Can (and will) humanity morally progress?

[_The Nehor]

I don't think there has been moral progress. I think each generation just shifts it's favorite pet morals and pet deficiencies.

[_CaliforniaKid]

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

Hi Kevin,

Actually, I listed "social structures" that channel human selfishness while mitigating it. Christianity would certainly count as such a structure, since it simultaneously offers the reward of heaven (or the threat of hell) and encourages altruism. And on my blog, I mentioned the unique American synthesis between civil religion and liberal constitutionalism.

However, I don't think that Christianity by itself can be a blanket explanation for the West's success. Certainly it is probably more conducive than, say, Islam, but let's not forget the Middle Ages.

Anyway, best,

-Chris

[_DonBradley]

Chris,

I'm optimistic about moral progress too (obviously).

I'm not an expert on the history of tribal life, so I may be wrong on many points regarding it. However, a tendency to identify the sins of Western culture has predominated for some time, and may lead us to highlight the chaos ensuing from the West's disruption of tribal patterns, without leading us also to consider the downsides of tribal life as well. Among hunter-gatherer groups, at least, homocide, both within the tribe, and in "raids" on other tribes appear to be common. This has best been documented by Napoleon Chagnon in his study of the Yanomamo. While it might be argued that the Yanomamo are uniquely violent, I don't think there's much, if any, reason to believe this. While large scale warfare is not possible between villages, as it is among nations, it does not follow that the rise of the nation-state, or even of nationalism, has led to the more killings relative to population size. I would argue that the opposite has likely occurred.



Dartagnan,

I'm not sure why people discussing whether moral progress is possible, and has or hasn't occurred, would make the discussion one about Christianity in particular. Much moral progress has occurred within Christianity, but most of it was not coincident with the rise of Christianity. Slavery was, essentially, a Christian institution for the greater part of two millennia.

I share your enthusiasm for the Western tradition, but would view Christianity as part of the story of human moral progress, rather than its near-exclusive source, and would suggest that scholars like Rodney Stark would provide a more accurate and nuanced explanation of Christianity's role in human progress (e.g., in the abolition of slavery) than would apologists for Catholicism.

Regards,

Don

[_Some Schmo]

I'm kind of surprised by the content of this thread, for many reasons, but mostly because the assumption seems to be made that morality or moral sense is some kind of conscious social decision.

I regard the progress of morality in terms of an evolutionary trait, and are bound to progress morally given human beings’ social nature. It may not seem like it within the microcosms of particular time frames, but in terms of human development over long periods of time, the bettering of our moral systems is inevitable. We may just not notice it in our lifetimes, just like we may not notice people starting to be born with less hair over a many centuries, or whatever other biological deviation natural selection chooses for whatever survival enhancing reason.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I'm kind of surprised by the content of this thread, for many reasons, but mostly because the assumption seems to be made that morality or moral sense is some kind of conscious social decision.

I regard the progress of morality in terms of an evolutionary trait, and are bound to progress morally given human beings’ social nature. It may not seem like it within the microcosms of particular time frames, but in terms of human development over long periods of time, the bettering of our moral systems is inevitable. We may just not notice it in our lifetimes, just like we may not notice people starting to be born with less hair over a many centuries, or whatever other biological deviation natural selection chooses for whatever survival enhancing reason.

Hi Schmo,

In biology, genetic mutations are the mechanism for creating the diversity necessary for natural selection. In social matters, the mechanism is sometimes random, but sometimes also conscious social decisions.

You assume that what we consider "morally good" will be inherently survival-enhancing for a given society. What if it turns out that the most vital society is one that subjugates and/or exterminates all the competition? That would, after all, be typically Darwinian.

- Chris

[_Ren]

You assume that what we consider "morally good" will be inherently survival-enhancing for a given society. What if it turns out that the most vital society is one that subjugates and/or exterminates all the competition? That would, after all, be typically Darwinian.

I've seen compelling cases for why 'Tit-for-tat' 'moral' systems (i.e. I will make a conscious effort to go out of my way to be nice to others, or help others - until a person doesn't 'return the favour' - in which case I won't bother being 'nice' to them...) would naturally develop .via evolutionary processes - and would be beneficial in a strictly Darwinian sense.

I do believe that the basis of our moral sense is derived from evolutionary programming. Although I also believe that many of us use our conscious intellect to try and fit it within frameworks or paradigms. (Logical or otherwise).
Or in other words, I don't believe that every moral 'musing' has evolutionary significance. We can see the basic general trends that exist across humanity, but I think we are also 'making it up as we go along' (as individuals, groups, nations etc.) to some extent as well...


Of course, to talk of moral 'progress', you have to have an objective 'end-goal' in sight.

[_karl61]

I think the Internet and media will help in the long run. Mankind naturally covets and there is a ring of truth to freedom and democracy and distaste for hypocrisy. I think people in the world that are struggling can watch and observe a better way and that will help in the long run.

[_Ren]

Another point:

Maybe it's being assumed that a moral principle like 'Turn the other cheek' is more advanced then 'Eye for an eye'...?

...but is it really?

What nation takes such a notion as 'Turn the other cheek' literally? Have Western 'Christian' nations done away with the idea of justice? Of punishment?

I personally wouldn't want to live in a society that took such a moral notion as 'Turn the other cheek' TOO literally. I've still got plenty of time for 'Eye for an eye'. And a notion like 'An eye for an eye' would seem pretty easy to derive from a 'Tit-for-tat' behavioral instinct.

[_karl61]

Another point:

Maybe it's being assumed that a moral principle like 'Turn the other cheek' is more advanced then 'Eye for an eye'...?

...but is it really?

What nation takes such a notion as 'Turn the other cheek' literally? Have Western 'Christian' nations done away with the idea of justice? Of punishment?

I personally wouldn't want to live in a society that took such a moral notion as 'Turn the other cheek' TOO literally. I've still got plenty of time for 'Eye for an eye'. And a notion like 'An eye for an eye' would seem pretty easy to derive from a 'Tit-for-tat' behavioral instinct.

good point: THe U.S didn't say to the terrorist here, we will give you another one to take out too.

[_Some Schmo]

Hi Schmo,

In biology, genetic mutations are the mechanism for creating the diversity necessary for natural selection. In social matters, the mechanism is sometimes random, but sometimes also conscious social decisions.

You assume that what we consider "morally good" will be inherently survival-enhancing for a given society. What if it turns out that the most vital society is one that subjugates and/or exterminates all the competition? That would, after all, be typically Darwinian.

- Chris

That's fair, but I guess I was thinking about mankind as a single unit (in terms of 'humanity', as you said) rather than, say, Western morality or Eastern morality (or whatever). I'm not convinced that people aren't starting to consider all of mankind part of their larger "tribe" anyway, at least when it comes to matters of morality. Why do we feed the hungry in Africa? Why do we care about the victims of the Tsunami, or Katrina? There will always be the "us and them" thinkers (at least, in our lifetime) but I think that paradigm is slowly shrinking.

Although the mechanisms for social mutation may be conscious, the selection of those mutations, I would argue, is not. I can try to make watching football every Sunday as the be-all, end-all superior moral choice for any given Sunday, but that doesn't mean it will be naturally selected unless it benefits/enhances the survival of the people that choose it.