Hi, r/AskHistorians,
My question is one possibly more suited to the philosophy of history. If this question is inappropriate for this subreddit, please let me know.
My question is 'do you find it acceptable, or is it intellectually reasonable, to assign moral values to historical events?' For example, I think the the victory of the Greek city states over the Persian Empire to be a good thing because it allowed the art and philosophy produced in Athens to flourish. The fact that the Greeks, which produced works that influenced all of Western thought, won in such a conflict makes me think that it is somehow objectively good that they were victorious.
Perhaps in a less controversial matter, I think the burning of the Library of Alexandria is a morally repulsive decision. It is an objectively bad thing which happened, and we are worse off for its occurrence.
I think the Enlightenment, and its success in laying the intellectual foundation for individual liberty, is a moral good.
I have a very hard time reading and caring about history unless I'm able to "take sides" on who I think has the more righteous cause. Of course, opposing sides have their complicated reasons for acting as they do. But I do think ideologies, ideas, and political structures carry moral weights.
Of course, my concept of morality is Western, and I understand that we're not supposed to project twenty-first century morality onto historical figures whose entire worldviews are alien to our own. In fact, I hypocritically despise it when historical figures who enacted great change (for the better in my opinion) are degraded and renounced for not conforming enough to twenty-first century morality. Yet, doing this same thing to events, political structures, and sometimes to people seems to be how I engage in history the most.
Is there any intellectual credence to this, or is it fallacious and intellectually dishonest?
It's not the ethnocentrism that is so problematic, it's the relativism of moral judgments. Not that I necessarily subscribe to a theory of moral relativity, but let's walk through your argument for all the points it can be questioned at:
Now, all that said, I think that moralism in historical writing is deeply problematic because it's highly subjective. However, that doesn't mean one can never make moral judgments about history! One ought, however, own up to the framework that underwrites those moral judgments. If you want to make moral judgments on the history of, say, classical Greece, one ought to state up front the moral philosophy that undergirds those judgments.
Another issue arises when we anachronistically try and judge historical figures for not holding our moral positions. Why weren't ancient Greeks more enlightened? Why didn't they oppose slavery? Why have LGBTQI persons been suppressed in history? etc. etc..
This gets in the way of good history - because it tries to treat historical figures by our standards and this obscures the history of it. Greeks in the classical period shared the assumption that slavery was natural and inherent. It was radically outside most of their philosophical schools to even consider that slavery might be morally wrong. Romans didn't think of homosexuality in the way we do, they simply didn't construe sexuality along the same lines. Christianity, castigated today for not advancing women's rights, was probably one of the major catalysts for advancing women's status in antiquity. By our standards they seem conservative reactionaries, but by antiquity's standards they were radical progressives.
So, in conclusion, I think we do good history first, and we do moral judgments second and somewhat separately. Moral judgments can and very often do cloud historical accuracy and get in the way of it. They also come with agendas which should never pretend objectivity. But we are moral beings with moral views, and history can be read and evaluated with such a position. However, those judgments are only going to be accepted by those you also persuade (or already hold) your moral philosophy.