To what extent can/should people be expected to "live by future judgment?"

Great Debates
41

So, your concern is not what is the right thing to do? Your concern is not what is best for the people around you? Not even any ideals that you believe in?

Your only concern is how people in the future will think about you?

In the case that it really is that important, it is generally not going to be who you advocate for that is going to get you into trouble, it is who you advocate against.

History tends to bend towards equality and fairness, so if you are for equality and fairness, then you have a good chance to be well remembered.

42

OK, so one common refrain in this thread thus far is that “human history trends towards greater and greater tolerance over time, so just err on the side of tolerance.”

So - what does that mean in practical terms? Right now, polygamy finds little support among either the Democratic or Republican camps, but since history trends towards tolerance, should we embrace polygamy now in anticipation that that’s what people will eventually support, like how SSM wasn’t mainstream in 1985 but was one by 2015?

43

One, I denied that “common refrain”. Two, I don’t believe anybody here has argued for the tolerance of polygamy, certainly not for the sake of tolerance alone. If one were to make that argument (in another thread), I assume it would be countered on grounds other than mere tolerance or intolerance.

~Max

44

If you think that the world is a better place with polygamy in it, then support it. If you don’t think so, then oppose it.

What is quite likely is that future historians may look poorly at those who only chose the “right” side in an attempt to impress them, rather than to improve the world they lived in.

Who exactly are you looking for validation from?

45

Just what do you want us to debate here? You have only given a single premise and a conclusion, and then you ask us to debate the conclusion.

  • People of the future will judge those who did not live by X.
  • ???
  • Therefore, people today should live by X.

Are we supposed to debate the validity of a missing premise? Are we supposed to debate whether we agree with any premise that completes the logical argument? Are we supposed to debate whether the conclusion follows from a single premise?

Why don’t you try providing the missing premise, then I can tell you exactly how wrong it is.

~Max

46

Contrast with the more reasonable, but decidedly off-topic,

  • People today should embrace tolerance.
  • Tolerance of polygamy is a form of tolerance.
  • Therefore, people today should embrace tolerance of polygamy.

The above argument, which is a straw-man, is off-topic because it has nothing to do with the judgement of future generations. Note that the above argument is compatible with that first premise you actually supplied:

  • Future generations will judge those who did not embrace tolerance.

~Max

47

I’m not positive who you are replying to.

There is a wide difference between tolerating polygamy and condoning it.

If two people want to live their lives together, great. If they find a third or a fourth, who am I to judge? There are those who would persecute families for simply living together in an arrangement that makes others uncomfortable, and I am comfortable in allowing history to pass its judgement on them.

As far as legal question, polygamy creates a tremendous amount of complexities and problems, you are not just dealing with two people, you are dealing with 3 or more, and problems go up exponentially as you add people.

If in 100 years, polygamy is the norm, then I doubt that people will look negatively at those who wanted to make sure that if it was done, it was done right, but probably look negatively upon those who persecuted them for even wanting it.

48

This is one of those situations where the framing is faulty. When we judge people from the past with modern morals, we aren’t expecting them to have adhered to morals they didn’t know. We’re judging their actions and what harm those actions caused. They’re dead–they can’t change–so that’s not the point.

That isn’t the only way to judge, of course. Judging by the morals of the day is viable at times. But the best is looking at intentions and underlying principles. Are they even trying to do the right thing, or are they one of many people who don’t care? And, then, is their right thing towards the fundamental pillars of morality–i.e. reducing harm and increasing fairness?

None of that is about anticipating what future generations will find moral. While I do think that we are gradually progressing in morals, @Max_S is right that there’s no guarantee that will continue.

What we can do is just care about what is moral, and try to do things for moral reasons. And, sure, maybe hypothetical moral humans in the future will appreciate us for it. Or maybe they won’t.

So, the ultimate answer to the OP’s question is “we shouldn’t”–but that has no bearing on whether we should judge people in the past by our current morals. Sometimes that is useful; sometimes it is not. Usually we use a mixture.

49

Both replies were addressed to Velocity, in his capacity as the topic-starter.

~Max

50

So is this OP just a big gotcha to compare gay marriage to polygamy?

51

I’d like to propose a different perspective.

In my opinion, the root at the OP is the separation of good and evil in the Abrahamic religions belief system. This is in turn drives the western system of values and ethics.

Per this system, whether it be Moses, or Jesus or Mohamed (PBUH), they are all good and no part of them is bad. God is everything good and the Devil is everything bad. So this model shapes the value system and ethics of the thought processes of the western society, in general. This is also the value system used to judge personalities.

