How can we separate "progress" from the whole of history?

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

In I Don't Believe in Atheists Chris Hedges says something to the effect of we may make make scientifc progress but moral progress is a myth.

Personally, I do not believe in any "human progress". Progress implies having a goal. Something abstract like "humanity" cannot have goals. "Hey, humanity! Are you any closer to your goals?".

What I do not get is how people think that we can separate "progress" from all of history. How can people use language, like Hedges does, that suggests that some part of history can be isolated from the rest of history and measured as "progress"?

In What Is America? A Short History of the New World Order Ronald Wright makes the case that Europe used the gold that the Spanish stole from the Aztecs, Inca, etc. to finance the Industrial Revolution. Probably 99% of the people I have known consider plundering and pillaging to be morally repugnant. Meanwhile, Wright--in addition to many other historians and social scientists, I'm sure--makes the case that other things like slavery, child labor, etc. made the Industrial Revolution possible. You know, things that most people consider to be morally wrong.

Yet, somehow--magically, I suppose--apparently "scientific progress", the "standard of living" of Westerners, the "information age", etc. occurred independent of all of those variables that Wright brings up. Apparently that is what we are suppsed to believe, anyway. I have never heard anybody who speaks of "scientific progress" show any awareness of any larger historical context. I certainly have not heard any such person show any awareness of how things that most of us consider to be morally wrong played a role in that "progress".

Do I just have my history, sociology and anthropology all wrong and some variables do in fact change independent of all other variables?

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't really understand your point (it's late here ). Banning slavery is moral progress. A greater understanding of the universe is scientific progress. Etc.

I see no reason to assume that the progress we have seen couldn't have been done without the immorality. It just would have happened differently.

 

[Eudaimonist]

In I Don't Believe in Atheists Chris Hedges says something to the effect of we may make make scientifc progress but moral progress is a myth.

I personally do believe in moral progress. While each generation must start from zero in generating personal virtue, we do generally have better moral ideas now than many centuries ago. Look at the reduction of pro-slavery sentiment in the world, and improved attitudes toward the standing of women in society. There is even concern not to cause needless suffering to animals, something almost unthinkable in the West in previous centuries.

This progress isn't necessarily linear. The individualism in the 1700s and 1800s is better than the collectivism that did so much damage in the 1900s. Yet, I think that the trends are positive in the long run.

Personally, I do not believe in any "human progress". Progress implies having a goal. Something abstract like "humanity" cannot have goals. "Hey, humanity! Are you any closer to your goals?"

Something abstract like humanity cannot have goals, but individuals may have the goal, or at least the desire, of seeing the human condition improve. I don't see the problem here. Human progress is not the progress of an abstraction, but of the concrete instances of that abstraction. It's basically the cultural and material progress of societies of individuals.

In What Is America? A Short History of the New World Order Ronald Wright makes the case that Europe used the gold that the Spanish stole from the Aztecs, Inca, etc. to finance the Industrial Revolution. Probably 99% of the people I have known consider plundering and pillaging to be morally repugnant. Meanwhile, Wright--in addition to many other historians and social scientists, I'm sure--makes the case that other things like slavery, child labor, etc. made the Industrial Revolution possible. You know, things that most people consider to be morally wrong.

He sounds like an idiot who believes that markets are zero-sum games, and there are plenty of those. It's almost like he's asserting that there's a moral zero-sum game, which is ludicrous. While slavery and child labor had certainly existed, they did not make the Industrial Revolution possible. That was a revolution in know-how and the social institutions that made entrepreneurship and investments possible. The Industrial Revolution created wealth. It didn't happen because people found gold deposits or cheap labor.

I have never heard anybody who speaks of "scientific progress" show any awareness of any larger historical context. I certainly have not heard any such person show any awareness of how things that most of us consider to be morally wrong played a role in that "progress".

Maybe they know something that you don't -- that progress doesn't necessarily happen because of what is morally wrong, even though that may have been involved. It happens because of what is morally right. The Industrial Revolution happened because of morally good individualism and the social institutions that unleashed the power of the inventive mind to create wealth more efficiently and sustainably resulting in massive increases in standards of living. It wasn't because of slavery. Perhaps one could make that case regarding the Romans or other ancient civilizations, but not recent centuries. De facto slavery certainly didn't help communist nations become prosperous.

