Why We Judge the Past by the Morals of the Present

Introduction: Judging History

Judging History by today’s standards is a serious flaw in accounting for the past. In recent years, judging history has become a collective pastime. We often look back, scrutinizing past figures, decisions, and social norms through the lens of our own time. Whether condemning slavery, colonialism, or religious persecution, we impose our own time on the past.

Judging History using the standards born from modern norms that past societies did not necessarily share is self-defeating. Judging the past by today’s values can expose injustice, but it often oversimplifies complex historical realities, limiting our understanding and learning opportunities. How can we make sense of this contemporary tendency to judge?

The Problem of Judging History in Historical Judgment

When we impose our values on history, we ignore the historical conditions, beliefs, and pressures that shaped people’s choices. This approach may offer moral satisfaction, but it obscures how these figures and societies functioned within different frameworks of understanding. Consider the case of George Washington, a leader revered for his role in establishing the United States.

Despite this legacy, Washington owned slaves, a reality many Americans grapple with today. Yet, slavery was legally sanctioned and economically foundational in Washington’s world, making it far more normalized. Criticizing him as “morally deficient” through today’s anti-slavery lens overlooks how embedded slavery was within the economic and cultural fabric of colonial America.

By conflating current understanding of human rights, social justice, and a sense of triumphalism, teaching children to condemn the past as a primitive culture fails to consider that in the future people will look back at us and wonder why we did not effectively address the issue of climate change, thought nothing was wrong in electing a convicted felon to the highest office in the land, awarding participation trophies to all participants rather than a winning trophy to honor the act of being best, all teach children to have a false understanding of racism, sexism, greed, profits before people, and so on, will of necessity be understood as barbaric behavior tolerated by a flawed society.

Colonialism and the Conquest of Indigenous Cultures

Another common example of Judging History appears in our judgment of European colonizers who pursued conquest and empire. In North America, colonial expansion was fueled by the belief in manifest destiny—a widespread conviction that the continent was “meant” for European settlers.

This mindset framed Indigenous peoples not as rightful stewards of their lands but as obstacles to civilization. Today, we view this outlook as deeply flawed, a gross violation of indigenous rights and sovereignty. However condemning settlers and government leaders of that time solely for their disregard of Indigenous peoples fails to consider the pervasive belief systems, economic pressures, and cultural misunderstandings that drove these actions.

Colonial expansion had devastating effects: it nearly wiped out Indigenous cultures and drove the American bison to near-extinction, which damaged the environment and destabilized Indigenous communities who depended on the bison. Contemporary standards urge us to respect and preserve indigenous cultures, yet the conquest mindset prevented settlers from even recognizing Indigenous societies as complex and valuable. These early Americans saw land acquisition and “taming” wilderness as a duty, a principle that drove them and one that a modern critic would do well to consider in context.

The Injustice of Religious Persecution

Religious persecution provides another example of how Judging History clouds historical understanding. Christian intolerance toward Jews, particularly in medieval and Renaissance Europe, is often viewed as a testament to Christian cruelty or moral failing. For example, the Spanish Inquisition expelled Jews from Spain in 1492, leading to widespread suffering. Today, we value religious tolerance and diversity, making these events seem like clear moral atrocities. However, medieval Europe operated within a very different ideological landscape.

People widely believed that religious conformity protected societal order, while religious diversity threatened it. While wrong by modern standards, these beliefs were rooted in a sincere fear of societal instability and a concern for preserving Christian unity.

Similarly, Martin Luther’s 16th-century writings against Jews, often cited as anti-Semitic hate speech, reflected fears within Christian society, influenced by theological beliefs that appear archaic to today’s values. Understanding how religion and society intertwined in Luther’s time sheds light on how these figures thought rather than condemning them by standards they would never have comprehended.

Judging History and the Issue of Gender Equality

Gender equality presents another area where we often judge historical figures by modern standards, sometimes unfairly. Today, we expect equal treatment of all genders, but for centuries, societies saw rigid gender roles as essential to social order. For example, we critique ancient Greek thinkers like Aristotle for viewing women as intellectually inferior and legally limiting their rights.

This perspective appears wildly unjust to us, yet Aristotle’s ideas reflected his era’s prevailing beliefs, including the deeply rooted conviction that women had a “natural” place in family life rather than public life. His view wasn’t exceptional in his time; it was accepted across cultures and civilizations, from ancient China to medieval Europe.

