I think this essay is really interesting! I think, however, to answer the question of "should we judge the past," there must be a component of "how recent is that past." To give somewhat hyperbolic examples, the Holocaust vs. Mithridates VI's massacre of the Latin inhabitants of Greece in 88 BC. One of these is much easier and more worthwhile to pass judgment on.
I'm generally fairly uncomfortable judging people by anything except the standards of their own time, particularly in cases of bad civilizational behavior (slavery, murder, mass deportation, etc.) but your example is making me rethink this. I do NOT judge Robert by his own standards as a failed Christian king.
Thanks so much for this comment and sorry for such a tardy reply! I'm glad this was a chance to think from a different angle about things. That is always my aim :). I was also definitely of the view that people should be judged by their own standards and I'm still in the process of figuring out where I still think that is absolutely correct and where it is problematic.
With respect to time, that is probably where my own views have changed most over the years studying ancient and medieval history. These days, I am conflicted. Pragmatically, I think you are right, especially about how worthwhile it is to pass judgement, and your two examples bring out the contrast sharply. On the other hand, the Romans are a useful counter example because they continue to exert such massive cultural influence but, at a deeper level, at some point I stopped being conviced emotionally that distance in time makes all that much difference. If I had to make my case, it would be shaped something like 'if we can dehumanise one person (or group's) suffering at the hands of another by treating as if it doesn't matter morally/emotionally then we have already taken the crucial step that makes it possible to do that with any person or group'. As a result, I would probably say that we ought to see the suffering of every person through history who faced torture and death simply as a result of being regarded as the 'wrong sort of person' by another, more powerful group in the same way, that this gives us the deepest and broadest base of empathy. That said, more recent suffering can feel more acute (especially if you don't spend most days studying the distant past) but also, and importantly, have implications for how we behave in the world now.
The other factor that I think your comment really brings out and that I would also add to this consideration is the relationship between a culture and individuals within it. Obviously, these are connected - individual choices make and maintain cultures - but at the same time we all know that within a culture no one individual has unlimited power to make autonomous decisions. Even seeing the world in a way that opens up some choices might be nearly impossible. It would, I think, have been nearly impossible for most people born in the Roman Empire, for example, even to consider the abstract question of whether slavery was morally acceptable (which makes it even more remarkable that some thinkers did!).
Modifying/refining my post, I think this is the tension that I'm actually poking at when I talk about judgement: it is probably not very helpful most of the time to judge individuals morally for doing things that would have been acceptable within their wider world view, just because they aren't now. But the fact that there were individuals within societies who presented opposing views or argued for them I think means that we can, and perhaps should, evaluate cultural norms and decisions not just as 'how things were' but as 'how people chose to keep making them'. And on the flip side, as Koziol argues, it might mean that we have to take more seriously how people might have understood their own failings. (Even if I also do not judge Robert as a failed Christian king!)
I think this essay is really interesting! I think, however, to answer the question of "should we judge the past," there must be a component of "how recent is that past." To give somewhat hyperbolic examples, the Holocaust vs. Mithridates VI's massacre of the Latin inhabitants of Greece in 88 BC. One of these is much easier and more worthwhile to pass judgment on.
I'm generally fairly uncomfortable judging people by anything except the standards of their own time, particularly in cases of bad civilizational behavior (slavery, murder, mass deportation, etc.) but your example is making me rethink this. I do NOT judge Robert by his own standards as a failed Christian king.
Thanks so much for this comment and sorry for such a tardy reply! I'm glad this was a chance to think from a different angle about things. That is always my aim :). I was also definitely of the view that people should be judged by their own standards and I'm still in the process of figuring out where I still think that is absolutely correct and where it is problematic.
With respect to time, that is probably where my own views have changed most over the years studying ancient and medieval history. These days, I am conflicted. Pragmatically, I think you are right, especially about how worthwhile it is to pass judgement, and your two examples bring out the contrast sharply. On the other hand, the Romans are a useful counter example because they continue to exert such massive cultural influence but, at a deeper level, at some point I stopped being conviced emotionally that distance in time makes all that much difference. If I had to make my case, it would be shaped something like 'if we can dehumanise one person (or group's) suffering at the hands of another by treating as if it doesn't matter morally/emotionally then we have already taken the crucial step that makes it possible to do that with any person or group'. As a result, I would probably say that we ought to see the suffering of every person through history who faced torture and death simply as a result of being regarded as the 'wrong sort of person' by another, more powerful group in the same way, that this gives us the deepest and broadest base of empathy. That said, more recent suffering can feel more acute (especially if you don't spend most days studying the distant past) but also, and importantly, have implications for how we behave in the world now.
The other factor that I think your comment really brings out and that I would also add to this consideration is the relationship between a culture and individuals within it. Obviously, these are connected - individual choices make and maintain cultures - but at the same time we all know that within a culture no one individual has unlimited power to make autonomous decisions. Even seeing the world in a way that opens up some choices might be nearly impossible. It would, I think, have been nearly impossible for most people born in the Roman Empire, for example, even to consider the abstract question of whether slavery was morally acceptable (which makes it even more remarkable that some thinkers did!).
Modifying/refining my post, I think this is the tension that I'm actually poking at when I talk about judgement: it is probably not very helpful most of the time to judge individuals morally for doing things that would have been acceptable within their wider world view, just because they aren't now. But the fact that there were individuals within societies who presented opposing views or argued for them I think means that we can, and perhaps should, evaluate cultural norms and decisions not just as 'how things were' but as 'how people chose to keep making them'. And on the flip side, as Koziol argues, it might mean that we have to take more seriously how people might have understood their own failings. (Even if I also do not judge Robert as a failed Christian king!)