Do I just have my history, sociology and anthropology all wrong and some variables do in fact change independent of all other variables?

Everything has some influence on everything else, but that does not mean that change in one variable is entirely dependent on changes in other variables in a way that imply any good change is dependent on everything bad that exists (such as immoral institutions). A good change might even be a moral reaction to something bad, such as the Abolitionist movement opposing the institution of slavery. This isn't a dependency in the sense of his absurd claim that the Industrial Revolution somehow depended on the institution of slavery. It was an attempt to erase something bad and to achieve something better, much as how science is about erasing ignorance and creating knowledge. Thus, progress is certainly possible.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

This progress isn't necessarily linear. The individualism in the 1700s and 1800s is better than the collectivism that did so much damage in the 1900s. Yet, I think that the trends are positive in the long run.

What harm did collectivism do to capitalist countries in the 1900's? I would have thought that a combination of individualism and collectivism has done well, eg: a safety net for those that lose their job.

I generally agree with your post overall though.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What harm did collectivism do to capitalist countries in the 1900's?

I was referring to the harm done by communism and fascism, but collectivism did harm to capitalist countries by watering capitalism down with socialist ideas and government programs.

I would have thought that a combination of individualism and collectivism has done well

I am not of that opinion. Collectivism is cultural, economic, and political poison. That combination has only "done well" in the sense that it wasn't enough poison to kill the patient.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

I was referring to the harm done by communism and fascism, but collectivism did harm to capitalist countries by watering capitalism down with socialist ideas and government programs.

Harm like minimum wage, industrial safety improvements, pollution control and child labor laws?

 

[Ana the Ist]

In I Don't Believe in Atheists Chris Hedges says something to the effect of we may make make scientifc progress but moral progress is a myth.

Personally, I do not believe in any "human progress". Progress implies having a goal. Something abstract like "humanity" cannot have goals. "Hey, humanity! Are you any closer to your goals?".

What I do not get is how people think that we can separate "progress" from all of history. How can people use language, like Hedges does, that suggests that some part of history can be isolated from the rest of history and measured as "progress"?

In What Is America? A Short History of the New World Order Ronald Wright makes the case that Europe used the gold that the Spanish stole from the Aztecs, Inca, etc. to finance the Industrial Revolution. Probably 99% of the people I have known consider plundering and pillaging to be morally repugnant. Meanwhile, Wright--in addition to many other historians and social scientists, I'm sure--makes the case that other things like slavery, child labor, etc. made the Industrial Revolution possible. You know, things that most people consider to be morally wrong.

Yet, somehow--magically, I suppose--apparently "scientific progress", the "standard of living" of Westerners, the "information age", etc. occurred independent of all of those variables that Wright brings up. Apparently that is what we are suppsed to believe, anyway. I have never heard anybody who speaks of "scientific progress" show any awareness of any larger historical context. I certainly have not heard any such person show any awareness of how things that most of us consider to be morally wrong played a role in that "progress".

Do I just have my history, sociology and anthropology all wrong and some variables do in fact change independent of all other variables?

I've long considered interplanetary colonization to be the next "progress goal" for humanity. However, that's mainly because I don't believe we can achieve a peaceful equilibrium amongst ourselves and the planet (in fact, I'm not entirely sure we should).

 

[Eudaimonist]

Harm like minimum wage

Is harmful! Minimum wage laws cause unemployment by knocking out the bottom rungs on the employment ladder. Do a Google on the term "minimum wage harm" and see how many hits you get.

industrial safety improvements, pollution control, child labor laws?

Here, you mention things that aren't particularly collectivistic.

I think that America over-regulates and that much regulation causes a great deal of unintended harm, so I would not count industrial regulations as an unqualified success. I personally would like to see regulations replaced by other legal mechanisms, or at least to have them kept few in number, though I don't see how one can prevent regulatory bureaucracies from over-producing regulations.

