Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[HJCarden]

I remember hearing the phrase years ago that one should wish "to be on the right side of history"; this was said as a way to garner support for a political movement.

So, my question is, what does it mean to "be on the right side of history"?

[LuckyR]

In common usage it means you should ditch your last generational viewpoint and adopt the emerging viewpoint so when your current actions are viewed in the near future your (then) historical actions will be viewed favorably.

Such as when vice president Biden cajoled president Obama to support gay marriage (after Obama plainly stated on a televised interview that he didn't support it). From the 2024 perspective Obama's change of heart is on the right side of history, since >70% support it now.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, there seems to be some retrospectivity involved. We look back at a policy that works and say that, in retrospect, it was right even though many did not support it at the time. The policy will then be said to have been on the right side of history.

People pushing for the introduction of a policy will often say that those that don't support it are on the wrong side of history. In other words, they are saying that there opponents are wrong. Or that they will be proved wrong. In which case it is a prediction.

When a policy is introduced and it doesn't work, we say it was a mistake. Perhaps such a policy could then be said to have been on the wrong side of history.

[Lagayascienza]

* sp ..."their" opponents...

[Fried Egg]

I think when people say they are on the "right side of history", they are saying that they hold a view that is not widely held now, maybe a minority opinion, but that believe that it will one day become the prevailing view and therefore that history will eventually prove them correct.

Of course, just because something becomes the prevailing view does not mean that it is right and, even if it did, one never knows what the future might hold and things could swing back the other way eventually.

So, ultimately it doesn't really mean anything but I think that some people use the notion to comfort themselves when they feel isolated in their opinions by believing that one day most people will agree with them.

[LuckyR]

I think when people say they are on the "right side of history", they are saying that they hold a view that is not widely held now, maybe a minority opinion, but that believe that it will one day become the prevailing view and therefore that history will eventually prove them correct.

Of course, just because something becomes the prevailing view does not mean that it is right and, even if it did, one never knows what the future might hold and things could swing back the other way eventually.

So, ultimately it doesn't really mean anything but I think that some people use the notion to comfort themselves when they feel isolated in their opinions by believing that one day most people will agree with them.

This presupposes that the population will become more enlightened or savvy over time, but the phrase can have the opposite meaning when folks, as a group become dumber and more gullible over time (as has happened recently, IMO).

[Fried Egg]

I don't pre-suppose this but I think users of the phase certainly do. The same people that look back and judge harshly people of the past that held views and beliefs that we now think are incorrect.

[Pattern-chaser]

So, my question is, what does it mean to "be on the right side of history"?

It means that "you chose", or "to choose", the "winning side".

[HJCarden]

I don't pre-suppose this but I think users of the phase certainly do. The same people that look back and judge harshly people of the past that held views and beliefs that we now think are incorrect.

I agree with your assessment of the statement. I wonder why the appeal to future consensus is seen as an attractive part of holding a certain view.

[HJCarden]

In common usage it means you should ditch your last generational viewpoint and adopt the emerging viewpoint so when your current actions are viewed in the near future your (then) historical actions will be viewed favorably.

Such as when vice president Biden cajoled president Obama to support gay marriage (after Obama plainly stated on a televised interview that he didn't support it). From the 2024 perspective Obama's change of heart is on the right side of history, since >70% support it now.

Say that in the future, 70% of people disapprove of gay marriage. I'm sure you would agree that it would not be "on the right side of history" then to support it, but you are correct in saying that now you are on the right side of history if you supported gay marriage back then.

Do you feel that theres an implication built into this phrase that once an issue is somewhat settled in the current culture, that it will never come up again for discussion and is effectively decided forever?

[HJCarden]

Yes, there seems to be some retrospectivity involved. We look back at a policy that works and say that, in retrospect, it was right even though many did not support it at the time. The policy will then be said to have been on the right side of history.

People pushing for the introduction of a policy will often say that those that don't support it are on the wrong side of history. In other words, they are saying that there opponents are wrong. Or that they will be proved wrong. In which case it is a prediction.

When a policy is introduced and it doesn't work, we say it was a mistake. Perhaps such a policy could then be said to have been on the wrong side of history.

It seems from this that to be "on the right side of history" is an attribute that is completely at the will of the current populace, as you can imagine a policy that was looked upon favorably, only to be looked upon unfavorably by another generation. What would make people feel influenced by this argument? Why such a desire to please a fickle future populace?

[HJCarden]

So, my question is, what does it mean to "be on the right side of history"?

It means that "you chose", or "to choose", the "winning side".

But wins can turn into losses can they not? Imagine someone who supported prohibition, saying that those who support it would be on the right side of history? In the US, when the amendment was passed, and then repealed, it seems as if people went from being on the right side to then the wrong side of history. Why would a person allow themselves to be influenced by such a flimsy rhetorical device?

[LuckyR]

In common usage it means you should ditch your last generational viewpoint and adopt the emerging viewpoint so when your current actions are viewed in the near future your (then) historical actions will be viewed favorably.

Such as when vice president Biden cajoled president Obama to support gay marriage (after Obama plainly stated on a televised interview that he didn't support it). From the 2024 perspective Obama's change of heart is on the right side of history, since >70% support it now.

Say that in the future, 70% of people disapprove of gay marriage. I'm sure you would agree that it would not be "on the right side of history" then to support it, but you are correct in saying that now you are on the right side of history if you supported gay marriage back then.

Do you feel that theres an implication built into this phrase that once an issue is somewhat settled in the current culture, that it will never come up again for discussion and is effectively decided forever?

There's a reason I stipulated "near future". Namely because when one is occupying a watershed moment, the accuracy of predicting the near future is good enough to justify the comment.

No one can predict the distant future. In addition, in my experience that's not what the comment is trying to address, mostly because of the problems you identified (but that don't apply to my posting).

[Pattern-chaser]

Imagine someone who supported prohibition, saying that those who support it would be on the right side of history?

Perhaps they would be right? After all, our contemporary consensus is that prohibition was wrong, and that a physically addictive drug that has caused many 100,000s of deaths is rightly available across the world. But in our future, the people of that time might see things differently again.

Speculating about the future in this way seems pretty pointless. What do we gain by doing it?

[Mo_reese]

The "Right Side of History" presumes that history is unique and stagnate. For example, the "right side of history" of the US Civil War depending on if you live in the North or South. Also, I think that PC said above that as values change, the right side changes.