to think "everyone did it back then" isn't an excuse?

[taaay]

This comes up quite a lot whenever people discuss things that were commonplace in the past.

People say husbands beating their wives was normal, children were routinely smacked or caned, racism was widespread, homophobia was accepted, and so on. Often the defence is that people were simply products of their time and didn't know any better.

But were they really?

Not that long ago, police often treated violence against wives as a private domestic matter and were reluctant to get involved. Marital rape wasn't even recognised in law. Racist attitudes were commonplace and children could be hit in ways that would be completely unacceptable today.

Yet even then there were people saying these things were wrong. Women campaigned against domestic violence, people fought against racism and discrimination, and some parents chose not to hit their children despite it being socially accepted.

I sometimes wonder whether too much emphasis is placed on "that's just how things were". Were people really incapable of thinking for themselves? Did they lack an internal moral compass? If your neighbour was regularly beating his wife, or a child was being routinely thrashed, did it genuinely not occur to people that this was cruel and wrong simply because society tolerated it?

I understand that social norms are powerful and that people are influenced by the world around them. But surely "everyone else was doing it" can explain behaviour without excusing it.

Where am I raning?

By "free pass" I don't mean that people on this thread were secretly beating their spouses and want absolution. I mean that whenever a harmful attitude or behaviour from the past is discussed, there seems to be a rush to explain it away with "it was a different time" as though that settles the matter.

You are slightly rewriting history. Domestic violence wasn't generally applauded, but it was often minimised, ignored or treated as a private matter. That's not the same as society taking it as seriously as it does today.

The same applies to a lot of things being discussed. Most people weren't standing around cheering them on. But many people tolerated them, overlooked them or accepted them as part of life.

That's really the issue. Not whether people thought everything was wonderful, but whether "that's just how it was" is enough of an explanation on its own. I don't think it is.

@taaay, I do think your question misses out on something.

Morality happens within a historic social and economic context. The reason people didn't think more about eg hitting children is wrong.,was because they believed hitting children was right. "Spare the rod and spoil the child."

It's only recently that we've developed a range of educational technology and resources. Historically there were not even many books in schools So the teacher's voice was all important. Also classes in early public education could be huge . The teacher needed to be heard. So classrooms needed to be quiet (not suggesting this was always the case).

Society did not support a huge layer of TAs, educational psychologists etcetera. Beating was brutal control but it was the only one available . The only alternative was mob rule, of which the establishment had a terror.

In a rough and ready way, that explains why corporal punishment was considered necessary and right in schools.

As I said upthread, people who went against the grain usually did it as members of an alternative religion eg Quakers, so they were also going with the flow of their group.

What I find odd is that some people seem to think the only options are either "they were evil monsters" or "they couldn't help it because of the era they lived in." Human beings are usually more complicated than that.

What I find odd is that whenever the past is discussed, people jump from "some people could have questioned this" to "oh, so what were they supposed to do, fix society on their own?" Those aren't the same thing.
Most social change comes from lots of ordinary people gradually changing their minds, speaking up, refusing to go along with something, voting differently, raising their children differently, or supporting those who are campaigning. It doesn't require everyone to be rich, powerful or running a refuge.
The fact that one person can't solve a problem doesn't mean they have no responsibility to think about it at all.

OP’s quotes^^^
i think you are twisting people’s posts to prove your narrative - of course things change - - look at attitudes to churchgoing - much of the rules were laid down by churches - unmarried mothers for example - I didn’t think -the Catholic Church is beyond reproach -I thought people following anti gay etc and anti children out of wedlock were nuts but the pope was revered,the pope is still revered - doesn’t mean I approved or didn’t speak against it - even now in the US people follow that sort of doctrine it doesn’t mean the rest of the US approves of it. But society is the population and you can’t flick a switch nor can you condemn them as you do for watching stuff unfold.

This post nails it and answers OP's dilemma. **

This post nails it and answers OP's dilemma

Seconded.

I don't disagree that context matters. Of course it does.

But I think you're overstating the case when you say people believed hitting children was right because it was the only option available.

Even then, there were parents, teachers and groups who opposed corporal punishment. They might have been a minority, but they existed. So clearly some people were able to imagine alternatives.

If everyone was simply a product of their circumstances, why did some people reach completely different conclusions despite living in the same society?

The Quaker example actually shows that. If some people looked at the same world and decided corporal punishment, slavery or other accepted practices were wrong, then it can't just have been a case of nobody knowing any different.

I think context explains a lot. It explains why certain ideas become popular and stick around. What it doesn't explain is why some people questioned those ideas while others didn't. That's where individual judgement comes in.

Why some didn’t:

Actually believed that was the right way of doing things.
Not knowing any other different ways.
Brainwashing by the community.
Fear of going against the norm.
Inability of going against the norm.
Actually enjoying those activities or benefiting from them.

I don't think I'm twisting anyone's posts. If anything, people keep replying to arguments I haven't made.

I've never said society can flick a switch, that everyone approved of everything, or that whole generations should be condemned. Those are positions other posters keep attributing to me.

Your own example rather illustrates my point. You thought some of the Church's attitudes were nuts. Other people did too. That shows it was perfectly possible to disagree with powerful institutions and accepted social norms at the time.

Social pressure exists. Cultural influences exist. Change is usually slow. Nobody is disputing that.

What I don't accept is the idea that because a view was common, people couldn't have thought differently. Clearly they could, because many did.
The phrase "that's just how things were" explains why certain attitudes became widespread. It doesn't explain why some people challenged them while others embraced them.