Child labor laws are fine to an extent (not all work that children might do is dangerous), and arguably it was rising standards of living that really eliminated child labor, not legislative fiat, but again such laws are hardly collectivistic. It is reasonable for anyone to make a distinction between children and adults for the purpose of law. That isn't like dividing up the nation into rich and poor, or able and needy, or by ethnic groups. If collectivists had started this idea I'll give them all due credit, but this isn't what I'm talking about when I speak of the harmful effects of collectivism.

Anyway, my original point was that moral and social progress seemed to take a dip in the twentieth century with all of the Karl Marx inspired social experiments. The world seems to be recovering from the worst of that. Hopefully, it will recover even further, though I'm not holding my breath.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Everything has some influence on everything else...

Then why do people separate a few variables from the whole of history and treat them like they are independent?

but that does not mean that change in one variable is entirely dependent on changes in other variables in a way that imply any good change is dependent on everything bad that exists (such as immoral institutions)...

Nobody said that.

It was asked how people can separate a few variables from the whole of history and call them "progress".

If one is going to accurately evaluate human history then to the extent possible (the tools we have, the humanities and social sciences, aren't very precise) he/she should take into account every variable and every relationship between variables.

I think that it is dangerous for historians and social scientists to be evaluating things--I am leary of anything other than inquiry that simply seeks explanations. Nonetheless, if people want to deem things in history, society and individual psychology to be "good" or "bad" then they first need to--as much as possible--consider the whole story behind such things.

But my experience has been that the overwhelming majority of people do not consider the whole story. Just because some people like something or consider it to be good does not make it part of a story of "progress".

A good change might even be a moral reaction to something bad, such as the Abolitionist movement opposing the institution of slavery...It was an attempt to erase something bad and to achieve something better...

And since that time we have had the almost complete removal of Native Americans, two world wars, the Holocaust, Chernobyl, September 11, 2001 and countless other things that few people consider to be "good". None of this is analogous to any zero-sum game. It is more analogous to the business cycle. Economists tell us--and show us with the graphs that they like to employ--that there are peaks and valleys in GDP but the overall trend is that the economy is expanding. But they take into account the valleys, not just the peaks, before concluding what the overall trend is. Few would disagree with the assertion that the abolition of slavery was a peak on the graph. But focusing our eyes on a few peaks on a graph does not show one the overall trend.

Again, how can people separate a few variables from the whole of history and call those variables (or the whole) "progress"?

Thus, progress is certainly possible...

I referred to Chris Hedges saying that moral progress is a myth. At the same time, I showed that he concedes that something that I do not believe in, human material progress, may be real. Therefore, the fact that progress in general is possible has never been an issue.

The issue is how people seem to separate a few variables from the whole of history and call them "progress". I asked how anybody can do this.

Even if one is talking about some concept other than history, such as the human condition, there are many variables to be accounted for. Without every variable and every relationship between those variables being accounted for I do not see how anybody can say that anything is "progress" or is part of a larger story of "progress".

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I don't really understand your point (it's late here )...

Philosophical problems like the idea of "human progress" keep me up late.

Banning slavery is moral progress. A greater understanding of the universe is scientific progress...

But they did not occur in a vacuum.

I see no reason to assume that the progress we have seen couldn't have been done without the immorality. It just would have happened differently.

Then there are indepedent variables in human history, society, human psychology, the human condition, etc.?

 

[Paradoxum]

I was referring to the harm done by communism and fascism, but collectivism did harm to capitalist countries by watering capitalism down with socialist ideas and government programs.

I don't know why that is bad. It could probably do with some watering down.

I am not of that opinion. Collectivism is cultural, economic, and political poison. That combination has only "done well" in the sense that it wasn't enough poison to kill the patient.

Why do you think it does harm?

You don' there should be a safety net to help people who lose their job, and to try and keep society civil and decent, rather than have some people fall into poverty?

Philosophical problems like the idea of "human progress" keep me up late.

Really?

But they did not occur in a vacuum.

Sure, I agree. But what is your point after that?

Then there are indepedent variables in human history, society, human psychology, the human condition, etc.?

I think I agree again. I'm not totally sure what you are saying.

I don't think progress inevitably happens, if that's what you mean.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Sure, I agree. But what is your point after that?



I think I agree again. I'm not totally sure what you are saying.

I don't think progress inevitably happens, if that's what you mean.

