Can (and will) humanity morally progress?

[_CaliforniaKid]

The idea of progress is one that has lost a lot of its credibility over the last hundred years or so, thanks to two world wars, the Cold War, and plenty of other wars and ethnic cleansings. But I think it's still a powerful idea. I'm interested to hear whether you all think it's possible to speak of "moral progress" or to hope that the world might be a better, more peaceful place in one or two hundred years. Was the twentieth century a temporary setback? Or was it a preview of greater evils to come?

[_Runtu]

The idea of progress is one that has lost a lot of its credibility over the last hundred years or so, thanks to two world wars, the Cold War, and plenty of other wars and ethnic cleansings. But I think it's still a powerful idea. I'm interested to hear whether you all think it's possible to speak of "moral progress" or to hope that the world might be a better, more peaceful place in one or two hundred years. Was the twentieth century a temporary setback? Or was it a preview of greater evils to come?

I don't really know. I think that we've seen pockets of moral improvement in that some societies are more tolerant and egalitarian than they used to be. Unfortunately, some groups have reacted against this progress, which they see as threatening to their way of life. Old superstitions have given way to new ones, and old hatreds have given way to new ones.

I guess I see a constant shifting of morals and beliefs, without consistent progress. The optimist in me would like to think that it's churning inexorably in the right direction, but I'm not so sure.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hi Runtu,

Part of the reason this is on my mind is that I just blogged about it. Basically what I conclude in my blog post is that the reasons progress has occurred in the West but not elsewhere are

1) the West has developed and maintained its "historical memory",
2) the West has developed social structures that channel human selfishness (while at the same time controlling and discouraging it) for the collective good.

Although the Holocaust happened in the West, I tend to think that it happened because humanity had never yet really encountered and internalized the devastating consequences of racism, nationalism, fascism, and moral relativism. It is my hope that WWII was merely a setback for the West and that historical memory will prevent our repeating it.

As for lands outside the West, I think it is useful for us to try to find ways to help them toward the erection of social structures like ours. But I am much less optimistic about the prospects for progress outside the West than I am about the prospects here.

-Chris

[_Bond...James Bond]

Actually two issues.

1) Belief in absolute morals....or some type of perfect moral system (something to aim for...or move toward) Does one exist? (A big if in my mind).

2) The problem of frame of reference...from somebodies point of view any given moral system will be wrong...and thus you're never going to get people to agree on a moral code (well not without massive indoctrination and authority to institute the moral code).

[_CaliforniaKid]

Actually two issues.

1) Belief in absolute morals....or some type of perfect moral system (something to aim for...or move toward) Does one exist? (A big if in my mind).

2) The problem of frame of reference...from somebodies point of view any given moral system will be wrong...and thus you're never going to get people to agree on a moral code (well not without massive indoctrination and authority to institute the moral code).

Hi Bond,

I tend to think that a utilitarian ethic that makes maximum collective happiness or wholeness the standard to shoot for is probably the only really workable standard. If Don is right that God is just a sort of proxy for collective humanity, then theistic ethics are really just a sort of distorted utilitarianism. Maybe if and when non-Western societies develop free, democratic, and academic social structures their theistic ethics will eventually verge closer to mainstream utilitarianism, the way that Christian ethics have done in the USA.

-Chris

[_bcspace]

The world will never so progress before the second comming because that would make the purpose of comming to earth null and void. Whenever something gravely immoral or superiorly moral arises, it's opposite will rise to conflict.

Then of course there is the matter of what is and is not moral in the first place......

[_DonBradley]

Good questions, CK.

The idea that the 20th Century was a setback at all is, in my view, simply mistaken.

The argument for the greater evil of the 20th century than of previous centuries--the only argument I've ever heard for this--comes down to body count. Because more people are supposed to have died in war in the 20th century than in earlier centuries, this shows the greater evil of the 20th Century. But this begs the question. Why was the body count so high? Was it because the number of inter-group conflicts increased? Because the average person was more prone to violence? What?

The most obvious explanations for the destructiveness of the 20th century's major conflicts are a burgeoning population, increased bureaucratic efficiency, and enhanced technology. But these things are, in themselves, beneficial, or at worst neutral (with the exception that at a certain point, population can exceed the carrying capacity of the environment). Most of the ends human beings pursue with greater efficiency and better technology are positive ends. However, these advances also make it possible for people acting from the same ignoble motives that have always been present in our species to do more damage in line with those motives than they could have in the past. And increased population, itself a result of advances in agriculture, commerce, sanitation, and medicine, increases the number of victims for such crimes.

Another source of destruction in the 20th Century was nationalism. The 20th Century saw the integration of a larger and larger numbers of people into cooperative groups of unified identity. Nationalism was the down side of this. But nationalism beats the hell out of tribalism, which still reigns in some parts of Africa and places like Afghanistan. The integration of human beings into larger and larger groups has been going on for thousands of years, and, if it continues, will culminate in a united, federated world. That the perils of nationalism were and are to be experienced on the way to this goal is inevitable, but how are these side effects of larger and larger units of cooperation symptoms of greater "evil"?

