Is humanity (as a whole) capable of moral progress?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Have we all ready made an improvement in ethics?



Now 'morals' (if you even believe in such a thing) are of course only determined from ones personal perspective. So lets just pretend that things such as murder, discrimination, and oppression (which most of us here I'm sure would frown upon) are universally accepted as being morally wrong.

Based on that, can society improve? Has it all ready? Have we gotten worse?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Around these parts, very few people see the US as unselfish. In fact, when it comes to foreign aid, I think I've read that Japan and the US are among the least generous. But I agree that, while people can be altrustic, states are not. States as a rule protect their national interests.

That was my point, actually.

Most people here view the country as very generous, not recognizing our "foreign aid" for what it actually is. I would be surprised if the US has EVER done something out of pure charity.

I can't absolutely prove it, you're right. But neither can you prove it would be successful. If chances of success are minimal, it would take a lot of faith to even try.

Remember Columbus? His chance of success was regarded as HIGHLY minimal. But he had faith in his belief, and eventually proved it correct. Think of every scientist who was scoffed at for thinking out of the norm, but ended up being right. Do you think people 400 years ago thought we would ever achieve flight, or reach the moon?

What about the Greeks facing the Persians? Do you think they were very confident in a victory? No, but they had to fight, right? In the end they achieved the impossible, and turned back the invaders.

In the same way, I believe we must attempt greater peace, regardless of how improbable our success. Look at what the future may hold in store for us. The oil peak, nuclear war, another ice age. Humans have always fought, but we have NOT always had access to technology that could wipe out the planet. I believe that apocalypse is inevitable if we do not achieve some form of peace.

Besides, what goal could possibly be more worthwhile of our time? If peace is impossible, then so be it. But at least we will know we did everything within our power to make it possible.

We will probably never achieve utopia. But we can get closer to one- I am positive of that. Attitudes can change on an individual level, why can't we change them on a collective level? That does not seem so far-fetched.

Sounds complicated enough!

Tolerance + Cooperation= Peace

What would that common interest be? Besides, not all lifestyles can be tolerated.

Common interest- survival, prosperity, and happiness. Every sane person can agree to those.

Every lifestyle that does not interfere with anothers lifestyle may be tolerated. Those lifestyles that DO interfere would have to be abolished however, so you definetly have a point in that sense.

But utopia is impossible by definition. The moment it is realized, it ceases to be utopia.

However, what constitutes an ideally perfect place is entirely one's perception. Some people might consider their lives right now a 'utopia'.

Also, I must take issue with the idea that people are entitled to their opinions. That suggests relativism.

You mean to say that ones judgement is not relative?

To me, the mere fact that opinions differ seems evidence enough for relativism. Opinions cannot be facts... by definition.

I beg to differ. No one is entitled to absurd beliefs.

But how can you objectively call a belief "absurd"? It may be absurd to you, but certainly not to those that cling to it.

[Dilettante]

The Persnickety Platypus wrote:

That was my point, actually.

We agree on that.

Remember Columbus? His chance of success was regarded as HIGHLY minimal. But he had faith in his belief, and eventually proved it correct. Think of every scientist who was scoffed at for thinking out of the norm, but ended up being right.

Quite right. But the drive to explore and discover new things seems to be part of human nature, so it is not so surprising. Unfortunately, I don't see a similar drive toward universal peace in humans. But yes, even if highly improbable, I grant you that it is not inconceivable. As I said, it would require all cultures but one to gradually disappear. Two large cultures could also achieve a sort of equilibrium perhaps for a long time (similar to a "Cold War"), but one global culture is much more likely to do the job.

I believe we must attempt greater peace, regardless of how improbable our success.

There's nothing wrong in trying, but our attempts should be intelligent ones. Sometimes pursuing peace at all costs generates injustice and therefore more wars may follow.

