那是一个不同的时代用今天的道德标准评判历史人物

IF 0.7 2区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS Journal of Applied Philosophy Pub Date : 2024-01-28 DOI:10.1111/japp.12713
Alfred Archer, Benjamin Matheson
{"title":"那是一个不同的时代用今天的道德标准评判历史人物","authors":"Alfred Archer, Benjamin Matheson","doi":"10.1111/japp.12713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How should we respond to historical figures who played an important role in their country's history but have also perpetrated acts of great evil? Much of the existing philosophical literature on this topic has focused on explaining why it may be wrong to celebrate such figures. However, a common response that is made in popular discussions around these issues is that we should not judge historical figures by today's standards. Our goal in this article is to examine the most plausible way to understand this objection. We will examine three different interpretations of this argument. First, we will examine a view we call Temporal Moral Relativism, according to which moral standards are relative to particular points in time. Next, we outline Blame Relativism, the view that people from the past may be excused from blame for acts of conventionalised wrongdoing. Finally, we outline Ideals Relativism, according to which our moral ideals are partially relative to the time in which we live. We argue that Ideals Relativism provides the most plausible interpretation of this argument.","PeriodicalId":47057,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Philosophy","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"It was a Different Time: Judging Historical Figures by Today's Moral Standards\",\"authors\":\"Alfred Archer, Benjamin Matheson\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/japp.12713\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"How should we respond to historical figures who played an important role in their country's history but have also perpetrated acts of great evil? Much of the existing philosophical literature on this topic has focused on explaining why it may be wrong to celebrate such figures. However, a common response that is made in popular discussions around these issues is that we should not judge historical figures by today's standards. Our goal in this article is to examine the most plausible way to understand this objection. We will examine three different interpretations of this argument. First, we will examine a view we call Temporal Moral Relativism, according to which moral standards are relative to particular points in time. Next, we outline Blame Relativism, the view that people from the past may be excused from blame for acts of conventionalised wrongdoing. Finally, we outline Ideals Relativism, according to which our moral ideals are partially relative to the time in which we live. We argue that Ideals Relativism provides the most plausible interpretation of this argument.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47057,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12713\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12713","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们应该如何回应那些在本国历史上发挥过重要作用但同时也犯下大恶的历史人物?关于这个问题的现有哲学文献大多侧重于解释为什么颂扬这些人物可能是错误的。然而,在围绕这些问题的流行讨论中,一个常见的回应是,我们不应该用今天的标准来评判历史人物。本文的目的是探讨理解这一反对意见的最合理方式。我们将研究对这一论点的三种不同解释。首先,我们将研究一种我们称之为时间道德相对主义的观点,根据这种观点,道德标准是相对于特定时间点而言的。其次,我们将概述 "责备相对主义",即认为过去的人可以对传统化的错误行为免责。最后,我们概述了理想相对主义,根据这种观点,我们的道德理想部分是相对于我们所生活的时代而言的。我们认为,理想相对主义为这一论点提供了最合理的解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
It was a Different Time: Judging Historical Figures by Today's Moral Standards
How should we respond to historical figures who played an important role in their country's history but have also perpetrated acts of great evil? Much of the existing philosophical literature on this topic has focused on explaining why it may be wrong to celebrate such figures. However, a common response that is made in popular discussions around these issues is that we should not judge historical figures by today's standards. Our goal in this article is to examine the most plausible way to understand this objection. We will examine three different interpretations of this argument. First, we will examine a view we call Temporal Moral Relativism, according to which moral standards are relative to particular points in time. Next, we outline Blame Relativism, the view that people from the past may be excused from blame for acts of conventionalised wrongdoing. Finally, we outline Ideals Relativism, according to which our moral ideals are partially relative to the time in which we live. We argue that Ideals Relativism provides the most plausible interpretation of this argument.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
71
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The Story of Romantic Love and Polyamory Is the Gender Pension Gap Fair? AI and Responsibility: No Gap, but Abundance Responsibility Gaps and Technology: Old Wine in New Bottles?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1