The Right & Wrong of Ages Past
The proper standards by which to judge people are the best standards that were available to them at the time.
Origin
This framework draws on philosopher Miranda Fricker’s articulation of “moral standardism,” introduced in a BBC Magazine article, and was adapted by Pranay Kotasthane in an essay for Pragati on how to judge historical figures.
What it says
When we judge historical figures, three positions are available:
- Moral relativism: Values evolve across time and place, so judging the past by modern standards is unfair.
- Moral absolutism: Universal standards of right and wrong apply regardless of era or circumstance.
- Moral standardism: The proper standard is the best that was available to the person at the time.
The standardist position asks not whether a historical figure was perfect by today’s lights, but whether they could have known and done better given the standards of their era. This shifts debate away from listing good deeds to counter bad ones — all historical figures are layered — and toward a narrower, more answerable question.
Applied
- When assessing calls to remove statues or rename institutions.
- When designing history curricula that neither sanitise the past nor anachronistically condemn it.
- When evaluating political legacies in contemporary debates.
When it falls short
“What was knowable at the time” is itself contested, and the framework does not resolve who decides. It can also become an excuse for minimising grave harm: “everyone did it then” is not a moral absolution. Finally, it is silent on the politics of commemoration, which is often less about history than about present-day identity.