Poll of the Day > I don't really get the "wrong side of history" phrase

(+) Yeah! (+)

Morality is ultimately subjective, so ascribing it to history seems silly to me. There are truths and lies in history, winners and losers, but no inherent right or wrong.

/r/im14andthisisdeep/

---

There is objective right and wrong in my opinion. Anyone that doesnt understand that is obviously part of the latter.

---

MabinogiFan posted...

Morality is ultimately subjective, so ascribing it to history seems silly to me. There are truths and lies in history, winners and losers, but no inherent right or wrong.

Sure, if you believe in complete moral subjectivity. Most however don't.

GunslingerGunsl posted...

Sure, if you believe in complete moral subjectivity. Most however don't.

I don't either. What I mean is a lot of people throughout history believed they were right, even if they were wrong in the end.

MabinogiFan posted...

There are truths and lies in history, winners and losers, but no inherent right or wrong.

This ***** gonna come out and start defending Hitler or some shit

---

MabinogiFan posted...

I don't either. What I mean is a lot of people throughout history believed they were right, even if they were wrong in the end.

That's the bitch of it. Sometimes it is hard to know when you're wrong, especially if you've been mislead.

Metalsonic66 posted...

Nice.

GunslingerGunsl posted...

Sure, if you believe in complete moral subjectivity. Most however don't.

It would be silly to believe that morals are not entirely subjective, however.

---

Mead posted...

There is objective right and wrong in my opinion. Anyone that doesnt understand that is obviously part of the latter.

This. Gray areas exist, like "should Britain have entered the first world war or not". That's a debate without a correct answer, really. "Is the _____ genocide horrible?" has no other interpretation beyond "yes" - if you were pro-genocide, you were on the wrong side.

I wonder what Mead will have to talk about now.

I basically started posting here more frequently in 2016, so I cant even imagine what other topics besides Trump-hating he could be fond of.

---

zebatov posted...

It would be silly to believe that morals are not entirely subjective, however.

Well complete moral subjectivity is pretty useless as an idea.

GunslingerGunsl posted...

Well complete moral subjectivity is pretty useless as an idea.

There are some that a lot of people can agree on, but thats still only a lot. Unfortunately it isnt really a majority rules... subject. Morality and legality vary by country, so morals are not universally objective.

---

zebatov posted...

There are some that a lot of people can agree on, but thats still only a lot. Unfortunately it isnt really a majority rules... subject. Morality and legality vary by country, so morals are not universally objective.

Yeah, I wouldn't say I agree in universal truths either, but I think moral objectivity is much more useful an idea than complete subjectivity/skepticism, at least when conceptualizing good and bad.

Its really just a phase.

MabinogiFan posted...

Morality is ultimately subjective, so ascribing it to history seems silly to me. There are truths and lies in history, winners and losers, but no inherent right or wrong.

so the holocaust is just subjectively bad? not inherently wrong?
---

Well, for the sake of argument...

We can shit on the Marshall Plan thru the lens of modern sensibilities, but can anyone honestly say America would be better off as a nation if the Dutch, the Natives, France, Britain, Russia, and Spain were still all fighting over chunks of this continent every time someone was coming up short on tax revenue?

---

MabinogiFan posted...

Morality is ultimately subjective, so ascribing it to history seems silly to me. There are truths and lies in history, winners and losers, but no inherent right or wrong.

Here is an interesting example. You know how the general historic consensus that the French Revolution was a good thing?

https://quillette.com/2019/03/10/the-french-genocide-that-has-been-air-brushed-from-history/

I don't think so.

morality is universally subjective, but there are objective moralities within the subset called human morality

even though the universe doesn't care about the holocaust, humanity as a whole very much does

---

MabinogiFan posted...

Morality is ultimately subjective, so ascribing it to history seems silly to me. There are truths and lies in history, winners and losers, but no inherent right or wrong.

That's because the "right side" and "wrong side" of history are just meaningless slogans used to win over gullible idiots. Within any given moment, there's obviously never going to be any indication what might be considered right or wrong in the future. However, more importantly, it's used as a claim that one side or the other will win, which is intended as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It's also worth noting that "progress" is a largely meaningless buzzword as well. There are certain limited applications where there's a finite end goal in mind, but usually people use it in vague, nonsensical ways.