Contrast that with the eastern mythology / belief system. Rama (one of the Hindu gods/avatars) is criticized for being a MCP and unfair to his wife, Krishna is criticized for being a womanizer, and Buddha is criticized for the unfair treatment of his wife. Even Gods have their character flaws and are not exempt from shortcomings. The idea there is that everyone has flaws and there is no universal one person or one personality that people will worship or lay accolades on.

This by extension leads to what the west loosely calls polytheism. But at heart, this is about people choosing their role models or heroes or even God(s). There is no one size fits all, forever. A hero to one maybe a villain to another and that can also change over time.

For example, Columbus was a great guy and an utterly despicable guy depending on which side of the fence you are on. The side for which Columbus is a hero, brushes off his shortcomings as the prevailing morality of the time. The other side sees him as a complete villain with no redeeming qualities no matter the time when the brutality was committed.

Whether a wrongdoing was committed because of prevailing morality or deliberate villainy, to the group negatively impacted, it’s a distinction without a difference.

In my opinion, the Columbus supporters have to acknowledge his faults, make amends where possible, and realize that their hero has been a villain to some. Similarly, the Columbus haters need to acknowledge his accomplishments, give praise where due and realize that the villain is hero to some.

So, the very premise of futureproofing or even presentproofing one’s personality is flawed. One should do the best they can based on what they feel is right for them. At the same time, society in general should move away from the value system of perfect good/bad. In my opinion, there will be no universal heroes or villains. Different groups of people will have different heroes and will have to acknowledge that their heroes had a dark side too.

52

On which grounds do you think the tolerance of polygamy might be countered? Ethics? Common sense? Practicality? I can easily imagine all of those considerations changing in the future. There’ll probably be an app for it.

53

-Said every tyrant ever.

I don’t like how people are embracing this concept of “weaponized outrage” where it’s ok to destroy someone’s career or reputation because of some action decades ago that may not have been up to the standards of some particular groups code of morality. Sure, there are certain things that have always been “not ok”. But there is also enough gray area that no one should be so quick to judge others.

54

@am77494: Superb post; thank you. Ref your conclusion:

I’d add one smidgen. How about this:

…
One should do the best they can based on what they feel is right for them giving due regard for others as well. …

At the limit, doing what’s right for you and only you is exactly how we get psychopaths, narcissists, and all the rest bloodying the history books. Doing what’s right for you and also for others affected by you is how we get along.

And yes, as you say, there’s a large gray area in the middle; how much do which others impact your decisions on what timeframe?

55

If cancel culture wasn’t a thing, in so far as they are actively getting people fired and putting livelihood’s in jeopardy (over choosing that wrong side 30 years ago) , I’d respond by saying I am not looking for validation at all, but people SHOULD have some sort of insulation from the past. So if any validation is required, it is about the here and now and we are so divisive that a whole host of people in this very thread are saying that they better choose right!! Or else, right?

If for no other reason that because people change views over time, all the time.

56

Well, that’s just it, I don’t believe that “cancel culture” is a thing. I think that it is people expressing their opinions in a free country. That people get upset about being called out for their opinions, past or present, is not relevant to people being free to express their opinion on their opinion.

I worked food service, you know how many times someone “threatened my livelihood” because they got their order wrong? There will always be those who look to take offense, and will lash out at others when they find it. There is nothing to be done on that front, I am afraid.

Do you think that the firing of Shirley Sherrod was an example of cancel culture?

Who is saying choose right or else? Seriously, you said that there are a whole host of those in this very thread who are saying this. Specifically who, and when?

57

Exactly. This isn’t a “progressive” or “liberal” or “political correctness” issue. It’s an issue of our society trying to learn how to handle an environment in which even the least of us can have a far-reaching voice, through Twitter or whatever. Ultimately, this is a good thing, but there are some bumps along the way, and there are some ambiguous situations that need to be figured out.

58

Anyone here who is defending the actions against people like Sherrod, or the Golightly (Boening). The fact that you don’t think it’s a thing is simply because it aligns with your current views.

It isn’t about having an opinion, it is specific to the calling for action (and garnering mob justice), probably no different than getting tried in public opinion. As an extreme example, catch a horse thief back in the old days, mob justice hangs the poor sod, instead of actually trying the case to find out guilt or innocence, you are putting the onus of innocence on the the person to defend what he/she said in some cases 30 years ago.

59

It’s not that it doesn’t exist – it’s that it’s nothing new. Black people and Native Americans (and many others) who spoke out were “canceled” for most of American history (and much, much worse, quite obviously). What’s new is the greatly increased likelihood for social consequences for wealthy, powerful, and/or privileged people for saying things that many others find reprehensible. And I don’t see how this is a bad thing.

60

If it’s nothing new and it is fine, I suppose that changes your views on whether it was fine back then too aye?
Fine now, fine then?
I disagree.
It wasn’t fine then, and it is still not fine.

Again, it is only fine because currently it is happening to people you don’t care enough about.