Is it true modern ethical values are different to our ancestors and should be a factor in historical analysis?

Question

I won't offer my opinion at this point, *now there's a first!!!! =)* just really want to know what you think.

I will always choose the best answer, it's my question and a best answer can differ from my own view if it's well reasoned. Also, all forums attract a greater proportion of *bunny boilers* than are in the general population, i ain't going to let that be a factor.

Can't keep my mouth shut any more! =)

Some excellent answers here, thankyou. Great answer Joseph, philosophy attracts people who want to understand ethics, think most people don't worry about that tho and just live by their own.

That's what i'm asking, do you think there were fundamental human ethics that have changed so much that it should be a factor in our analysis of history?

Love your answer Jim but slavery was a rejection of ethics *equality* not a practice of.

Yep Efnissien, there is *the past is another country* school of thought but the *times change, people don't* exists too.

So far, Grumpyinthemorning's *I can be a mare too!!!!=)* view is closest to my
own, some excellent answers tho. Think the History forum has the lowest proportion of *bunny boilers* on YA, just people who genuinely want to understand the world we live in more.=)

I have noticed the slight lack of response in fellow historians, we should be a rarefied field?

You couldn't hesitate to have an opinion, why not share your knowledge and make this world a better place?

I'm disapointed.

I feel happier now, 3 answers i really like personally.

I'll experiment with leaving my questions open for a couple of days. Think the best answer is already here but it's fair to give interested people who haven't visited YA in the last couple of days an opportunity to answer.

And the fact that purportive Christians massacred the people of Jerusalem, including fellow Christians Biddles. That is a very knowledgable answer!! =)

I ain't got no cause for complaint about fellow historians replying now, many answers refer to qualities raher than fundamental ethics tho, which i think have been consistent in history. We do attribute some events to then prevailing influences, people have always had brains and thought for themselves in my opinion.

OOPS!! The massacre occurring in the 1st crusade and please put a but in the last sentence of my last response. =)

A Goerge Orwell quote leaps to my mind in relation this question.......

"Each generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it."

Words of truth to me. =) I consider many factors in analysing history, different ethics isn't one tho. In my view slavery exists on a massive scale now but the method of enslavement has changed, we've found our way to justify it just as previous generations did. And aggressive power still holds sway, just now it's usually practised by proxy from a height of 30,000 feet.

MANY really knowledgable, well reasoned answers here, thanks everyone. =)

Answer 1

Wow - that's a question and a half. Some people say that the ethics of humanity change as society changes, but actually I'd say that we tend to go round in circles. Basic humanity stays pretty much the same. The morals and ethics of culture and society changes, but can often be compared right through the ages. Take the outlook of Roman society - it bears a lot of resemblance to Nazi Germany. The study of past ethics is of great value as we can look at it with hindsight - and use it to try to understand the world we live in now.

Answer 2

The true answer is actually no. I know it is hard to swallow but it is a fact. Slavery as an anti ethical value may be correct but the reverse is also true. Without ethics, there will be no unethical values.

Human nature is such that it can be seen that two factors seem to be inherent. And it is the "group mentality" or what I call the "sheep mentality" and the bullying or the aggressive traits.

Therefore, to understand what happens from the beginning of history, you just add both together. You find people say, "We beat them," or "we are winning."

The modern manifestation of this can be seen in Iraq were thousands are being killed daily and all the other countries are doing nothing to help stop the slaughter. The American troops can be compared to those of Genghis Khan. Raping, looting (Baghdad Museum was completely looted and sold privately). Etc Etc.

No we have not changed or improved one bit. It was exactly the same when Christians were fed to the lions. Only now, it would have been on You Tube.

Answer 3

I believe so.

I think the problem many have in studying history is that we tend to fill in the blanks. We look at history with our prospective of present and only try to understand what I persons prospective was in the past.
We tend to give Historical persons a degree of vision and for-site that they may not have possessed. When we look from the present to the past we tend to "connect the dots" of the points of time, place, person.

How this applies to ethical values, is samples of progressive history, slavery for instance, slavery has existed since the beginning of time. Egypt, Rome, down to colonial America. Whole peoples were enslaved, religious minorities were enslaved and races were enslaved. Today it is hard to find slavery on the planet, so the entire prospective about slavery has changed over the centuries. Capital punishment another example.

Alexander slaughter tens of thousands of people and yet History still view him as Alexander the Great and is considered a Romantic figure and tend to ignore the piles of bones he left behind. How are our ethics when we choose certain parts of history and ignore, or render little recognition to the other ugly parts. The Conquistadors are view as bad the Aztec's good and yet both had about the same ethics, in fact I would prefer that of the Conquistador over that of the Aztecs.

So yes I believe that ethics should be a consideration in the study of history.

Answer 4

Yes ethical values have changed.

