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?

[Bugmaster]

Ethics are subject to ones own perspective, of course. So have we made an improvement by your personal standards?

I don't see why it matters. What is an improvement by my standards, could be a descent into madness by someone else's standards (f.ex. by a suicide bomber's standards). Ultimately, there are as many standards as there are people.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Everyone has their own standards, and likewise, most everyone would like to see those standards better fulfilled. I would assume you are no exeption.

Indeed, A suicide bomber's idea of "ethics" differs quite a lot from the norm. Peace, tolerance, and justice probably do not fit into his worldview. He is perfectly entitled to this opinion. However, it is generally accepted amoung the more sane of us that peace and tolerance are worthy goals. I would go as far to assume that you would agree.

Therefore, In regards to this particular standard, do you think humanity can/has improved?

Come on now, I have never met a person who has views on the betterment of humanity, and does not seek to achieve the implement of these views. Pro-lifers seek to end abortion. Anti-war activists seek to put an end to war. If you are like any other human being on the planet, you have an opinion, and would probably like to see the goal of that opinion realized.

[Bugmaster]

Indeed, A suicide bomber's idea of "ethics" differs quite a lot from the norm. Peace, tolerance, and justice probably do not fit into his worldview. He is perfectly entitled to this opinion. However, it is generally accepted amoung the more sane of us that peace and tolerance are worthy goals. I would go as far to assume that you would agree.

You are only sane by your own standards (and yes, mine as well). By the Islamic standards, you are, quite literally, spawn of Satan; that's as far from sanity as you can get. Who's right ?

If you are like any other human being on the planet, you have an opinion, and would probably like to see the goal of that opinion realized.

Not really... I have my own opinions, but there are people who disagree with them. Before I start judging humanity at large, I'd better make sure that my opinions are objectively true -- and I don't think I'm there, yet.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

You are only sane by your own standards (and yes, mine as well). By the Islamic standards, you are, quite literally, spawn of Satan; that's as far from sanity as you can get. Who's right ?

True, I suppose.

Who is right? No one can be objectively right in this matter. Some people believe that violence and discrimination are the best things for humanity, and are completely entitled to that belief. However, I disagree with this idelogy in every manner, and feel that it is not in anyones best interest. Therefore, I feel morally obligated to fight it.

Not really... I have my own opinions, but there are people who disagree with them. Before I start judging humanity at large, I'd better make sure that my opinions are objectively true -- and I don't think I'm there, yet.

I am afraid you might be waiting a while, if you are really anticipating your views to present themselves as fact. Everything is subjective, and in the end, you will be forced to act on your instinct, or not at all.

[Bugmaster]

I am afraid you might be waiting a while, if you are really anticipating your views to present themselves as fact. Everything is subjective, and in the end, you will be forced to act on your instinct, or not at all.

Most Christians -- and, in fact, most theists -- would disagree with you there. They believe in an objective, God-given morality, that's true for all people regardless of their faith.

In any case, as I said, I do have my own views about how I personally should act; however, I don't think I'm quite righteous enough to judge the rest of society. Nobody died and made me Pope, you know :-)

[The Happy Humanist]

If I may weigh in on this, I believe humanity can and does make moral progress. I do not believe there can be any such thing as moral perfection, and wouldn't even know how to begin to define it. I don't think it matters; the mere striving towards moral perfection will enhance the prospects of the long-term survival of the species. And that, after all, is the point of it all, if evolution is to be our guide. So "moral perfection" becomes meaningless and moot.

It may very well be that basic human nature has not changed, and yet we still make progress as a species. Remember: basic animal nature = self-interest. Basic human nature = enlightened self-interest. As individuals, we are still driven by the same primal urges: survive, acquire, sustain, enjoy, etc. Somewhere along the way someone had the bright idea that morally upright behavior can improve one's chances of surviving, acquiring, enjoying, etc. First, it sets up a tit-for-tat, you watch my back and I'll watch yours situation. Second, it can act as an example to others, who, if they all uniformly behaved the same way, would create an excellent world in which to live. And with that realization, the slow climb of human moral progress began.

It may not be readily apparent at the individual level, but collectively it is showing very definite signs of working. I believe that may be because the species is in the process of learning better, more efficient ways in which to implement The Golden Rule. Democracy is a good example. Someone came up with the idea that hey, maybe we should all vote on who gets to govern; the idea was implemented, and the people saw that it was good. (At least until the Election of 2000. ) The individual didn't necessarily grow, but when individuals "collectivize", the best moral values common to the most people come to the forefront and become amplified as the collection grows. Democracy then acts as a "distributor" of those best moral values. Overall, it has resulted in the lessening of pain and the maximizing of pleasure for the greatest number.

