Moral Relativism in the age of Julio-Claudians

I should warn you against discussing the moral character of the emperors unless you're very careful.  There are no moral absolutes and what is acceptable in one culture is taboo in another.  Furthermore as a culture evolves the definition of what constitutes "moral" behavior changes as well.  The actions of the emperors, while excessively grandiose, only rarely and in extreme cases violated the mores of the day.



I couldn't disagree with you more.  All the ancient historians, Suetonius, Plutarch, Cassio Dio, Polybius, they all wrote from their own moral convictions.  


Every individual has a conscience which varies from person to person.  We all perceive things through are senses which are imperfect.  Moral questions can be subjective.  But you are demanding that we all adopt your point of view  - one of moral relativism.  


The actions of the emperors violated the mores of the day.  Do you forget the correspondence between Octavian and Antony?  Most of it had to do with the sexual impropriety of one antagonist against another.  What about Tiberius who in his death had to endure the withering criticism of his minnows?  Do we forget about Caligula?  The man's name is the very personification of infamy and sexual vice.  Caligula established the Emperor's house as a house of mandatory prostitution.  That was a far cry from the chastity of the Vestal Virgins and the legacy of Lucretia.  Claudius married his niece.  His critics say that Nero had been tutored in sex by his own mother.


Now if you saying that we should bear in mind that slavery was okay in their day but not in ours and that we should account for that or that we should not import 21st century notions into the historical record, I may agree with you.  


But I do not adhere to moral relativism and further it is because the emperors violated the morals of the time accounts for their decline and unpopularity.  That conclusion presumes communitarian moral standards.