undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfallingfrog8y ago0 comments

"Or is the way history works amoral?"

This question suggests some confusion on your part in terms of the difference between history and ethics, as topics of study.

The historical evidence shows that Ghengis Khan was responsible for a vast number of deaths - horrible deaths, and these are well documented. That's what history can talk about - the facts and the context.

As for the moral question of whether or not mass murder is morally acceptable, well, I invite you to do your own research but the consensus- and my own opinion- is that no, it is not.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

seanmcdirmid8y ago· 2 in thread

It is "history", but it doesn't seem to too negatively affect our view of him. In fact, these atrocities sort of get drowned out in the noise of human history's numbers almost continual atrocities. We all know Genghis Khan killed lots of people, we all know what Caesar, Alexander did also. We know about the genocides that occurred as many cultures (often our own) displaced other cultures (many completely obliterated). Heck, that is even before we look at things like colonialism. Humans have a history of simply being barbarians, it is hard to judge morally more than a few hundred years in the past.

fallingfrogOP8y ago

And of course there are atrocities going on right now, and the future probably holds atrocities just as bad or worse. That's true enough. I don't react to the Mongol atrocities with anger or a desire for revenge, just a terrible sadness that this is what we've done to each other, and a hope (that may be naive) that we can learn not to do it again. I don't know what else to tell you- again, if you want to study ethics I'm probably not the best teacher but I do think that not glorifying violence is a good start.

seanmcdirmid8y ago

You don't have to glorify violence to remember someone's achievements. So George washington killed Indians and owned slaves. Ya, that's bad of course, but he still helped found the USA, fought the British, and was a decent first president. History is just nuanced.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse