28.Historical Objectivity and Moral Judgement:Objectivity holds that any historical writing should be based on solid facts, devoid of sentiments, biases and prejudice irrespective of tribes, gender, race, sex, and nation. It is simply referred to as “respect for the truth).Objectivity means a state of having a comprehensive, systematic record of the past events as they actually happened. Objectivity holds the belief that historical writing should be based on solid facts alone (Henige, 1982). These facts should be devoid of sentiments, emotions, biases and prejudices Indeed, attempt has been made to make a credible explanation of objectivity in history According to some historians , objectivity is not absolut in history . In fact, there is no absolute fact in history. The facts are determined by the significance the historian attaches to them (Marwick, 1981).
In interpreting historical facts, the historian must play down his sentiments and emotions. Hegel, (1956) opined that an historian must demonstrate a high degree of intellectual integrity and honesty in his work. When an historian has followed these procedures, his account becomes objective. On the contrary, if he ignores them in his work, then his account may be considered subjective Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that an objective historical account should be based on deep research and investigation and should be able to stand the test of time. The concept of absolute objectivity is however neither applicable to history nor to science
İt is also referred to as “respect for the truth” (Fadeiye, 2004).
Moral judgement in historiography is a topic in critical philosophy of history (i.e. philosophy of historiography) ). According to Vann moral judgement in history is the expression of evaluation on morals of men in the past.Usually in the language of praise or blame. Child (1951, 298) defines moral judgment in history as judgement on motives which prompt the action of his subject matters to be perceived as “good, bad, bold, cowardly, treacherous, stupid and so forth”. Oldfield (1981, 260) on the other hand describes it as statements that “typically made in language that praises or blames” and “the moral character of statements of praise or blame refers to...good and evil”. In summary, any historical descriptions that attempt to expose the moral quality or value of any person, institution or party are moral judgements in history. Whenever a historian described historical agent/s with the notion of being better or worse, right, or wrong, it is moral judgement in history
Moral statements, and especially moral judgments, are usually made in praise or accusatory language. For example 3 main forms of moral judgement used by al-Biruni:
