How can moral judgments affect a historian’s explanation of wars and revolutions?

Moral judgments significantly influence how historians explain complex events like wars and revolutions, often creating disputes that cannot be resolved through empirical evidence alone. Because historians must select from a vast array of data, they are inherently required to assign relative importance and significance to specific facts, a process that relies on prior critical standards rather than the facts themselves.1

When analyzing the causes of wars or revolutions, a historian’s interpretation is frequently shaped by their personal moral or political standpoint. This evaluative component is often unavoidable because the language used to appraise human motives and characteristics is itself evaluative. Consequently, disagreements between historians regarding the "true" causes of these events may stem from conflicting moral frameworks rather than a simple lack of information.1

While some philosophers have argued for an objective, value-free history, others maintain that such an ideal is practically unattainable. Ultimately, acknowledging these evaluative elements is essential for understanding how historical narratives are constructed, as the historian’s perspective inevitably colors their analysis of human agency and responsibility in historical conflicts.12