Look at what the future may hold in store for us. The oil peak, nuclear war, another ice age. Humans have always fought, but we have NOT always had access to technology that could wipe out the planet. I believe that apocalypse is inevitable if we do not achieve some form of peace.

What you say here seems to reinforce my perception that moral progress has not happened. Could it happen? Perhaps after this interesting debate we will reach some conclusions.

Attitudes can change on an individual level, why can't we change them on a collective level? That does not seem so far-fetched.

A collective is not just the sum of the individuals that make it up. Group dynamics exist. And groups exist and construct their identity in opposition to other groups.

Tolerance + Cooperation= Peace

Cooperation is not always possible, and what is tolerance anyway? The very word suggests putting up with something nasty or annoying.

Common interest- survival, prosperity, and happiness. Every sane person can agree to those.

Survival of whom? Prosperity of whom? Happiness...what happiness? Those are hooray words everybody likes to hear, but as long as we do not have a single, global culture, it will be a problem to decide on common interests. The common interest of a human group will conflict with that of another, and the prosperity or happiness of a certain group can conflict with that of others.

However, what constitutes an ideally perfect place is entirely one's perception. Some people might consider their lives right now a 'utopia'.

Yes, but they are using the word in a different sense, more like a synonym of "a very good situtaion".

You mean to say that ones judgement is not relative?

No, simply that there are standards to judge opinions by and no one is entitled to an opinion which can be proven false.

To me, the mere fact that opinions differ seems evidence enough for relativism.

If what you mean is that people have different perceptions, yes, that is a truism. If you mean that all perceptions/opinions are of equal worth, then I strongly disagree.

But how can you objectively call a belief "absurd"? It may be absurd to you, but certainly not to those that cling to it.

In a sense, all beliefs are rational if they can find linguistic expression. But not all beliefs are true. The belief in Atlas, the giant supporting our planet with his shoulders is rational to a point, but it is patently false. It was replaced with Geocentrism, which is closer to the truth, but is not the truth either. Then came Heliocentrism, also closer to the truth, but also wrong. Now we know that neither the sun nor the earth are the center of the universe. But if people had decide to respect other people's beliefs and simply let them be, progress in science perhaps would not have occurred.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Quite right. But the drive to explore and discover new things seems to be part of human nature, so it is not so surprising. Unfortunately, I don't see a similar drive toward universal peace in humans.

But it seems that only a small portion of people actually bothered to seek and discover, if you really think about it. And yet, that small group of people has accomplished many great things. In the same way, there is only a small percentage of people out there willing to achieve peace. Those people (such as Ghandi and Mandela) have also accomplished many great things, it just so happens that new attrocities overshadow their progress.

Perhaps peace just has not reached its "renaissance" period yet. All people need to do is realize that working towards the greater good is actually in their best interest. Many people have all ready realized this, and I think more will follow. Pessimism is the ONLY thing that stands in our way.

As I said, it would require all cultures but one to gradually disappear. Two large cultures could also achieve a sort of equilibrium perhaps for a long time (similar to a "Cold War"), but one global culture is much more likely to do the job.

I don't see why a universal culture is necissary. All we need to do is abolish selfish interests and intolerant views between specific cultures. Different views and lifestyles can coincide, if only we implent the magic word: Tolerance.

What you say here seems to reinforce my perception that moral progress has not happened. Could it happen? Perhaps after this interesting debate we will reach some conclusions.

But nuclear threats and other things of the like to not indicate a decrease of morals- merely an increase in technology.

If the rulers of the dark ages would have had the capabilities to produce nukes, they no doubtedly would have... probably to an even greater extend that we do now, I dare say.

No, simply that there are standards to judge opinions by and no one is entitled to an opinion which can be proven false.

What standards? Can opinions on morals be proven false?

That is like saying that my opinion on a piece of artwork can be proven false. Maybe I think that the Mona Lisa is the single worst painting ever created. Am I wrong? Can you provide evidence proving me wrong?

The only opinion you can accurately judge is that of your own.

