• History is brimming with figures deemed great by their era's standards, but their greatness might not withstand the test of time.
• Revisionist history has led to several such figures, including Winston Churchill and Cecil Rhodes, being cast in a negative light due to modern ethical standards.

Real-life example: The recent trend of toppling statues and renaming buildings associated with colonial-era figures like Rhodes is an example of this reconsideration.

• There are inherent knowledge questions about the implications of judging historical figures based on present standards.
• We must also consider how to differentiate between individual and collective responsibility.

Example: Imagine judging a historical figure like Christopher Columbus - celebrated for his 'discovery' of the Americas but also responsible for atrocities against indigenous peoples. How do we balance the individual's actions with the norms of their era?

• Our assumptions about the relationship between individuals and their social environment influence how we judge historical figures.
• Depending on our assumptions, we might judge individuals harsher despite their time's standards.

Example: If we believe individuals have significant autonomy, we might criticize a figure like Thomas Jefferson more harshly for owning slaves, even though it was a norm during his time.

• Some argue that people are mostly influenced by their social environment and not entirely free-thinkers.
• Philosopher Julian Baggini asserts the truth is somewhere in the middle: we are capable of independent thought but are also shaped by our environment.

Example: Imagine you were born into a society that practices female genital mutilation (FGM). You might not question its morality due to societal influence, but you also possess the capacity for independent critical thinking.