There are the big changes such as slavery. Although there were officially no slaves in the British Isles, UK shipping was largely based on slaves at some part of a ships journeys. Now we deplore the idea of slavery.

A smaller, recent change has been in the relationship between client and stockbroker. When I was in my early 20's I dappled on the stock market (a couple hundred £), a stock broker trusted that the client would pay up, and the client trusted the stockbroker to do the same. Now long complicated contracts have to be entered into and duly signed and witnessed.

The matter of trust seems to have "gone out the window". A lot of commerce was done on trust now it is nearly all by contract. So surely this loss of trust is relevant in historical analysis.?

Thank you for a thought provoking question.

Answer 5

Yes, they are different, and no, they should not be just "a factor" in historical analysis, they should be at the very heart of any worthwhile historical analysis.

Look at all the rubbish we keep seeing here on Yahoo! Answers from people wanting to argue "was it wrong to drop the atom bombs on the Japanese?" or "were the Greeks wrong to have homosexual relations with young men?" or "was it wrong to . . ." do almost anything else. What useless questions. Of course, almost everything that was done in the past was wrong by today's standards, and I suppose almost everything we do nowadays will be judged wrong in a few hundred years' time. But trying to judge the actions of the past by the standards of the present is the biggest and stupidest mistake that anybody can make in history.

Real history is to understand the different ethical values of the past well enough to see why almost everything they did was correct by those standards at the time.

Answer 6

It is absolutely true, and applies throughout history and historiography. Take the First Crusade for example, historians today argue about the motivations for it.
Was it a land grab by landless younger brothers? - influenced by a materialistic view of human nature
An Anti-Muslim movement ? - a geopolitical view based on religion
A pro-Byzantine movement? - a geopolitical view based on politics
A genuine expression of faith in God and a desire to make the Holy Land christian again? - based on faith and a belief in the honest devotion of the crusaders.
Only a few years after the events of 1095-1097, a history of the crusade could be written that could justify the whole thing as 'willed by God'. But what if it had failed, as the Peoples Crusade led by Peter the Hermit had failed so terribly? Would that have been 'willed by God' as well?
Would the triumphal recapture of Jerusalem achieved by the Western Christians who, by their actions and faith, earned the support of God, be replaced by an admonishment to Western Christians, that they failed because they did not act or believe well enough to gain His favour?
Either outcome reflects the same belief system, and writing history is more about understanding the belief system, the ethical structure being used by the historical source, as it is about understanding the narrative of history.
Having an open mind yourself as an Historian is also very important. Someone who dislikes Muslims might for example, see the massacres that occurred after the victories of the First Crusaders at Antioch, Jerusalem and many other places, as justifiable in terms of 'holy war'. An open-minded historian would find a huge paradox between the Crusaders claims of Christian faith and ethical standards, and their complete disregard for Gods' commandments and the value of human life.
We have our ethical system which influences how we read the sources for the history of the actions of historical figures, whose actions we also judge. The difficult part is knowing that the original source also judged the actions of the historical; figures, and may have altered the evidence provided by the narrative to support their own ethical stance.
We have to understand what we believe, understand how that affects how we read historical sources. We have to understand the belief system of the author of the primary source and any biases he may have had against the individuals he is writing about, and also his own perception of what his audience would like to hear. We then have to understand the beliefs of the historical individuals who actually made history, who made choices in situations, who set themselves goals to be achieved and whose actions led to success or failuire.
Once we have done those things we can start to write history, that is less riddled with judgements, bias and repetition of the bias of others.

Answer 7

I know that most of my countrymen are uneducated and easily led, but I have never heard anyone 'doubt the history and civilization of greece'. I'm not even sure what this means. Did someone question whether Greece existed? As a whole, Americans (those of us who can read, anyway) are fascinated by ancient cultures. Our country's history is so short that we must live vicariously through other cultures. Besides, where would we be without Greek mythology? We wouldn't have had Dungeons and Dragons to play when we were kids...

Answer 8

I think the short answer is a definate yes!

I'll give one quick example. Take any society previous to say - 1000 AD. Those who came to power usually took it at the point of a sword. Warrior castes were common and well respected, often revered, ie. Knights, Samurai's and so on. The traditional masculine traits were honoured and combat was seen as a neccessary tool to protect your society/village/loved ones, etc. Fast forward to now, masculine traits have in large been demonised. War is often seen as wrong, despite what it achieves, and those same men with the same masculine traits of a thousand years ago are now either in the military, where those traits are utilised, or they are considered thugs and criminals. Big difference in perception.

Answer 9

Yes, ethics change just as much as medicine or art. At one time it was normal to keep slaves or beat your wife and children but that would lead to a prison sentence these days.
This is why all the old religions are irrelevant to the modern world, they still follow the old superstitions from the bronze age.

Answer 10

The phrase "the past is a foreign country, they do things differently there", springs to mind. I would strongly argue using caution when judging past events with modern ethics.

The past is always seen in 20/20