calling all historians
But let me ask you, and others who study or enjoy history the same question. Do you think people in history acted more nobly or morally than people today in any capacity? Or do you think modern people are at least as moral as the those of the past in every respect?
My latest Christian blog muse, trueandreasonable (who can be found plugging his blog here) thinks that “although our society is much better on issues of women’s rights … its morally worse in other respects”. I disagree.
In the olden days it was good to send children up chimneys to clean them, because they fitted up the chimneys and they could earn a living. In the olden days it was good to physically punish children because it was the only way they could learn how to behave morally. In the olden days it was good to kill homosexuals because they were perverting society. It was good to burn witches because they were sent by Satan. In the old days it was good to keep slaves, because the god God created people to be slaves and to obey their masters. It was good for women to be constantly pregnant because the god God wants more and more people to be made. In days of ignorance, lots of odd things seemed to be ‘good’.
With this in mind, given what we know today, I think it’s obvious that our society is much more moral. We have laws about treating people equally regardless of their race, sex, sexual orientation, age or ability. We have international agreements on the rights that every human being should have. We are more moral because we are less ignorant – we aren’t allowed to put the lives of children at unnecessary risk by sending them to work, denying them an education, or even dumping them in cars without specially designed car seats; we aren’t allowed to smoke in people’s faces exposing them to cancer risks; we aren’t allow to hit children for disobeying adults (or stone them for disobeying their parents). All these laws and many more come into place because an overwhelming body of evidence tells us that it’s harmful to individuals within society to do otherwise.
I have a suspicion that trueandreasonable bases his understanding of societies in times goneby on films like Braveheart – ah the noble and honest warrior and his supporting, faithful wife. In terms of personal morality, I expect people are no different today than they were in any other period of time. Unfortunately we don’t have any primary sources written by medieval serfs or any other illiterate member of any ancient or medieval society. But what we do have are records of lives of corrupt nobility and royalty, along with power-hungry and game playing churchmen. None of them look pretty, even by any of the comparatively similar morals of today. I’m inclined to think that the stability, safety and consistency many of us now experience in our lives leads us to behave much better than our ignorant and desperate ancestors did.
But I don’t think my random ramblings tell the whole story, and I know that a few people who sometimes read this blog have a much more serious interest in history than I do, whether through formal qualifications or personal interest, or a mixture of both. What does everyone think? Does history demonstrate that people in the past acted more morally or nobly?
I didn’t realize this was even a matter for debate. We were highly unethical from a historical perspective. In many regards we still are.
This is the only time in history in which ethics is more widely understood, and still it’s butchered by bias and rationalization.
Have you noticed how we justify killing animals we don’t consider ‘cute’? Would society accept that a horse be tortured in the manner they torture bulls in bullfighting? How about a Panda?
LikeLike
I didn’t realise it was a matter for debate either. It’s obviously some warped (probably American) delusion about cute medieval life with a traditional family structure. No-one having affairs, stealing or starving to death.
LikeLike
(I personally don’t justify killing any animal – clearly moved up a rung from you. :p )
LikeLike
How do you do that emoticon?? 😛
LikeLike
Yeah, that one 😛
LikeLike
Absolutely. I engage in a number of behaviours I consider unethical- but the importance of knowing that is tremendous. That’s where/how we so often fail as a society.
LikeLike
I cannot lay claim to the title historian.
Generally, history is written by the victors.
Looking at what has been written about the Greeks, there were moments of great moral excellence, especially in Athens depending on who the leader was. It is possible that there were times when the collective morality of the Athenians was much better than ours.
Slavery has been and remains a blight on the history of man. Whereas we find it abhorrent, there are still countless of slaves even in our day.
Women it appears did not have a lot of say in most of these ancient societies except if she was rich.
In the writings of the different sages of those bygone years are teachings that implore us to treat each other equally and there are also others who do not think the woman deserves such treatment just as there are those presently who advocate for justice and those that think women are a lesser citizen.
I think as Arch said in the other post, this question maybe unanswerable. For what counts as more moral or rather what is morality?