A book that I want to read (started to try to read years ago; a long, difficult book; now I can't find a copy) is The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics, by Christopher Lasch. Notice the last part of that title--it suggests that the idea of human progress has for a long time been controversial and has had many critics.

Something that I have never heard seems to be the most realistic view: "progress" is subjective. For example, modnernity may be deemed "progress" by many people, but others may say that modernity has been a disaster for humanity and for all living organisms. It depends on who you ask. The subjective nature of any idea of "progress" seems clear.

Nonetheless, a lot of people insist that human progress is an indisputable fact and that anybody who does not accept it is irrational, insane, a hypocrite, a fool, etc. Those champions of "progress" seem to either say that "progress" happened in spite of evil things like the removal of Native Americans, colonial/imperial domination of indigenous peoples by outsiders, the plundering and pillaging of Central and South America by Europeans, etc. or that those things did not contribute in any way to "progress". I have asked how people can make such claims.

When I look at all of the wealth where I live, the United States of America, I do not see the results of any kind of "progress". I see economic and cultural landscapes that are partly--probably mostly--the result of resources being stolen.

Yet, somehow people seem to believe that the way that people like the Native Americans have been treated did not contribute in any way to the accomplishments of the United States of America--things that people like to call "progress". I do not see how they can separate the two.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why do you think it does harm?

Study the history of the body count of fascism and communism in the twentieth century, and you'll get some idea. Even in societies where the poison is less, you'll get harm from strife between groups (collectives) in society, or progressive trampling of respect for the individual.

You don' there should be a safety net to help people who lose their job, and to try and keep society civil and decent, rather than have some people fall into poverty?

Oh, I do support a "safety net", just not one funded by tax dollars and paid for in class warfare. Charitable institutions are fine with me, because they preserve the voluntary and virtuous aspect of helping others, thus not treating individuals as mere tools but rather as rational and moral agents, and this increases the sphere of rational self-direction of individuals that is needed for personal flourishing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

A book that I want to read (started to try to read years ago; a long, difficult book; now I can't find a copy) is The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics, by Christopher Lasch. Notice the last part of that title--it suggests that the idea of human progress has for a long time been controversial and has had many critics.

Something that I have never heard seems to be the most realistic view: "progress" is subjective. For example, modnernity may be deemed "progress" by many people, but others may say that modernity has been a disaster for humanity and for all living organisms. It depends on who you ask. The subjective nature of any idea of "progress" seems clear.

Well it does depend on your fundamental values. If you don't respect other people, then you might think modernity is bad.

Nonetheless, a lot of people insist that human progress is an indisputable fact and that anybody who does not accept it is irrational, insane, a hypocrite, a fool, etc. Those champions of "progress" seem to either say that "progress" happened in spite of evil things like the removal of Native Americans, colonial/imperial domination of indigenous peoples by outsiders, the plundering and pillaging of Central and South America by Europeans, etc. or that those things did not contribute in any way to "progress". I have asked how people can make such claims.

When I look at all of the wealth where I live, the United States of America, I do not see the results of any kind of "progress". I see economic and cultural landscapes that are partly--probably mostly--the result of resources being stolen.

Yet, somehow people seem to believe that the way that people like the Native Americans have been treated did not contribute in any way to the accomplishments of the United States of America--things that people like to call "progress". I do not see how they can separate the two.

I agree that bad things can contribute to progress. Just because slavery might have aided America, that doesn't mean banning slavery wasn't progress.

Study the history of the body count of fascism and communism in the twentieth century, and you'll get some idea. Even in societies where the poison is less, you'll get harm from strife between groups (collectives) in society, or progressive trampling of respect for the individual.

I'm talking about modern developed countries; not communism and fascism.

I don't know what you mean by strife between groups. What are examples?

I also don't see why a mixed economy with regulations would trample the respect of individuals.

Oh, I do support a "safety net", just not one funded by tax dollars and paid for in class warfare. Charitable institutions are fine with me, because they preserve the voluntary and virtuous aspect of helping others, thus not treating individuals as mere tools but rather as rational and moral agents, and this increases the sphere of rational self-direction of individuals that is needed for personal flourishing.

People can pay taxes and be charitable. Taxes also don't treat people as tools, so again, I don't understand what your problem is.