and a symbol for the reputation of foundational American values of Constitutional government and personal liberty. Folks would do well to defend those as vigorously as they do a statue.
The merit of the idea that human beings can unite around their shared commitment to certain rules and norms rather than around ties of blood or soil, does not depend on the merit or hypocrisy of the individual humans who wrote about or support the idea. Nor on the flaws and corruptions of the country that tried to organize itself around the idea.
Has America done more harm or good to the world? What about Jefferson, G. Washington? The obivous answer to these questions is more good, much more. The left cannot refute this without resorting to Marxism or racial identity as ultimate standards. A sensible majority will reject their reasoning. So, I say phrase it like that: more good or more harm? A corollary: will American withdrawal from the world do more harm or good? Again, the answer is clear.
Thank you. You have eloquently summarized much that needs to be remembered. Evidently you have found a brilliant new career after chess.
Try as we might, we can never escape entirely from our evolutionary history. Much of it is beneficial: opposable thumbs, walking upright, gift of intellect and self awareness, etc.,etc But with it comes also “monkey see - monkey do.”