LikeLike
I’m a historian according to the letters after my name, but from what I’ve read of what you read, you know much more than me.
‘what counts as more moral or rather what is morality?’ I would say it’s just doing stuff with good or bad outcomes for other people and ourselves. I think we’re much more respectful of other people’s rights and sensibilities that we’ve ever been. In general. He’s a Christian, so he’s probably thinking about sexual morals, and I’m quite sure that situation is pretty similar, only now we can control the consequences.
LikeLike
“I have a suspicion that trueandreasonable bases his understanding of societies in times goneby on films like Braveheart”
I think you nailed it. There are, however, some great examples of true enlightenment in the ancients. Cyrus II was truly awesome, and the society he fostered was morally advanced.
LikeLike
There is always the option that he bases it on an understanding that what God says to do is moral, and the Hebrews were moderately successful in obeying God, as opposed to we heathens today who prefer to have our own understanding of morality.
LikeLike
Divine Commandment Theory freaks me out.
LikeLike
Kill all things, men, women, children, animals, non-fruiting trees… but take the virgin girls as sex slaves. Sincerely, God.
PS: Would I really tell you to do something that was morally reprehensible? What do you think I am, some golden calf?
LikeLike
Hehehe 🙂
LikeLike
One kind Christian was recently at pains to point out to me that there’s no specific mention that the girls were to be sex slaves. So you must be making that up. The virgins were to be spared so that they could become willing wives for the men that murdered all their families in front of them.
LikeLike
Now I need to read about Cyrus II …
LikeLike
Well worth it. He was a Zoroastrian, too.
LikeLike
Is that the desert wandering philosopher that came centuries before the character Jesus? I simply don’t have the time …
LikeLike
Yes.
LikeLike
Our morality is shifting in new ways, but to say we are more or less moral than before is to say that human nature has changed. I’m not convinced that it has.
LikeLike
We constructed society and then we constructed ethics to make society run more smoothly. In that sense our understanding (and application) of ethics is the real advance.
LikeLike
I sort of agree, I did say in the post “In terms of personal morality, I expect people are no different today than they were in any other period of time”. But people are generally treated much better because morally we understand and accept that everyone is similar. Not slave and free, not man and woman, not prince and pauper, but all equally human … wait a sec, did someone else say something similar? We must be in heaven!
LikeLike
Well, those terms aren’t so well-defined anymore anyways. Has oppression in the world been reduced though? On our current track, the rich are still getting richer and the poor are still getting poorer. Same core problem as always.
LikeLike
But no sense that people are different (i.e. lesser humans deserving of poor treatment) because of these social and economic differences. That’s a huge leap.
LikeLike
Instead they find other ways to express their perceived superiority. These days it seems more ideology-based.
LikeLike
Morals or morality are of no value. That’s why we always value the victors (who are invariably immoral).
LikeLike
That’s a bit grim! You’re equating power and money with ‘winning’.
LikeLike
I’m not. Society does.
LikeLike
To me, we have one great moral advance, in that in the past people needed an out-group, the bad people over there, as a way of cementing unity in the tribe. This still happens, of course, but not so much. People in previous centuries could not live together in megacities as we do.
LikeLike
The out-group is now an evil political force. Insanitybytes clearly has the State marked (and Democrats specifically). I used to feel the same about Tony Blair …
LikeLike
Hello Violetwisp
Thank you for making a blog about some questions I asked you. But your response is irrelevant to the questions I asked.
I did not ask whether people in the past were less moral in some respects. Nor did I even ask whether you thought people in the past were on the whole less or more moral.
You quoted my questions properly:
“But let me ask you, and others who study or enjoy history the same question. Do you think people in history acted more nobly or morally than people today in any capacity? Or do you think modern people are at least as moral as the those of the past in every respect?”
Thus it’s irrelevant whether people in history were less moral with respect to children or slavery.
It’s also irrelevant to my question when you say:
“With this in mind, given what we know today, I think it’s obvious that our society is much more moral.”