And that, to address another point, is how I judge whether a particular ethos is "good" or not. I take it as a given that pleasure is preferable to pain (certain erotic exceptions notwithstanding). I also take it as a given that the human species is capable of, and deserving of, indefinite survival, and that such survival is preferable to the alternative. These are the core values, the foundation of a workable moral framework, and the benchmarks by which any behavior can be judged. Does the behavior enhance pleasure or minimize pain for the greatest number of people? Does it enhance the species' chances for indefinite survival? Or at least not degrade those chances? Then it is, from a practical standpoint (and what other standpoint means anything?), "good." I can then say that my worldview and moral stance is "better" than that of an Islamic extremist, because, taken to its natural conclusion, Islamic extremism would result in worldwide subjugation to an oppressive, regressive, tyrannical and byzantine worldview (pain for many) that holds unscientific, unprogressive views about man and his relationship to the cosmos (compromising species survival chances in an increasingly precarious environment).

In short, my worldview would work better, so it is better.

So there.



==JJS==

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Most Christians -- and, in fact, most theists -- would disagree with you there. They believe in an objective, God-given morality, that's true for all people regardless of their faith.

But all the same, the Bible may be translated in a number of ways. It also remains mute on many issues. Even Biblical morality is subjective to an extent.

People who are particularly heartfelt in their views tend to consider their opinion objective. Likewise, people with completely opposite views commonly consider their opinions objective as well. To me this seems proof enough that moral values are entirely unto one's perspective, because there obviously cannot be two different realities.

It is good that you don't wish to force your views on others. But then again, I never really asked you to. Debating and establishing moral values we should live by is rather like the system of democracy, as I see it. Those who choose not to argue their opinion and urge others to abide accordingly are in many ways analogous to the person who chooses not to vote. Consider this- the United States scarcely manages a 50% turnout each election. What about the 50% that didn't vote? Surely many of them have opinions? Those opinions will never be accounted for, and consequently, we are left with an un-ideal government. The vast majority of young adults were anti-Bush in the last election, bending the scales in Kerry's favor. So why did Bush win? Quite simply, the majority of young adults chose not to vote, because "their vote wouldn't make any difference". Well, apparently it did.

Your opinion counts as well. Are you prepared to let the world slip into un-ideal conditions without letting your views heard? I for one am not. These views may benefit others, and consequently, ourselves. If only humanity could realize this- we might then be on our way toward real moral progress.

[Bugmaster]

What about the 50% that didn't vote? Surely many of them have opinions? Those opinions will never be accounted for, and consequently, we are left with an un-ideal government.

My own, completely unsubstantiated opinion, is that some portion of these 50% do have an opinion, but do not believe that their vote truly counts, as you said (can't say I blame them). However, a larger portion of these 50% probably doesn't care at all. I don't follow sports, and they don't follow politics... sad, but true.

Your opinion counts as well. Are you prepared to let the world slip into un-ideal conditions without letting your views heard? I for one am not. These views may benefit others, and consequently, ourselves. If only humanity could realize this- we might then be on our way toward real moral progress.

I simply don't think that I'm competent enough to say what constitutes moral progress for humanity. I can certainly set some moral standards in my own life ("lie less", "be less of a jerk", "be more helpful to others", etc.), but that's just because I have a lot of experience living my life. I have zero experience with guiding humanity on its moral path.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Even if the minority of that 50% (those who did have an opinion) would have voted, we might be looking at a completely different government right now.

Just because the president had a slight majority of America's vote, does NOT mean he had a majority approval. This becomes more and more apparent as his approval ratings dip below the 40% mark.

The point is, those people's opinions counted, and so do ours. Without the exchange of ideas, humanity cannot achieve progress. For example, my dad never likes to talk politics/ethics, but is obviously very opinionated on a number of issues. If he would ever oblige to discuss these matters with me, who knows how much we might learn from each other.




I don't think anyone needs hands on experience in order to give an educated opinion. I know how I would like to see the world improve, and am perfectly capable of hypothesizing how we may achieve that. Most of the people here probably have not/are not Ph.D.s in Philosophy or phsychology, but that does not stop them from expressing views.

[Dilettante]

The Persnickety Platypus wrote:

People praise the US for being unselfish, but even this is far from true. Historically, we only "help" when we ourselves feel threatened, or there is something to be gained. Other countries seem to act in a similar fashion.

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.

But my entire point was that we can't PROVE that the effort would be futile.

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.

What difference does the historical evidence make? We make our own history.

You have a valid point there.

We must learn to not allow our differences to divide us, but work together and learn to make contrasting interests coincide. It really isn't very complicated. But we will need cooperation from all parties, and an abolishment all selfish interests.

Sounds complicated enough!

Cultures will never be eliminated, but they CAN concede to a common interest, and learn to tolerate the lifestyle of others.

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

Just because utopia has never existed before does not make it impossible.

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

Indeed, A suicide bomber's idea of "ethics" differs quite a lot from the norm. Peace, tolerance, and justice probably do not fit into his worldview. He is perfectly entitled to this opinion.

A suicide bomber may have an idea of morality, but not ethics (at least in the Spinozist sense where ethics is personal while morality is mob behavior). Ethics is about preserving persons qua persons. Morality is about preserving the group (family, clan, religion, nation, etc). Also, I must take issue with the idea that people are entitled to their opinions. That suggests relativism.

Some people believe that violence and discrimination are the best things for humanity, and are completely entitled to that belief.

I beg to differ. No one is entitled to absurd beliefs. BTW, most likely what they really believe is that violence and discrimination are best for humans outside their social group, clan, tribe, or nation.