should historians make moral judgements about the past?

Question

details please

Answer 1

Absolutely! Judgements = opinions and making judgements and opinions about history is how people learn from history. For instance, is it wrong to make a moral judgement that the Holocaust was a horrible and tragic event conducted by wicked people? No. It's important for historians to study and make their views of history known because it creates a dialogue and allows us to form our own views and opinions. Does that mean that I agree with all the judgements made by all historians - heck no. I enjoy reading other people's views even if I don't agree with them though. That's what makes history fun!

Answer 2

No. But they can't help but make moral judgments because if what they have been taught, believe and how they interpret the clues of an act that they have access to today not available at the time of the historic act.

IE; the dropping of the Atomic Bomb should it have been done? Most Historian say yes and base it upon the ideas that Japan was not going to surrender ,they were a backwards race,really believed in the pre and post war west, an invasion would cost the Allies over one Million Casualties. Today you have a group that believe that the Bomb should not have been dropped because a naval Blockade would have worked and that Japan would have seen that it was defeated before long and that there is no physical evidence that Planners ever thought that we would lose a Million Men in an invasion. I believe that the US was right to drop the bomb.

I believe that if a historian is going to make a moral judgment it should be stated up front and then supported by research and facts and then allow others to discuss it and criticized in the open.

Answer 3

It's not really a historian's job to make moral judgments, but rather to present the facts as objectively as possible. In the course of analysis, however, an historian must always attempt to gain insight into the motives of the participants in order to understand the events under study. It's at this point that moral judgments may creep in. Lois XIV WAS megalomaniacal and avaricious as a matter of historical wact, for example, although that sounds a lot like a moral jjudgment Cheers

Answer 4

I think it a complex question, because morality is subjective and evolving and relative. I think that historians can make moral judgments about history, but should clearly state that they are using modern moral standards to judge past events. I suppose a better way would be for historians to "try" to examine history w/ a similar moral lens as existed in or around the time of a specific event of history.

I don't think that we can judge slavery, the Holocaust, Native American mistreatment, etc. by today's moral standards.......it was a different time back then.

Answer 5

Sure. For those who believe that interpretation shouldn't be put into text books, I ask this: how is the version of the history being portrayed in the text book any different anyway? Why should it be? Encyclopedia's are a different animal, but primary/secondary and college textbooks that try to be amoral and leave out interpretation take the very element that ties history to humanity and that is the human element itself. I'm sorry, but not saying the 13 colonies rebelled from Britain because of....or that Hitler's Final Solution was bad because...or that the American public grew restless over Vietnam because....because of what? You have to have some basis or point of view to explore in order to portray history.

Besides, that's all history actually is: interpretation.

Answer 6

you should only judge yourself, moral judgments do not belong in history books, maybe theology