Should we hold our ancestors to the moral standards of today? Or should judgment of anyone from the past be withheld categorically?
These questions are part of an ongoing debate surrounding the question of historical morality. Sometimes, it is professional athletes and celebrities campaigning for the removal of statues of slave-owning Founding Fathers like George Washington or Andrew Jackson. Other times, it is activist groups protesting against the “murderer” Christopher Columbus’ celebration on Oct. 12.In all cases, some seem to think the moral standards which govern our lives today are applicable across time; others disagree.
This is a tricky puzzle. If you regard morality as deontological and transcending, right is right, and wrong is wrong no matter when you are born. If, however, you view it as a product of one’s own time, then it is challenging to morally condemn an individual born in 1750, when slavery was regarded as ethically okay, legally permissible, and widely practiced (even by African slave owners).
More
5 comments:
The Romans had slaves. All words with Latin roots should be banned.
That's the mindset of the progs.
Dave T: What moral standards? Today? Yeah right. This is the deterioration of moral standards from what I see today.
So true.
Let's not erase history, let's embrace it as a lesson and keep the reminders close.
Years ago, teenaged girls dated and married much older men and nothing was thought of it. These days that is considered an inappropriate relationship.
only a fool would judge the past by todays morals. slavery use to be legal. selling alcohol used to be illegal until the government found a way to tax it, casinos and gambling used to be illegal, until the government found a way to tax it, weed is legal in some states because those states found a way to tax it.prostitution has never been legal because the government can`t find a way to tax it. the government doesn`t care about morality they care about tax money.
Post a Comment