It would seem to me that discussing historical events not so much in terms of good or evil…
Yes. “Good” is a generic superlative. Generic words lead to vagueness. Vagueness leads to bullshit.
…but instead in terms of clever or dumb…
No. Replacing “good and evil” with “smart and stupid” replaces one generic superlative with an alternative generic superlative. The king is dead; long live the king.
…narrating the history as a set of intelligent or not so intelligent events and actions I think is more likely to prevent a repeat…Even though both malevolence and power are actual factors
“Narrating history as a set of intelligent or not so intelligent events and actions” is either true or it is untrue.
If it is true then truth is sufficient reason to use this frame. There is no need to appeal to epistemic rationality via “mistakes” and “a repeat”.
If it is untrue then untruth is sufficient reason to reject this frame. The categorical imperative outweighs the uncertain utilitarian possibility that misleading others about history will help them better learn from history.
Yes. “Good” is a generic superlative. Generic words lead to vagueness. Vagueness leads to bullshit.
No. Replacing “good and evil” with “smart and stupid” replaces one generic superlative with an alternative generic superlative. The king is dead; long live the king.
“Narrating history as a set of intelligent or not so intelligent events and actions” is either true or it is untrue.
If it is true then truth is sufficient reason to use this frame. There is no need to appeal to epistemic rationality via “mistakes” and “a repeat”.
If it is untrue then untruth is sufficient reason to reject this frame. The categorical imperative outweighs the uncertain utilitarian possibility that misleading others about history will help them better learn from history.