Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJ  I think that this particular comment by Rob is one of the smartest things anyone has ever written on this forum. Historic events should never be 'moralized' by modern standards... |
Actually they should be. They even have to be. To learn a lesson from such terrific actions. To differ right from wrong. And after so many years it's always an opportunity to do some reflection & evaluate some things.
That's why history is so important - to learn the time line of causes & consequences, and to learn & evaluate some decisions from the history. Or to even present some counter arguments - since (as I said) history is written by the winers, and therefore it's biased.
Btw, From your point of view ("not moralizing by modern standards") even Nazism could be legitimized, or Holocaust, or crimes done by eg. communist regimes etc. Since at that specific time when those bad things happen there was "a right reason to do it."
Imagine Germans or Russians or Japanese or Americans advocating & legitimizing acts done by their armies during WWII. Not a good thing. Hence self-criticism is needed, and some acts done by our grandfathers should be condemned.
Yes, I somehow UNDERSTAND why some acts were done, but that still does not prevent me to condemn them.
By not condemning such acts we would send a message to the young & future generations that doing such acts is justified in some cases. And some people would feel to be entitled to do such things - since being legitimized.
Get it?
Why should the winning side be immune from being criticized - especially when doing war crimes just like the losing side were doing. Just because they won the war? Just because they didn't start the war? Just because they were labeled as "good guys".
I just don't buy it.
There is no "good" or "justified" violence. Otherwise everybody could find a reason to justify violent acts. Saying that I admit there could be some extenuating circumstances present when doing it - but that does not justify the act, and make it a "good act".
****
In this debate I can see the differences here - between two legal / moral systems. The Continental (European) one vs. Anglo-Saxon one. Absolute vs. relative judging predispositions.
Absolute evil vs. justified evil.
To me evil is absolute, and can't be justified. But I understand the other side somehow - since in some cases there is no other solution. Theoretical vs. practical approach. Yet to me it is very important to condemn every violence, every evil - no matter the circumstances. Otherwise- as I said - the wrong message would be sent.