Analyzing Historical Context

There is no denying that the Roman Empire was imperialistic, yet so were numerous other powers throughout history. The choice often wasn't about escaping imperialism but rather about which empire to live under. By the standards of their era, Romans were relatively lenient rulers focused on peace and taxation, significantly improving life for many of their subjects. As for Marcus's treatment of Christians, evidence suggests he did not actively persecute them, unlike other emperors.

However, the more pressing issue here is the philosophical implications of presentism. Did my critics engage in presentism when they highlighted Marcus's perceived failings? Did I fall into this trap with Stockdale?

Presentism involves applying contemporary ideas and judgments to historical contexts, often seen as a bias by historians. We tend to view our cultural norms as the pinnacle of moral evolution, a notion that is fundamentally flawed. History is filled with diverse cultures, each contributing to the human story. While we may have made progress in some areas, it remains uncertain how future generations will perceive our current moral landscape.

Historian David Hackett Fischer argues that presentism is a fallacy. He compares it to retroactively applying new laws to past actions, which can unfairly penalize individuals who acted within the legal frameworks of their time. A classic illustration of presentism is "Whig history," where historians manipulate the past to bolster contemporary political ideologies.

Yet, there are valid advocates for presentism. Some argue that discussing historical injustices, such as colonial slavery, without criticism implicitly condones the oppressors' viewpoints. Historian Steven F. Lawson contends that abolitionists and others recognized the immorality of slavery during its prevalence.

While this perspective is valid, I advocate for a more nuanced analysis: rather than imposing our values on the past, we should evaluate historical figures based on their societal context. If we adopt this modified approach, we find that Stockdale's actions during the Vietnam War were not aligned with the sentiments of many who opposed the conflict at the time. Conversely, Marcus Aurelius was revered even by his contemporaries.

Navigating Moral Evaluation

Some defenders of presentism argue that failing to critique past practices leads to moral relativism. Interestingly, many of these critics are religious historians who believe in universal moral truths established by a divine being.

There are two issues with this viewpoint. Firstly, rejecting presentism does not equate to endorsing moral relativism. One can advocate for moral progress while recognizing that ancient Romans did not possess the same ethical understanding we do today.

Using a scientific analogy, acknowledging that Aristotle must be contextualized within his time does not make one a relativist.

Regarding universal moral laws, I must clarify that I am an atheist, which precludes me from that line of reasoning. Even for theists, Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue illustrates that morality cannot solely be defined by divine commands, unless one accepts a "might makes right" approach.

Recently, some conservative critics have labeled presentism as "wokism." While I remain skeptical of right-wing extremism, I have noted several instances of unjustifiable presentism influenced by contemporary cultural movements.

Returning to Marcus Aurelius, a comparison with fellow Roman Stoics Seneca and Epictetus may further clarify my stance.

By adopting Lawson's framework, we can acknowledge that while presentism is flawed, we can still assess the moral stature of past figures within their historical context. Marcus Aurelius emerges favorably; he was regarded as one of Rome’s wisest rulers and made efforts to embody Stoicism genuinely.

In contrast, Seneca's role as an advisor to Nero complicates his legacy. Despite this, I argue that even Seneca's case isn't straightforward; he demonstrated courage, particularly in his writings advocating for virtuous governance. Ultimately, he paid with his life for attempting to distance himself from Nero.

As for Epictetus, he lived an exemplary life, embodying his teachings and even adopting a child in need, demonstrating his commitment to his principles.

In conclusion, while I believe presentism is a misguided approach that hinders valuable lessons from history, we must also engage in moral evaluations of the past. Our exploration of history serves not only to understand the past but also to guide our ethical considerations for the present and future.