GunslingerGunsl posted...

Sure, if you believe in complete moral subjectivity. Most however don't.

Really moving the goalposts there. There are only a handful of things that are universally recognized as being bad and, throughout history, even some of the most deplorable acts were praised.... and, honestly, there's a VERY good likelihood that some acts we consider terrible today may wind up being condoned again in the future because we are starting to put more and more power into government. When you give too much power to government, horrible things inevitably happen.


---

Zeus posted...

That's because the "right side" and "wrong side" of history are just meaningless slogans used to win over gullible idiots. Within any given moment, there's obviously never going to be any indication what might be considered right or wrong in the future. However, more importantly, it's used as a claim that one side or the other will win, which is intended as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The history of human civilization strongly suggests that future generations will view morality through the lens of reducing suffering. Therefore, being on the "right side of history" is adopting viewpoints aimed to reduce suffering. I'm quite certain that many things people today don't bat an eyelid at today, such as capital punishment and prolonged periods of solitary confinement, will someday be regarded as utterly barbaric and signs of a much less enlightened time.

Zeus posted...

It's also worth noting that "progress" is a largely meaningless buzzword as well. There are certain limited applications where there's a finite end goal in mind, but usually people use it in vague, nonsensical ways.

If you're a healthy, straight white male with comfortable amounts of disposable income and no empathy toward those who suffer things you apparently cannot understand, I suppose "progress" would be a meaningless word, yes.

Zeus posted...

Really moving the goalposts there. There are only a handful of things that are universally recognized as being bad and, throughout history, even some of the most deplorable acts were praised.... and, honestly, there's a VERY good likelihood that some acts we consider terrible today may wind up being condoned again in the future because we are starting to put more and more power into government. When you give too much power to government, horrible things inevitably happen.

Dude, right-wingers are the biggest cheerleaders of big government there is. Invading and bombing other countries, mass surveillance, warrant-less searches, civil asset forfeiture, police murdering unarmed civilians--THAT is big government. Giving money to poor people instead of rich people is not big government; that's government actually doing its job.

---

Zeus posted...

That's because the "right side" and "wrong side" of history are just meaningless slogans used to win over gullible idiots. Within any given moment, there's obviously never going to be any indication what might be considered right or wrong in the future. However, more importantly, it's used as a claim that one side or the other will win, which is intended as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It's also worth noting that "progress" is a largely meaningless buzzword as well. There are certain limited applications where there's a finite end goal in mind, but usually people use it in vague, nonsensical ways.

Really moving the goalposts there. There are only a handful of things that are universally recognized as being bad and, throughout history, even some of the most deplorable acts were praised.... and, honestly, there's a VERY good likelihood that some acts we consider terrible today may wind up being condoned again in the future because we are starting to put more and more power into government. When you give too much power to government, horrible things inevitably happen.

Complete moral subjectivity is like the very definition of "moving the goalposts." Lol

GunslingerGunsl posted...

Complete moral subjectivity is like the very definition of "moving the goalposts." Lol

Not as such when the winners write the history. For example, I'm sure the French and the Vietnamese have very different recollections of their colonial period, but one story is taught in class, the other isn't... The Spanish and the Philippines, etc.

---

LuciferSage posted...

Not as such when the winners write the history. For example, I'm sure the French and the Vietnamese have very different recollections of their colonial period, but one story is taught in class, the other isn't... The Spanish and the Philippines, etc.

I do agree that history is always written from the perspective of the victor. I think that's why we should always consider what biases we've been taught in our history classes and American society in general. I still personally believe there are some moral values that are widely considered to be "objective" such as those referring to basic human rights. Obviously there will always be people who will disagree, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily right. It's generally believed that racism is bad. People who fought for their right to own slaves are those who would be considered on the wrong side of history. But yeah, I think there is much more gray area than clearly defined instances of "right and wrong" when it comes to historical events, mostly because things are usually pretty complicated.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

so the holocaust is just subjectively bad? not inherently wrong?