Most people weren't simply watching history happen around them. They had opinions, made choices and reached moral judgements of their own, even if they didn't always act on them.

Yes, that’s true. If no-one thought of it as immoral back then there would have been no reason for anything to change.

Is there something in particular that started this thread?

People are all different, some will question everything all the time, others are busy living their lives. They have different levels of cognitive capacity, different access to education and new ideas, move in different social circles, have different cultural influences all of which will influence how they live their lives and what they do or don’t challenge.

I don’t believe for a second you don’t understand why different people will think differently about the same issue.

I do understand why different people think differently. That's not the bit I'm struggling with.

What I find odd is that every time someone points out that people could have questioned accepted attitudes, the response is a list of reasons why they didn't.
Of course people had different levels of education, different social circles and different experiences. Nobody is disputing that. The question is whether those factors completely explain people's beliefs and actions.

Because if they do, why did some people from the same backgrounds, the same towns, the same families and sometimes even the same households reach very different conclusions?

You seem to be arguing that people are shaped by their circumstances. I agree. What I don't agree with is the implication that circumstances are so powerful that individual judgement becomes almost irrelevant.

To me, the existence of people who challenged accepted norms shows that there was always some scope for independent thought, even if it was difficult, unpopular or rare. Otherwise nobody would ever have been the first person to question anything.

Honestly, OP, if you asked AI these questions you would get your answers - or at least more tools to think it through yourself.

Nobody needs to use mumsnet then. Just use AI.

I agree OP, it's just that critical thinking isn't as obvious to some people as it is to others. I hate all forms of violence, always have and I'm a million percent sure I wouldn't have gone to public executions the same way I can't watch boxing or wrestling now - it's fundamental.

Saying that, I know that past , present and future folk do and will judge me for eating meat, I have always known this is wrong on a deep level - cognitive dissidence is definitely a thing - I hide behind the its normal , everyone does it but I at least have the awareness to know it's wrong.

In this case, I honestly think you'd do better than on Mumsnet.

Yours is a circular argument OP - What I find odd is that every time someone points out that people could have questioned accepted attitudes, the response is a list of reasons why they didn't.

They’re not reasons -they’re explanations -your confusion has been responded to time and again. But you are not getting it.

I understand they're explanations. I've acknowledged that repeatedly.

What I don't think you're getting is that an explanation doesn't settle the discussion.

If someone explains why a person held a particular belief, that's useful context. It doesn't automatically answer the question of how much responsibility they had for holding it, why some people in the same circumstances reached different conclusions, or whether the belief itself was wrong.

You seem to think I'm confused because I haven't accepted your conclusion. I'm not confused. I simply don't think "they were influenced by their culture" fully explains human behaviour.

Because people are different. I have two DC brought up in the same home, by the same parents and similar access to information. One questions everything single thing they’re asked to do, the other goes along to get along. No amount of challenging one to think for themselves will change the fact that they are easily influenced, no amount of trying to stop the other questioning everything will change the fact that that’s how they process things.

Combinations of personality, family support, and outside influences will mould their adult personality. Just because one person questions something doesn’t mean everyone will in similar circumstances, that’s part of human nature.

Just because information is there that might make people question doesn’t mean they will, nor does it mean there’s a lack of moral compass or a character flaw if they don’t.

I don't actually disagree with much of that.

People are different. Some are naturally more questioning than others. Some are more conformist. That's obvious.

What I don't agree with is the leap from that to the idea that people who don't question things bear no responsibility for it.

Your example actually supports my point. If two children can grow up in the same house and reach different conclusions, then personality and individual judgement clearly matter. It's not all down to culture, upbringing or circumstance.
I'm also not saying that failing to challenge every accepted norm means someone lacks a moral compass or has a character flaw. Most of us go along with things at times.

What I am saying is that if we acknowledge people have agency, then we can't completely explain away their beliefs and actions by pointing to the society around them.

The fact that some people question and some don't is precisely why I find "they were a product of their time" an incomplete answer. If people are capable of making different moral judgements under similar circumstances, then individual responsibility has to play some part as well.

Simply put , yes people could change their actions if they chose to.

The complexity comes when examining those choices and how available they actually were.

What are you trying to get at? I really don't understand what point your endless repetition that "it's not enough to say they were a product of their time" is meant to achieve.

You seem to be doggedly fixated on finding a reason to blame people for what was seen as acceptable once and isn't now.

Just what I was thinking! :-))

I think that's exactly the misunderstanding that keeps happening on this thread.
I'm not looking for reasons to blame people. I'm questioning whether "they were a product of their time" is a complete explanation for human behaviour.

People keep turning that into "so you want to condemn everyone who lived in the past", which isn't what I've said.

The reason I keep repeating the point is because the same answer keeps being given. Someone asks why some people challenged accepted attitudes while others didn't, and the response is usually some variation of "because they were a product of their time".

That's part of the explanation, but it doesn't explain everything. If it did, there would never have been people who questioned the norms of their own era.
I'm interested in where individual judgement fits into the picture. That isn't the same thing as looking for someone to blame. It's just recognising that human beings aren't entirely passive products of the society they happen to be born into.

I suppose part of the answer is also that challenging the social or economic structure of the time you find yourself in makes life very difficult for most people so they simply close their eyes. I protested against the war in Iraq because I didn't agree with it but like it or not my Tax contributed to the conflict.

Things aren't really as simple as saying "this is wrong" and patting yourself on the back as a savior. Obviously some things are easier to tackle and address than others. Are you completely sure that the device you are using to post is 100% ethical for example?