Are people actually more morally enlightened now than they were in the past?

[All Along The Watchtower]

I am posing this question because of the routine "he/she/they were a product of their times" explanation (excuse?) for say, racism, sexism, etc. at whatever point in History.

Leaving aside the blatantly obvious fact that everyone is a product of their times (ourselves included), so this tells us nothing...on what grounds do we, in our own temporal historical existence, believe ourselves to be superior to our ancestors on a moral level? Judge not lest ye be judged yourself. Both our ancestors and our descendants could condemn us for all kinds of modern horrors.

I'll give one provocative but illustrative example: at the height of Liberal/"Progressive" Western Modernity (the late 19th-early 20th century), highly educated, sophisticated elites were congratulating themselves for evolving beyond old-fashioned, retrograde religious anti-Semitism - in favor, of course, of biologically-based anti-Semitism, scientific racism, eugenics. I'm confident you all know the rest of the story.

Is this not the ultimate conceit, total hubris, the sheer gall of believing that we can escape from History and human nature? The philosophers, theologians, and scholars of old would have had a dark chuckle about the World Wars, the nuclear age, man-made climate catastrophe, the sheer incompe-malice of governments around the world when faced with the COVID-19 pandemic - not to mention, all of the social media and entertainment technologies that are atomizing us and melting our brains. We are base reactive reactionaries who posses the most destructive of advanced technologies. There's your modern "progress."

Anyway, enough of my pontificating. Let's discuss the question in the thread title.

[Mr. Smith]

no

[°Leprechaun]

You don't have to be a genius to believe that war is not the best way to resolve conflicts or that climate change is bad. It's common sense. I believe both, but that by itself doesn't make me morally enlightened. Although we need to make progress on these two problems, certainly in other ways, the world has made a lot of progress. For example, life expectancy has gone up.

[vitoNova]

It's probably more like a wave-type pattern. 

[2952-0-0]

My theory is that we're much more materially wealthier, and the wealth is available to the masses. This means that we have too much at stake to indulge in conflicts, but doesn't mean we're less willing to engage in conflicts.

[Del Tachi]

On the contrary we are, in general, much more morally and spiritually depraved than our ancestors.

[PSOL]

On the contrary we are, in general, much more morally and spiritually depraved than our ancestors.

I have to agree with this, we need to adopt the morality of our Paleolithic ancestors; a time before oppressive hierarchies.

[John Dule]

On the contrary we are, in general, much more morally and spiritually depraved than our ancestors.

I have to agree with this, we need to adopt the morality of our Paleolithic ancestors; a time before oppressive hierarchies.

Yeah, we need to return to a society dominated not by titans of industry who earned their riches by offering goods and services that immeasurably improved the lives of their fellow man, but rather by whoever had the biggest rock.

[Geoffrey Howe]

On the contrary we are, in general, much more morally and spiritually depraved than our ancestors.

I have to agree with this, we need to adopt the morality of our Paleolithic ancestors; a time before oppressive hierarchies.

Maurice Quentin de La Tour, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

[PSOL]

On the contrary we are, in general, much more morally and spiritually depraved than our ancestors.

I have to agree with this, we need to adopt the morality of our Paleolithic ancestors; a time before oppressive hierarchies.

Yeah, we need to return to a society dominated not by titans of industry who earned their riches by offering goods and services that immeasurably improved the lives of their fellow man, but rather by whoever had the biggest rock.

Note that I said we should adopt several of their values, not return to their material reality.

@Geoffrey I don’t get it?

[John Dule]

On the contrary we are, in general, much more morally and spiritually depraved than our ancestors.

I have to agree with this, we need to adopt the morality of our Paleolithic ancestors; a time before oppressive hierarchies.

Yeah, we need to return to a society dominated not by titans of industry who earned their riches by offering goods and services that immeasurably improved the lives of their fellow man, but rather by whoever had the biggest rock.

Note that I said we should adopt several of their values, not return to their material reality.