Yes. That's what "complete moral subjectivity" means, and why people are discussing how absurd such a concept is. Technically, calling the holocaust bad is a subjective judgement. There is no objective basis for saying that. It is, however, so universal a subjective judgement as to be effectively objective, meaning pointing out that it's technically subjective is largely meaningless.

---

The winners of course write the history so they can paint it however they wish.

---

I remember when I first watched Rick and Morty.

---

Like I said, things like Manifest Destiny, the Marshall Plan, and the dropping of Atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima are things that would qualify as "Seldon Crises" in Asimovian terms.

Consider the alternatives at the time knowing what was known then.

There are a number of points in history where I would argue that Lawful Evil decisions had to be made for the greater good.

---

EvilMegas posted...

I remember when I first watched Rick and Morty.

I remember my first Krabby Patty

---

adjl posted...

Yes. That's what "complete moral subjectivity" means, and why people are discussing how absurd such a concept is. Technically, calling the holocaust bad is a subjective judgement. There is no objective basis for saying that. It is, however, so universal a subjective judgement as to be effectively objective, meaning pointing out that it's technically subjective is largely meaningless.

give it a few decades.

if Ghengis Khan lived today we would all "subjectively" see him for the monster he was. since he lived 800 years ago and we are so far removed from the atrocities committed now people cant stop talking about how he opened up trade between the world and helped spread multiculturalism and oh he was so religiously tolerant (so long as your prayed for him).

ask a french person today if they think Julius ceasar's sacking of Gaul was worth bringing france into the european fold and a lot of them will tell you "oh yes absolutely" which is easy for them to say because they werent the ones being butchered in droves, their ancestors were.

people talk about how oh, Alexander the Great spread Hellenism across the middle east and spread this culture as if that was ever his intention. he did what he did for alexander the great, and nobody else. everything else is an unintentional byproduct. they shot a fucking arrow and then we painted a target around it afterwards and called it a bullseye.

the holocaust is a touchier subject because there are still people and relatives of people who lived through it living today. give it a couple hundred years and people will openly talk about the positives of the third Reich. I mean hell, nazi scientists took us to the moon for crying out loud. Even the jews themselves might look more positively on it since it directly led to the formation of the Israel, returning them to their promised land.

its revisionist history. once you remove yourself from the mountains of corpses and try to look at the completely unintentional byproducts of these horrible people's horrible actions all of a sudden they stop looking so bad to the general population.

---

also, terry pratchet did a good bit on this that i think is worth a read:

All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YETDeath waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point"

MY POINT EXACTLY.

---

LuciferSage posted...

Like I said, things like Manifest Destiny, the Marshall Plan, and the dropping of Atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima are things that would qualify as "Seldon Crises" in Asimovian terms.

Consider the alternatives at the time knowing what was known then.

There are a number of points in history where I would argue that Lawful Evil decisions had to be made for the greater good.

You should read On the Genealogy of Morality. Moral philosophy is interesting. I remember liking this book and have been meaning to read it again... eventually.

Yeah, I bought Wii U when it was new. I definitely am on the wrong side of history.

---

GunslingerGunsl posted...

You should read On the Genealogy of Morality. Moral philosophy is interesting. I remember liking this book and have been meaning to read it again... eventually.

I'm sure the Lucifer Principle and Guns, Germs and Steel covered most of the same points from a different angle. Even if Guns, Germs, and Steel was the dryest saltine of a book I've read in the past 20 years...

I'm a true Chaotic Neutral. Moral Philosophy itself is largely wasted on me.

---

LuciferSage posted...

I'm sure the Lucifer Principle and Guns, Germs and Steel covered most of the same points from a different angle. Even if Guns, Germs, and Steel was the dryest saltine of a book I've read in the past 20 years...

I'm a true Chaotic Neutral. Moral Philosophy itself is largely wasted on me.

I dont usually mind dry books as long as I find the information in them interesting. Philosophy is usually too wordy for my liking but it is thought provoking and informative.

GunslingerGunsl posted...

I dont usually mind dry books as long as I find the information in them interesting. Philosophy is usually too wordy for my liking but it is thought provoking and informative.

GG&S really is an eye-opening lens for history, but it really is a slog to get thru.

---

TheOkHornedRat posted...

people talk about how oh, Alexander the Great spread Hellenism across the middle east and spread this culture as if that was ever his intention. he did what he did for alexander the great, and nobody else. everything else is an unintentional byproduct. they shot a fucking arrow and then we painted a target around it afterwards and called it a bullseye.

Alexander the Pretty Good

---

TheOkHornedRat posted...

give it a few decades.

if Ghengis Khan lived today we would all "subjectively" see him for the monster he was. since he lived 800 years ago and we are so far removed from the atrocities committed now people cant stop talking about how he opened up trade between the world and helped spread multiculturalism and oh he was so religiously tolerant (so long as your prayed for him).

ask a french person today if they think Julius ceasar's sacking of Gaul was worth bringing france into the european fold and a lot of them will tell you "oh yes absolutely" which is easy for them to say because they werent the ones being butchered in droves, their ancestors were.

people talk about how oh, Alexander the Great spread Hellenism across the middle east and spread this culture as if that was ever his intention. he did what he did for alexander the great, and nobody else. everything else is an unintentional byproduct. they shot a fucking arrow and then we painted a target around it afterwards and called it a bullseye.

the holocaust is a touchier subject because there are still people and relatives of people who lived through it living today. give it a couple hundred years and people will openly talk about the positives of the third Reich. I mean hell, nazi scientists took us to the moon for crying out loud. Even the jews themselves might look more positively on it since it directly led to the formation of the Israel, returning them to their promised land.

its revisionist history. once you remove yourself from the mountains of corpses and try to look at the completely unintentional byproducts of these horrible people's horrible actions all of a sudden they stop looking so bad to the general population.

That's not an invalid point, but I feel like that's less likely to happen in today's hyper-interconnected world. Historically, short-term atrocities faded away behind long-term benefits largely because people stopped being able to remember the atrocities and could only see the benefits. We live in a world, however, where that information is never going to go away. The Internet ensures that people will always know how terrible Hitler was (if for no other reason than that his terribleness has basically become a meme at this point), which undermines any efforts to pretend otherwise.

Perhaps more significantly, though, Hitler lost. That means the modern reaction to his oppression is not coming from an oppressed people, but rather from those who liberated those oppressed people and continue to call themselves righteous for it (which I'd agree they were, but we're being neutral here). That means any efforts to suggest that Hitler had some decent ideas are generally going to be shut down, not because people are still around who remember how bad he was, but because that goes against the dominant narrative. The examples you've given are cases where the victor's narrative has outlived the objections of their victims, but in the case of the Holocaust, the victor's narrative aligns with that of the victims, so both can be expected to survive.

---

DragonClaw01 posted...

Yeah, I bought Wii U when it was new. I definitely am on the wrong side of history.

As did I comrade.

MabinogiFan posted...

As did I comrade.

Same.

Wait a minute, is genocide ultimately subjective? Slavery? Discrimination? Concentration camps? Racism? Is water subjectively wet depending on how you interpret nerve signals?

Are the laws of physics are ultimately subjective depending on your interpretation of the illusion of consciousness?

That's about as deep as this line of thought goes. Which is not very, because it's silly, we obviously do have objectively good and bad things.

If genocide isn't objectively bad, then there is nothing in the universe that is objectively anything at all, and the entire English language and language in general is useless because I can't call a rock a rock anymore. BTW don't call it a rock, from a giant's perspective it might be a pebble.

---

Yellow posted...

Are the laws of physics are ultimately subjective depending on your interpretation of the illusion of consciousness?

The phenomena themselves are objective. Their descriptions and what practical implications and applications they have for us, less so.

Yellow posted...

If genocide isn't objectively bad, then there is nothing in the universe that is objectively anything at all, and the entire English language and language in general is useless because I can't call a rock a rock anymore. BTW don't call it a rock, from a giant's perspective it might be a pebble.

This is why people will generally agree that absolute subjectivity is a completely useless perspective, even if it is logically sound. There comes a point where a subjective assessment is so universal that it can effectively be treated as objective without running into issues. Depending on the subject, that line may vary and be up for debate, so you should be prepared to have any such assumptions you make challenged, but you can still make those assumptions without issue more often than not.

---