Abstract

This article explores the ethical questions that arise from any theorisation on the destruction of historical monuments. Considering the fact that historical monuments do not directly inflict physical harm on people, the loss of life does not seem to be an issue. From a philosophical perspective, I argue that even though there might be no direct physical danger inflicted on individuals when a historical monument is destroyed, there are some ethical questions which require attention when dealing with the contexts. To buttress my point, I argue that historical monuments might have negative or positive impact on society, and they represent narratives that must be engage rather than erased. I will present a general view on how the destruction of historical monuments has been perceived before narrowing down to the destruction of Cecil John Rhodes’ in South Africa. I will conclude that, on historical grounds, the destruction of historical monument is wrong.