Should key events in the historical development of areas of knowledge always be

judged by the standards of their time?

Contemporary knowledge is contingent upon prior knowledge development. We cannot

have a clear understanding of the future if we do not understand the knowledge of the

past. Thus, it is necessary to study and judge the historical development of knowledge

in the ethics and history to see how the nature of knowledge development has changed

over time. This judgement can occur in different forms such as ethical judgement of the

morals and values possessed by society or critical judgement used by historians to

analyze historical evidence. Similarly, standards of judgements that can be applied differ

from one area of knowledge to the other- moral standards held by society as a code of

conduct pertaining to the area of ethics differ from critical standards applied by

historians in the realm of History.

Therefore, although it is important to judge key events in the historical development of

areas of knowledge such as ethics and history by the standards of their time from a

contextual perspective, it is equally as important to assess the influence of culture on a

single event and the significance and reliability of the judgement itself.

The field of ethics differs from era to era. What is considered morally sound, during one-

time period could be considered immoral and ethically incorrect in another. Judgement

of what is considered ethical has changed over time as culture and social norms

change. Once, slavery, racism and sexism were considered to be morally and ethically

sound but now are considered unacceptable. Thus, events should be judged by the

1
ethics of their time because of the vast differences that exist in the standards of morality

in different eras. In 18th century England homosexuality was considered a sin and

punishable by law. The 1895 conviction of world renowned author Oscar Wilde, for

charges of homosexuality and gross indecency, demonstrates how much the world has

changed in the span of a hundred years. In 1967 homosexuality was decriminalized in

the UK and as of 2015, same-sex marriage was legalized in 22 countries around the

world. This change reflects a change in the attitudes of people who have become

increasingly more open minded. The focus of ethics has shifted from placing emphasis

on virtue and morality to focusing on the rights of an individual. Homosexuality which

would have been considered a crime pertaining to virtue ethics and building of a

Christian character is now considered the deontological right of an individual. From a

moral relativist point of view, people should not be held responsible for the decisions

they made during their times considering that the person may not have been in a

position to know or do any better. Furthermore, orthodox historians believe that to apply

a moral presentism perspective of ethics to past events is fallacious. This leads us to

the question of whether it is possible to make ethical judgements about historical events

based on the standards of their time.

However, judging events by the standards of their time is difficult because every event

that happens is based on prior events. The development of knowledge occurs over a

spectrum; contemporary knowledge is dependent upon earlier knowledge development.

Moreover, when considering the standards of a certain time and the context of an event

we often see the issue as one dimensional instead of viewing it with a universal

perspective. With reference to moral presentism, one can draw the conclusion that

2
judgement is flawed and extremely subjective. Even though objectivity is essential

subjectivity is unavoidable. Any interpretation that can be drawn from an event is always

tainted with bias whether it be cultural, social or moral. An example of the distortion of

language is present in the new edition of the classic Huckleberry Finn in which the word

nigger which was not considered derogatory at the time and was used 219 times in the

original is replaced with the word slave. This has prompted a lot of debate over

presentism as linguists and literary analysts claim that the replacing of the word has

destroyed the cultural heritage of the novel and the censorship has fictionalized events

that actually happened and were relevant to the time. This insight is lost when historical

developments in the field of Literature are judged by our contemporary values.

In History, historians struggle to find evidence that they can base their inferences on.

Every source uncovered has its own implications and thus has an influence on the

inference of the historical event being studied. Confirmation bias plays a role in the

interpretation of sources, this explains why historians can have different interpretations

of a single event. For example, historians have varying explanations for Stalins motives

and the cause of his rise to power; a historian such as Robert Conquest who believed

Stalins rise to power was fueled by his motivation to gain supreme authority is likely to

interpret all information in a way which will confirm his preconceptions. Thus, in a way

historians create their own version of facts rather than discovering them. If facts are

discovered they provide justification for already existing thoughts and ideas but if they

are being reconstructed, then they are constantly being influenced by our current beliefs

and thus history is always being rewritten.

3
There are several different criteria by which we judge events. Cultural bias also has a

huge impact on how key events in history are perceived, ethnocentrism may play a part

in the interpretations of an American historian studying Soviet history as they might

judge key historical events through they standards and values of their own culture, not

having an understanding of Soviet customs and behavior may limit the credibility and

the objective nature of their interpretations as they may not be able to have a clear

understanding of Stalins cult of personality and the attitudes of his supporters. This

highlights that it is important not just to judge events by the standards of their time but

by the standards of their culture as well.

Another factor that comes into question is the measurement of change, change is not a

quantifiable value that can be measured easily. We have changed in many ways, as a

society as a community, perhaps our societal norms have stayed the same but we as

individuals have adapted and see things differently. Time is not the only factor that

drives this change. On the contrary, while in some countries society has changed with

time in others times have changed but the situation is still static. This is apparent in

countries like Saudi Arabia where women do not have the right to drive and only last

year were granted the right to vote. While the Western World considers this a

backwards practice one needs to gain a full understanding of Saudi Arabias culture and

history in order to pass an unbiased judgement.

Ultimately, it is evident that the act of judging key historical events by the standards of

their time is an integral way of understanding the past and imperative for the further

development of knowledge. However, I believe that each area of knowledge should be

4
judged differently and not just from the perspective of time but also through another

criterion such as culture. In the realm of ethics - where an emphasis is placed on the

issue of morality - it is useful to study how the times have changed our definition of what

we as a society deem as unethical. However, the discipline of history - which studies the

recorded past and relies mainly on interpretation of evidence by historians who are

constantly being influenced by their own personal knowledge and historical, social and

cultural biases. It is useful to consider the cultural factors surrounding an event so a

balanced judgement can be passed. However, it is equally as crucial to consider the

alternative argument of all judgement being flawed as it is impossible to remain

consistent or accurate in our judgements. My personal bias as an IB history student who

studies the historiography revolving around a single event is that I am aware of the

importance of different historians, new information is constantly being retrieved such as

in the Russian archives, facts are constantly being changed, questioned or challenged

therefore making judgement of a single event extremely difficult but regardless all

historical interpretations are necessary to help us grow as a society. Thus, while

judgement may be flawed, it is integral to look back and learn from history for the further

development of our times.

Word count 1406

Bibliography

5
Assessing Robert Conquest. (n.d.). Retrieved from JacobIn:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/08/robert-conquest-stalinism-soviet-union-

collectivization/

Publishing, I. (n.d.). TOK Guide. Retrieved from IB Publishing:

https://ibpublishing.ibo.org/exist/rest/app/tsm.xql?

doc=d_0_tok_gui_1304_1_e&part=2&chapter=4

This Day In History. (n.d.). Retrieved from History: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-

history/oscar-wilde-is-sent-to-prison-for-indecency

Word of the Week: Presentism. (2011, January). Retrieved from Fritinancy:

http://nancyfriedman.typepad.com/away_with_words/2011/01/word-of-the-week-

presentism.html