← Back to context

Comment by kurthr

2 years ago

People are complicated. I'd be more tempted to see the good, if he had ever shown remorse or admitted to mistakes.

The Nobel prize is based on explosives. Most scientists 100 years ago were eugenicists. It's difficult to judge people's beliefs and decisions outside of their era. That doesn't mean that you can't build a moral or ethical system outside of it, but they're all based on assumptions of what is good.

It's not like there weren't people calling out Kissinger contemporaneously, or even Lincoln (for his handling of the Dakota). It's more weird when people obliviously deny recent history or create hagiography upon their death.

I don't think your examples are very convincing. To the extent that Nobel enabled bad things with explosives, the prizes were there to compensate and not celebrate them. And even though the word is very taboo today, eugenics are not inherently evil. They don't compete with Kissinger.