In are we just as moral in every respect? You may think this question is obvious. I don’t. You admit that we can’t really know on a personal level. And I agree with that. History does not give us enough information to know with certainty. But it does give us some information that is relevant to the issue on which we can form educated guesses.
“I have a suspicion that trueandreasonable bases his understanding of societies in times goneby on films like Braveheart – ah the noble and honest warrior and his supporting, faithful wife.”
Well I told you in depth how base my understanding of history but you ignore that, to give me this dig. O.k. I see you are more interested in insulting those who disagree with you rather than doing any actual dialogue. I suppose you will think that that your arguments against theism are so powerful that is why only atheists follow your blog. You will not possibly accept that you are rude and being dishonest about those who disagree with you. . You clearly don’t want any dissension to interrupt your little echo chamber. But you don’t want to admit it.
LikeLike
Do you think people today are less moral than people in the past? In what ways?
We on the left, progressivists, are arguing one side. You can hardly expect us to go through every field of moral action, and say people are more moral. Pick your best ground, and we can debate on that. I am Christian, btw.
LikeLike
Clare:
I don’t have strong views on that myself. So I am not interested in “debating.” I am not sure what the point of such a debate would be. But as I learn history I do often think its interesting to ask these questions. Maybe others don’t. To each their own.
LikeLike
Disappointed, now. No views at all?
LikeLike
Oh, nobody else thought I was missing the point, did they? If that didn’t answer your questions then I don’t know what you mean. I covered society in general (a better moral framework) and individuals (not enough information).
You told me you base your understanding of history on historical audiobooks. I don’t think it’s that big a leap to Braveheart. Sorry if that upsets you (it clearly upsets you given the little outburst of a paragraph that follows .. oh well). 😀
LikeLike
Morality is a set of social norms, that have evolved through generations of finding out about harmfull and beneficial conduct. Ancient people may have thought something highly moral, that we now whith better information are able to judge as totally moralistic.
As a result of religious wars between western countries secular societies were born. Secular societies do not restrict science and as a result the level of information about the reality surrounding us all is much higher today, than it used to be before. Whith better information we can make better judgement on any issue. On the other hand, one may ask if we choose to use that information, or do we prefer our own whishfull thinking, if it on short terms gives us more satisfaction? Are we in so doing actually less moral, than people in history who did not even understand the harm they caused? Are we less moral when we choose to read a gossip column, rather than to educate ourselves about the latest scientific discoveries? Are we less moral when our descions about energy production may have much greater after effects on human suffering and the entire planet, than any of the decisions our forebears could have even made?
For example, in the 1950 nobody knew, that carbon monoxides were harmfull to the environment. In 1960 nobody knew that freons were harmfull to the environment on a large scale. Those people can hardly be blamed for using such. When the global society (not just the western countries that were the main user of them) realized that freons were harmfull, their use was restricted and it paid off. The ozone layer is now slowly healing. Today we learn, that carbon monoxides are harmfull, but are we doing anything about that? That certainly is a moral question, which seems to lead a lot of people into total denial. What a pity the Bible, the Qur’an or any of the other holy books do not say anything about the morality of the use of phossilic fuels, or nuclear power.
Ancient people had less information about the reality and they based a lot of their understanding of the material universe on superstitions about the imagined explanation reciding in the realm of supernatural. Naturally their morals was lower, than it is today in secular societes, that are resolving social morals based on actual harm, or benefit and not on the authority of a ritual expert telling people what he personally thinks is the will of the gods. Although we do have some of that still in our midst.
For example, in the 11th century it would have been impossible for the global international society to acknowledge such things as the UN human rights bill. A declaration far better dictating the reality of the morals of human conduct, than any “holy scripture” before it. And it was universally agreed upon regardless of religious or ideological affiliations. However, we are not there yet. There is a lot of ignorance, indifference and down right narcism even in the modern world.
Gods, or no gods, it is high time we the humanity grew up and took responsibility of our actions and inactions.
