Do you give Historical figures more slack in regards to immoral

File: burning_of_persepolis.png (256KB, 494x268px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 494x268px

>>2889320
>Do you give Historical figures more slack in regards to immoral behavior?

Of course, if they were raised in cultures thousands of years where their shit was considered acceptable such as slavery, war rape and wanton butchery. Everyone is a product of their time.

What I cannot abide is people doing that sort of stuff after the Enlightenment. People like Stalin were disgustingly evil, because unlike the ancients they didn't convince themselves what they were doing was for the greater good.

How old are you? Historical figures aren't your friends, nobody gives a shit whether you "like" them or not.

>>2889336
Moron, the question is about the morality beliefs of the people posting here, not their personal relationships with long dead people.

File: timurlang.jpg (32KB, 413x431px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 413x431px

No. I unironically apply modern moral values on past figures, because I can not understand the moral values of those times anyway so I might as well use the only tool at my disposal, which is modern ethics and morals framed by my culture and education. There is also the argument that Evil is Evil regardless of the epoch it was done. Everyone would agree that a good deed is a good deed regardless of context and circumstances, right ? Why not apply the same reasoning to bad deeds ?

>>2889320
>rekt Persepolis
>terrible thing

>>2889331
>unlike the ancients they didn't convince themselves what they were doing was for the greater good
You're a complete and utter fucking moron if you honestly believe this.

If anything, post enlightenment genocide was ENTIRELY driven by an idea of the 'greater good' - be it communism/nazism/republicanism/religion/ The ancient world was arguably more opportunistic.

>>2889320

Nah. Its all relative anyway.

>>2890604
t. stirner

>>2890583
>You're a complete and utter fucking moron if you honestly believe this.
No need to be rude to anon.

>>2889552
>Everyone would agree that a good deed is a good deed regardless of context and circumstances, right ?

No. No not everyone would agree with that. Not even remotely. I wouldn't even agree with that. Shit learn philosophy before studying these historical characters if you can't understand their philosophies, fucking shit.

>>2890619
No need not to be rude either.

>>2889320
>Liking/Hating historical figures
What is this, a fandom?

It's just history. It happened. Done deal.