Are ancient wrong-doings not as heinous as modern ones?

Post Reply New Topic

I have plenty of books about some of history's worst tyrants, one of which includes the obvious modern ones like Hitler, Stalin etc as well as others from the distant past such as Herod, Genghis khan and Shaka Zulu and explains in the introduction about those three that their actions may not have been heinous as later ones and lived in a world where torture and executions and atrocities were "routine" and the "norm" during ancient, medieval or early modern times. Even in a documentary I saw about Vlad the impaler, an expert was saying that he was very much a man of his times who felt he did what he had to do in order to survive.

If that's the case, then are the actions of 20th/21st century leaders where they commit atrocities against their own people or people of other countries seen as unlawful and unacceptable behaviour ?

I suppose that's moral relativism - the idea that if it was more normal then, it was less wrong. Not much point unless you're trying to judge the person who did the bad thing, and not much practical point trying to judge them if they're long dead and can't be brought to justice. I don't think people used to be less averse to being massacred or that it was somehow less harmful.

There are many mistakes in the process of obtaining the truth. There are also inevitable detours in the development of human society.

You cannot recognize that the Holocaust is wrong without having seen it.In other words, it was the emergence of Hitler and Stalin that prevented subsequent rulers from carrying out the Holocaust.

Maybe you'll feel better if you think this way.

Today’s tyrants have more and better weapons.