tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2209094218813547041.post6171522774468692936..comments2023-09-19T03:06:29.983-07:00Comments on Liber locorum communium: Butterfield on Moral judgments in historySteve Perishohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422656717551961275noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2209094218813547041.post-51886814581927989962010-02-28T17:19:53.513-08:002010-02-28T17:19:53.513-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Steve Perishohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05422656717551961275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2209094218813547041.post-72661634939322118162010-02-28T17:15:35.051-08:002010-02-28T17:15:35.051-08:00As you may know, Butterfield was, by the way, a Ch...As you may know, Butterfield was, by the way, a Christian (a Methodist). Some day I'll get round to the other book of his on my shelves, <i>Christianity and history.</i>Steve Perishohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05422656717551961275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2209094218813547041.post-20088047480140653722010-02-28T17:07:14.457-08:002010-02-28T17:07:14.457-08:00Butterfield doesn't say that morality does not...Butterfield doesn't say that morality does not really exist as the characteristic of a person (115), but only that it lies beyond the purview of the historian <i>qua historian</i> to pass absolute judgment, "there [being] limits to what history and the historian can do." What falls within his remit is "the <i>historical</i> explanation of character", but <i>"historical</i> explaining does not condemn; neither does it excuse; it does not even touch the realm in which words like these have meaning or relevance" (117). The same, I would say, is true for the natural sciences, and it is only a "whig" scientist of either stripe who would ever pretend otherwise.<br /><br />There is, of course, a sense in which "Christ's circumstances [(take, for example, his freedom from original sin)] allied to allow him purity", though he was indeed <i>"tempted</i> like us [(i.e. Adam)] in every respect". I take your point, though. Butterfield's response would be that the paradigmatic purity of Christ (unlike the paradigmatic amorality of Napoleon, which is there in the historical record (120-125)) is an article of faith not accessible to the historian <i>qua</i> historian. And I would have to agree with that.<br /><br />History, says Butterfield, strays into whiggism whenever it attempts to pass absolute judgment on more than just effect, i.e. motivation (when it condemns the motives of Catholics because they weren't (supposedly) those of an enlightened and progressive contemporary Protestantism (or an enlightened and fundamentally Protestant contemporary progressivism), or vice versa), for all this has is "the practical effect of curtailing the effort of [a properly] <i>historical</i> understanding" (112).<br /><br />I'm still thinking this through, as my comments imply. The book is a classic, and the thesis, too, but I (though a history major) had never read it.<br /><br />Although Butterfield has a mostly Protestant whiggism in mind, his thesis cuts both ways. Indeed, the example his gives of a Moral interpretation of history is that of Lord Acton, the Catholic.Steve Perishohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05422656717551961275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2209094218813547041.post-68243517691979572952010-02-28T12:50:42.382-08:002010-02-28T12:50:42.382-08:00So we are to believe that morality does not really...So we are to believe that morality does not really exist as the characteristic of a person? Perhaps Christ's circumstances allied to allow him purity? Or that temptation (in the form of power) excuses sin? History does have the advantage of judging the effect of the action on history, and not just the motivation. I suppose it's possible to take action for pure reasons with disastrous consequences. Do the motivations justify the means any better than the ends?Elaine Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05417283688993930533noreply@blogger.com