Similar critiques extend to American figures like Thomas Jefferson. Although he contributed to founding a nation that would eventually expand rights to women and all races, Jefferson himself held views that appear sexist and elitist today.

Yet, if we judge him solely by modern feminist standards, we ignore the cultural assumptions that even the most progressive thinkers of his time held. To judge Jefferson as “backward” ignores the journey that American social ideals, particularly regarding gender, took over the centuries.

Pragmatic Lessons from History’s Moral Complexity

While we may believe humanity’s ethical standards continually improve, this view doesn’t account for the complex ways values evolve within specific historical contexts. When we critique past figures through a modern lens for Judging History, we lose sight of these figures’ influence on history’s moral arc. By analyzing instead of condemning, we learn how norms and values shaped societies and how individuals sometimes defied, and supported, prevailing norms.

Consider, for instance, historical debates over corporal punishment. Today, most of us would never accept public flogging as a means of discipline, viewing it as barbaric. However, corporal punishment was once widely practiced and accepted, even among people who prided themselves on virtue and morality. Figures like England’s Queen Elizabeth I saw corporal punishment as essential to social order. In evaluating past societies, understanding why they viewed such punishments as legitimate helps us grasp the forces that have driven moral evolution over time.

Why Judging the Past Has Limits—and Value

Judging History using a contemporary lens obscures our understanding, yet historical judgment also offers moral insights. By evaluating past wrongs, we can better address present injustices. Recognizing the failures of historical figures to meet today’s ethical standards allows us to see the dangers of normalized injustice.

For instance, the brutality of chattel slavery in the American South helps remind us of the long-lasting damage from systemic oppression, urging us to confront forms of injustice today that are similarly institutionalized.

We can also look to history to recognize that, while values change, the human tendency to hold others to account has deep roots. Future generations may judge our environmental practices, social inequities, and treatment of marginalized communities harshly.

Today’s critics remind us that even as we critique the past, we need to examine ourselves to avoid making similar mistakes. Rather than use Judging History, we benefit from a more inclusive understanding of how humans justify actions and hold beliefs within their contexts.

Conclusion

Judging history by today’s standards offers moral reassurance but limits our understanding. A balanced approach, one that resists Judging History, deepens our grasp of human development and provides insights into our own time.

By understanding past wrongs within their historical frameworks, we not only honor the complexities of human history but also gain tools for fostering greater understanding and empathy in our present. Rather than condemn, we should seek to learn, remembering that the history we judge may, someday, become a mirror reflecting our own society’s shortcomings.

 Sources Cited

1. Green, L. (2019). Presentism and the Historical Narrative. New York: Academic Press.
2. Jones, T. (2021). Judging History and the Philosophy of Judgment. Chicago: Modern Perspectives.
3. Stewart, A. (2018). Moral Progress and Historical Ethics. London: Routledge.

Suggestions for Further Reading

1. Smith, M. (2022). Ethics Across Time: The Challenge of Historical Judgment.
2. O’Brien, C. (2020). Past vs. Present: The Trap of Judging History in Historical Study.
3. Goldstein, L. (2017). Moral Relativism and Historical Contexts.
4. Harrison, J. (2019). The Moral Lens: Examining Historical Figures and Events.
5. Fox, K. (2023). Why We Judge the Past: A Social Perspective.
6. Miller, S. (2021). History Revisited: The Impact of Presentism on Understanding.
7. Watts, R. (2020). Ethical Standards Through the Ages.
8. Cartwright, E. (2018). Why Moral Judgment is Time-Bound.
9. Bennett, D. (2019). History’s Hindsight: Judging History and Future Lessons.

Disclaimer: The images and videos in this post are AI-generated creations, intended purely for illustrative and conceptual purposes. They are not real-life representations and should not be interpreted as such. Their sole purpose is to offer a visual means of exploring the topics discussed in this post.

Some Posts we think you’ll like

Illusion of Truth the Outcome of Chaos Propaganda: 5 Ways Big Lies Shape Common Belief

Standing Up to Chaos: 3 Valuable Choices to Protect our Democracy

Electoral College Flaws: 1 Poor Way to Elect a President