In a sense, all beliefs are rational if they can find linguistic expression. But not all beliefs are true. The belief in Atlas, the giant supporting our planet with his shoulders is rational to a point, but it is patently false. It was replaced with Geocentrism, which is closer to the truth, but is not the truth either. Then came Heliocentrism, also closer to the truth, but also wrong. Now we know that neither the sun nor the earth are the center of the universe. But if people had decide to respect other people's beliefs and simply ket them be, progress in science perhaps would not have occurred.

Once again, scientific opinions and ethical/aesthetic opinions are two entirely different things. One can be proved false, the other cannot.

But regardless, just because you seek to prove an opinion wrong, does not mean you do not respect a persons right to that particular opinion. I believe that these two thinks may co-exist.

[Dilettante]

The idea of the eventual moral progress of humanity and the advent perpetual peace seems to be a secularization of the Second Coming. Julia Ward Howe had precisely that in mine when she wrote "Mine eyes have seen the glory..." etc. There is not much difference between saying that the Kingdom of God is not here because we do not have enough faith and saying that universal peace has not been achieved only because we are not trying hard enough or being optimistic enough. Unfortunately, pessimism may not be the only obstacle. It could be that conflicting interests and value trade-offs are just part of human life. I am sure there were Ghandis and Mandelas in the Dark Ages too, but maybe they did not achieve their fame.

I have no idea how different cultures and lifestyles (and their corresponding different concepts of peace) can coincide by just implementing tolerance. To begin with, implementing tolerance may require using violence in some cases, and violence can always escalate into war.

No doubt many medieval rulers would have used nuclear weapons had they had the technology. But technology isn't neutral either. There were moral consequences to the decision to investigate non-peaceful uses of the atom.

I do believe that there are universal, intemporal standards of ethics. People have always known that killing other people was ethically wrong.
And I believe that opinions in morals can be proven wrong (but that's another debate of course) and that some moral codes are better than others. I think you agree, btw.

As for esthetic judgements, well... since I hold a BA in Fine Arts I feel tempted to say I can prove to you that the Mona Lisa is not the worst painting in the world, but I will grant you that this is harder than proving that murder is worse than petty theft, for example.

Also, there are scientific theories which cannot be proven false, at least not at the moment (I'm thinking about cosmology, where science often borders its own limits).

Finally, I think people do not have a right to hold opinion which can be proven false, such as the opinion that black people are less intelligent than whites, or that Jews do not deserve to live. In the past, people have tended to not merely harbor such opinions but to also act upon them, with disastrous consequences. Opinions need to be tested rather than respected.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I see pessimism as the main obstacle. Progress is generally accepted as 'impossible', or 'not worth the effort'. So we think it unattainable, and so it is.

This is certainly the first obstacle we must overcome, at any rate. Change must start on an individual level and work it's way up. It simply is not good enough to wait for others to take up the load, or wait for your cue to join the effort. I see this mentality a lot.

I reject the idea of "peace through force", a very popular theory throughout the course of history, and now more than ever. This has never worked before; It is foolish to say that it will work now, or ever. I do not believe implenting tolerance would require violence as you suggest. If we happened to resort to force, it would forsake the entire concept of accepting one another.

The best way to earn respect is to give it. We may further tolerance in the way we conduct ourselves towards others. Although I believe that basic human nature is generally selfish, this is oberved as not so much the case when we are personally treated in an unselfish manner. The furthering of self interests is the primary goal in a competitive environment. But by sharing resources and attempting to co-exist, inter-competition is not so signifigant. In effect, the furthering of self-interests ceases to be a factor in survival. Tolerance may ensue.

Conflicting interests are bound to arise, which can lead to confrontation, as you said. But as I said, through cooperation we may find some common ground to tread upon. Negotiation is highly underrated.

There are flaws in this of course, a few of which you pointed out. I certainly do not claim to have determined any sure-fire method of attaining peace, which is why we must put our heads together and discuss these matters.