In either case, it's a complete meme that paleolithic cultures didn't have hierarchies. Hierarchy predates human evolution; it was not a product of agriculture, capitalism, or any of the other boogeymen that anarcho-primitivists condemn.

[Geoffrey Howe]

On the contrary we are, in general, much more morally and spiritually depraved than our ancestors.

I have to agree with this, we need to adopt the morality of our Paleolithic ancestors; a time before oppressive hierarchies.

Yeah, we need to return to a society dominated not by titans of industry who earned their riches by offering goods and services that immeasurably improved the lives of their fellow man, but rather by whoever had the biggest rock.

Note that I said we should adopt several of their values, not return to their material reality.

@Geoffrey I don’t get it?

Can you not find who it is?

[PSOL]

On the contrary we are, in general, much more morally and spiritually depraved than our ancestors.

I have to agree with this, we need to adopt the morality of our Paleolithic ancestors; a time before oppressive hierarchies.

Yeah, we need to return to a society dominated not by titans of industry who earned their riches by offering goods and services that immeasurably improved the lives of their fellow man, but rather by whoever had the biggest rock.

Note that I said we should adopt several of their values, not return to their material reality.

In either case, it's a complete meme that paleolithic cultures didn't have hierarchies. Hierarchy predates human evolution; it was not a product of agriculture, capitalism, or any of the other boogeymen that anarcho-primitivists condemn.

What’s certain is that they weren’t as rigid or as difficult to avoid as the hierarchies established in the start of sedentary societies dependent on agriculture.

@G, no I did but I don’t get it. What does a portrait painter have to do with this?

[MaximaEt_Illustratum]

On the contrary we are, in general, much more morally and spiritually depraved than our ancestors.

I have to agree with this, we need to adopt the morality of our Paleolithic ancestors; a time before oppressive hierarchies.

Yeah, we need to return to a society dominated not by titans of industry who earned their riches by offering goods and services that immeasurably improved the lives of their fellow man, but rather by whoever had the biggest rock.

Which is why Bloomberg, an elitist technocrat extreme self-made Master of the Universe/Captain of Industry who revolutionized the financial industry with the Bloomberg Terminal and is using his money to stop coal and tobacco companies from murdering infants, should've been the nominee, right?

But you seemed to hate him during the primaries.

This post was sponsored by the Committee to Elect Michael R. Bloomberg (D) 2020

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

On the contrary we are, in general, much more morally and spiritually depraved than our ancestors.

I have to agree with this, we need to adopt the morality of our Paleolithic ancestors; a time before oppressive hierarchies.

Yeah, we need to return to a society dominated not by titans of industry who earned their riches by offering goods and services that immeasurably improved the lives of their fellow man, but rather by whoever had the biggest rock.

Note that I said we should adopt several of their values, not return to their material reality.

In either case, it's a complete meme that paleolithic cultures didn't have hierarchies. Hierarchy predates human evolution; it was not a product of agriculture, capitalism, or any of the other boogeymen that anarcho-primitivists condemn.

What’s certain is that they weren’t as rigid or as difficult to avoid as the hierarchies established in the start of sedentary societies dependent on agriculture.

@G, no I did but I don’t get it. What does a portrait painter have to do with this?

It's a portrait of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

My moral opinions are correct, and people living today are closest to those. So objectively yes.

[Big Abraham]

My moral opinions are correct, and people living today are closest to those. So objectively yes.

I can't tell if this is satire.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

On the contrary we are, in general, much more morally and spiritually depraved than our ancestors.

I have to agree with this, we need to adopt the morality of our Paleolithic ancestors; a time before oppressive hierarchies.

Yeah, we need to return to a society dominated by whoever had the biggest rock.

Based

[All Along The Watchtower]

Our most worrisome trend is in the tendency of human behavior to become more computer-like as our reliance on computer technology becomes more total.

The universal everywhere seems to be advancing at the expense of the particular, and humans everywhere are losing their grip on vernacular structures of socialization, production, political control, and wisdom.

