to rants page.

The Idea of Moral Progress

I recently got into a discussion about humanity 'growing beyond' warfare. The phrase 'civilized nations have grown beyond slavery and racism' came up. While it was a nice thought, it stirred up a whole other chain of associations.

There is something inherently attractive about society 'growing' beyond warfare, and becoming more 'enlightened', but there is something unforgivably ethnocentric about it as well. In my mind, it conjures images of the Victorian view of progress, with the moral development of the world marching, inevitably, forward, with Victorian England as the pinnacle of mankind's achievement. Yet, looked at from the viewpoint of our day and age, the morality of Victorian England stands at the pinnacle of humanity's capacity for hypocrisy.

Technological progress is clearly measurable, and it's fair to say that our technological development will continue forward until it destroys itself. I don't see any reason to believe that our 'moral development' will do the same thing, nor is there a clear DIRECTION of moral development throughout history. The route from 'Barbarism' to 'Civilization' is only clear from the point of view of the 'Civilized' society which happens to be claiming advancement.

Note the examples above - racism, slavery, and Victorian England. The Victorians considered slavery shocking and barbaric. Racism, however, was so much a part and a structure of their society that it was seen as a matter of scientific fact that certain 'races' were simply superior.

Compare that to the way the ancient Greeks viewed the question of moral and mental progress. Much of our philosophy today can be traced back to them. They believed in a lost 'Golden Age' when men were better, and wiser, than in their own day. Many neo-pagans believe the same thing, without conscious acknowledgment that this world view can be traced back to the cradle of the Western philosophies which they claim to be turning away from.

Moral Directions

I don't think that there has been any one-way 'advancement' of morality throughout history. Instead, I see two moral or philosophical camps which have been at odds for at least as long as we have written records. I've heard them described as the following:

Note that which of the two poles is 'good' and which is 'bad' depends on the speaker and the pair chosen.

I've tried to balance the columns, at least roughly:

Although the idea of balance is inherent in Yin and Yang, I have not chosen to elaborate that particular word pair because I am not completely familiar with the overtones, and because I would prefer not to assign a particular gender to either 'pole' in the equation, as it were. Instead, I will choose the final pair.

Law vs. Chaos

Take any given issue in which you are deeply emotionally invested, and think about those who have extreme views which differ from your own. The odds are that you consider them either barbaric or prudish. You might consider most virtuous those who uphold the ideals of Freedom, or of Gentility. You may even see these traits within the same person, but recognize it as a delightful complexity in that heros character.

Look at any great moral question as it has been seen throughout history, and you will find that scholars, philosophers, and religious leaders have championed either the Lawful or the Chaotic side of the question for as far back as we have records of the issue. This is true of abortion, it is true of slavery, it is true of the question of war itself.

Note to self: create a bibliography, see how far I can trace the big questions back. ..