I am not an actual historian, though history is both my long term hobby and my most recent profession. Just spouting out what seem logical to me and on what I think I have solid information on. 😉
LikeLike
Good questions Raut. I think all that answers have shown that it’s impossible to evaluate, although our general standards (which we don’t reach) are at least higher.
LikeLike
“Oh, nobody else thought I was missing the point, did they?”
I really don’t know if they did or not. That would depend on their critical reading skills.
But most of your blog did not answer to the questions I put forth. The majority of your post dealt with different questions. And some of the responses seemed to deal with the majority of your blog post.
“If that didn’t answer your questions then I don’t know what you mean.”
Its possible you still don’t get it. I explained why your responses did not answer the questions I put in my last comment.
“You told me you base your understanding of history on historical audiobooks. I don’t think it’s that big a leap to Braveheart.”
I told you that I listen to history books and courses from audible. “Bloodlands” written by a Yale professor of History in his specialty field was an example:
http://www.audible.com/pd/History/Bloodlands-Audiobook/B0047E9696
I have been listening to books and lectures similar to this for over a decade. This is just the one I am listening to now.
So in order to try to avoid the charge that you were misrepresenting me, you now want to say that listening to books and lectures by college history professors is the equivalent to learning history from watching movies like Braveheart.
Either way you go your are going to look a bit foolish. But the honest and right, thing to do would be to admit you misrepresented me and move on.
LikeLike
You’re pushing me into an intellectual snob corner here by demanding some kind of apology. You said our society is “morally worse in other respects than certain ancient cultures” then you clarified “you get the impression that people in the middle ages were less self centered than they are now”. So to begin with you don’t know the difference between ancient and medieval history, and then you try and prove your credentials with an audiobook of one academic’s view of a particular period in modern history, a book that “is based, for the most part, on secondary sources, even some tertiary literature”. I’m sorry, the accusation pretty much stands. 😀
But thanks for raising the questions and getting what was, for me, an interesting discussion going. It really is impossible to answer as everyone who commented came at it from a different angle (you can complain to everyone they misunderstood your question if you want).
I don’t know how society will ever reach the point where everyone is happy with the way everyone else is treated, but I do think in an era of universal human rights, we’re getting somewhere at least.
LikeLike
“You’re pushing me into an intellectual snob corner here by demanding some kind of apology.”
I really didn’t need to do any pushing.
I didn’t necessarily mean ancient cultures to mean only “ancient history.” Ancient can just mean something that belong to the distant past and no longer exists. In other comments I tried to make this more clear by referring to people in history. See the comment you quote in this very blog.
“…and then you try and prove your credentials with an audiobook of one academic’s view of a particular period in modern history, a book that “is based, for the most part, on secondary sources, even some tertiary literature”. I’m sorry, the accusation pretty much stands. :D”
“an audiobook of one academic’s view.”?? What are you talking about? Again I am just saying you are very good at putting yourself in the corner. I do not need to push you.
“But thanks for raising the questions and getting what was, for me, an interesting discussion going. It really is impossible to answer as everyone who commented came at it from a different angle (you can complain to everyone they misunderstood your question if you want).
I don’t know how society will ever reach the point where everyone is happy with the way everyone else is treated, but I do think in an era of universal human rights, we’re getting somewhere at least.”
I am glad you enjoyed discussing the questions. That was the intent. The tone of you blog toward me suggested that you were more interested in attacking me than actually discussing things with me. So I bowed out.
LikeLike
Hmmm, more moral?
Burn a thousand Witches…drop an Atomic bomb.
Human slaves as once part of the economic backbone of a nation….A million pairs of Nike running shoes manufactured for the ”smiling happy masses ” by Asian people being paid hardly a living wage.
Million spent on anti-smoking campaigns….millions spent on Alcohol advertising.
Killing animals with a bow and arrow – slaughtering millions of animals every day in a factory.
LikeLike
This is your best comment ever! If I was still doing ‘comment of the month’ posts you’d be a serious contender.
Maybe it would be more accurate to say that the ideal we work towards is more moral but we’re just as useless as we ever were?
LikeLike