The Rules That Change Us

Society is made up of all different levels of behaviour, actions, acts and achievements.  We admire, revere and note as historically-noteworthy individuals that are successful in their various field.  

As time passes the basic make-up of society does not excessively change except where the boundaries are expanded by new technology and the advancement of learning (both good and bad). 

What does change is the framework of rules and expectations which the law-makers impose on society.  This framework moves, it expands, contracts and changes shape  and so actions that at one time fitted perfectly  within the framework of legal acceptability become illegal and vice versa.    

The law-makers referred to here includes not only the elected statutory bodies and courts but also rule-makers at other levels, for example, community groups, sports bodies, educational establishments and the armed services.

Should we adjust the way in which we view notable historical people?  Should we consider their actions and achievements in the light of a more recent framework of rules?  Alternatively should these people and their actions be viewed strictly in the context of the framework of rules that existed at the time these people achieved their noteworthiness.   If you look back at the history of any governing body you will see hypocrisies if you apply the current framework of rules to past behaviour.

In Peter’s article he refers (amongst others) to the case of sportsmen and drug taking.  Suggesting that some performances were historically affected by what became but which were not at the time illegal performance enhancing drugs.  Clearly the world of sport is ripe for this sort of dilemma with the advancement s in testing and the development of new performance drugs.

What about actions that were once allowable and which have since become illegal – drink driving, using a mobile phone whilst driving, or even driving children without a safety seat?  Would it be appropriate to re-assess people that had perhaps been involved in fatalities at a time before these actions had become offences and list them now as offenders?

Should society now consider labelling as sex offenders men who had forced their wives (when ‘legal marriage’ was a defence to a rape charge) to have intercourse? Once upon a time this act would have produced no sanction, now the husband would be seen as a rapist.  So how should we view today people that committed these acts in times gone by? If they were previously seen as worthy people can we justify re-classifying them in the light of a later set of rules.

If people (or their memories) are to be stripped of their elated historical positions because we re-judge their actions by modern standards, then we must then consider also re-judging the people that were confined to the roles of historical failure after being judged by a framework of rules that has since become outdated.

Examples of such people might include those that were dismissed from the armed services for their sexual preferences.  At one stage in history these people (who may indeed have become heroes) were unceremoniously discharged.  At the time they were judged against a framework of rules that judged them as deviant.   Judged today they would be labelled differently if at all.

Another tragic group would be the hundreds shot for cowardice during WW1.  When their actions are reviewed through a framework of modern thinking it is clear that most of these men were in fact suffering from mental illness brought on from their experiences.   Some families have fought for over eighty years to have the actions of these men reassessed in the light of current knowledge (some have succeeded).

I guess the question is whether as societal rules evolve and change we should retrospectively amend the way we view people whose behaviour was adjudged to have fallen either side of the then agreed framework of rules.   Should we  revisit our opinions of people that may more latterly be judged bad or even criminal, who in their day offended no rules?

Image via Wikipedia