The 20th Century was, in many ways, one of great moral advancement. For an example of this, add up how many nations were democratic at the beginning of the century, and compare that with the tally at the century's end. And, in addition to rapid democratization, the 20th Century the end of colonialism, the birth of the United Nations and of a global consciousness, a breakdown of myriad prejudices, the exercise of restraint in using the most dangerous weapons our technology has produced, and a plethora of liberation movements, such as those in the American South, India, South Africa, and Latin America--with some of these movements being nonviolent, and paragons of moral behavior. And this is a bare beginning to the moral advances of the 20th Century.

I think a look across the broad sweep of history, and, yes, even at the 20th Century, gives us every reason to believe not only in the possibility, but the actuality, of moral progress. How widespread today are the standard fare of previous centuries: slavery, extreme torture, infanticide, bloodsport, vigilante justice, cruel executions...?

Trading places with those of the past would educate one rather quickly about the moral and other advantages of our day.

Don

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hey Don,

The most obvious explanations for the destructiveness of the 20th century's major conflicts are a burgeoning population, increased bureaucratic efficiency, and enhanced technology. But these things are, in themselves, beneficial, or at worst neutral (with the exception that at a certain point, population can exceed the carrying capacity of the environment). Most of the ends human beings pursue with greater efficiency and better technology are positive ends. However, these advances also make it possible for people acting from the same ignoble motives that have always been present in our species to do more damage in line with those motives than they could have in the past. And increased population, itself a result of advances in agriculture, commerce, sanitation, and medicine, increases the number of victims for such crimes.

To a large extent, I agree. In fact, I argued as much on my blog.

Another source of destruction in the 20th Century was nationalism. The 20th Century saw the integration of a larger and larger numbers of people into cooperative groups of unified identity. Nationalism was the down side of this. But nationalism beats the hell out of tribalism, which still reigns in some parts of Africa and places like Afghanistan.

I'm not entirely sure this is true. Tribalism in much of Africa largely worked until Europeans arrived. One of the major causes of war in Africa last century, in fact, was introducing the concept of race and drawing arbitrary national boundaries rather than enabling some kind of tribal organization. What resulted in places like Somalia was a combination of governments trying to suppress tribal loyalties and a struggle between the tribes for national power that eventually boiled over into full-scale ethnic cleansing. So arguably it was the effort to impose nation-states on tribal peoples that is causing the bloodbath in Africa.

One could also cite Shaka Zulu, who replaced the largely bloodless, ceremonial tribal violence with full-scale slaughter in his effort to build an empire. The Aztec empire in Central America was also significantly worse than the tribalism that it displaced and that reigned elsewhere in the Americas. I don't think there's anything inherently better about nation-state loyalties than tribal loyalties.

But if you're referring to things like the EU, NATO, and the UN, I agree that they're good signs and steps in the right direction. I don't know that the world will ever be able to integrate to the point that people on opposite sides of the world have the same ideology and cultural loyalties, so I doubt there will ever be a one-world-government. But maybe there will be worldwide non-aggression someday. (Not that we'll live to see it.)

The 20th Century was, in many ways, one of great moral advancement. For an example of this, add up how many nations were democratic at the beginning of the century, and compare that with the tally at the century's end. And, in addition to rapid democratization, the 20th Century the end of colonialism, the birth of the United Nations and of a global consciousness, a breakdown of myriad prejudices, the exercise of restraint in using the most dangerous weapons our technology has produced, and a plethora of liberation movements, such as those in the American South, India, South Africa, and Latin America--with some of these movements being nonviolent, and paragons of moral behavior. And this is a bare beginning to the moral advances of the 20th Century.

I agree. There are definitely grounds for optimism.

The question is, can we prevent our world from turning into a ball of fire long enough for progress to run its course?

-Chris

P.S. I knew you wouldn't be able to stay away. ;-)

[_beastie]

The road to meaningful progress is always somewhat erratic and bumpy. It's not one smooth, upward line. But I do believe that humanity, in general, is progressing morally. I don't believe this is the case because we are more morally advanced than our ancestors, but rather due to the increasing effect of world-wide communication and interdependence. The increase in world-wide communication and interdependence has the effect of creating a quasi-planetary "tribe", versus a small tribal unit restricted to one locality. So we care how the rest of the tribe perceives us, and modify our behavior accordingly when judged harshly by the rest of the global tribe. Of course there are some communities that do not see themselves as having the potential to be a meaningful part of this global tribe, and thereby don't care about the judgments of others. The more these groups are pulled into the global tribe, usually in terms of economics, the more they will care and modify behavior.

If I recall correctly, this is Robert Wight's basic argument in his book Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny. It's a good read. I can only hope he's correct.

Examples that, to me, demonstrate that humanity is progressing overall are that the global community universally condemns things like slavery and genocide now. Yes, these things still occur, but they are condemned. In the past, they were seen by many as acceptable behavior, or even God-condoned behavior.

[_dartagnan]

Of course, Christianity is nowhere to be included as a reasons why the west has developed faster and has led the world in the area of moral progress. The ending of slavery, democracy, civil freedoms, charitable contributions, humanitarian efforts, the birth of the universal declaration of human rights which is gradually resonating in other countries as western groups pressure other governments to integrate it in their societies.

I recommend this book before jumping to any conclusions that exclude, mitigate or outright reject the significance of Christian influence:

http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-B ... 269&sr=1-1