One risk implicit in this trend is of sliding into a techno-bureaucratic totalitarianism, a polity in which everyone feels helpless to do anything aside from the rule-bound pursuit of individual pleasure.

Another problem is the growing divide between those whose lives are lived mostly "above the API" (i.e. you spend your time telling computers what to do) and those whose lives are lived mostly "below the API" (i.e. you are constantly taking orders from a computer). Uber drivers are an obvious example of the latter, but even professions that involve a great deal of training and that historically enjoyed a wide degree of independence are caught up on this side of the divide.

Traditionally high-status, high-autonomy groups that are now mostly below-the-API include doctors, teachers, and cops. Quite a lot of the tumult in health care, education, and law enforcement makes more sense if you view those trends in terms of a collapse in professional authority begotten from the greatly increased control that management has taken in these sectors, enabled by its unprecedented capabilities for monitoring and quantification.

This Machine Kills (Humanity as we know it)

[All Along The Watchtower]

Averroes, your post reminds me of something I remember reading about the professionalization of business management/executives in the form of more executives graduating from business schools and management becoming a career unto itself, as opposed to being the consequence of years of promotion from within the same company. This trend was posited as beginning in the mid-20th century but has long since become the norm. The article, which I cannot find at the moment, was about the business management side of  neoliberalism but it strikes me that the logic of professional, highly credentialed mercenaries becoming managers, administrators, and executives has become hegemonic over all aspects of American life.

I mean, look at political campaigns. It used to be that there was maybe one Machiavellian strategist, a couple of classic machine hacks, and maybe one or two consultants from Madison Avenue or wherever if your campaign was a Big Deal (more importantly, campaign managers often had a preexisting relationship with the candidate, for better and/or worse).  Now political campaigns are careers—no, professions—unto themselves, and the people who don’t end up rich from such a career can be plausibly called “losers.” And of course, that’s not even getting into how the so-called “permanent campaign” has cannibalized everything from professional expertise in Congress to the daily schedules of the President of the United States. As for the media’s relationship to all of this…don’t get me started.

I’m sure you have thoughts on this!

[Statilius the Epicurean]

My moral opinions are correct, and people living today are closest to those. So objectively yes.

I can't tell if this is satire.

Excellent.

[afleitch]

I mean slavery has been abolished, women vote and we don't torture gays. At least in most western countries and we criticise those where this is not the case. This isn't some philosophical exercise; there's practical reasons to answer, in many cases, yes.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

We guarantee (or at least make an attempt) at guaranteeing certain universal human rights. We fight each other less over land and resources and fewer people die in war. Developed nations feed and protect the vulnerable, people with disabilities, people of different backgrounds and creeds. Some of us extend similar kindness to sick or abused animals purely for the well-being of the animal.

And although I lament the changing/decline of religion and spirituality, at least more of the faithful have the opportunity to choose their faith rather than blindly follow the path of a king or dictator. And as afleitch said, we criticize those parts of the world that don't guarantee basic gender equality, religious tolerance, or torture their own people.

Yes, people are more morally enlightened now. And no matter how bad things may seem now, we are still enjoying better health care and education than our richest forebears did. Clearly, something went right.

Sure it isn't perfect, and certain things have regressed, but on the whole the best time to be alive is the present. What society needs morally, as far as can be reasonably attained, are stronger community ties and civic engagement. Be that a church, rotary club, Peace Corps, Scouts, or anything that fosters common trust and personal growth.

[Cassius]

Morality is in the eye of the beholder so... no.

Aside from that, even if we take standard liberal humanist morality, if you point to things like better treatment of the vulnerable, the disabled, outsiders etc, I truly believe the primary reason for that is simply the fact that increased material wealth and technological progress have enabled it to happen, rather than people having, in some esoteric way, become more 'moral' than they were five hundred, one thousand or ten thousand years ago. People didn't expose disabled babies (generally speaking) because 'the cruelty is the point', they exposed them because they didn't have the wherewithal to care for them (nor, in a lot of cases, did the technology exist to keep them alive), and frankly the same is true for so many other examples of moral progress. People didn't change because they became morally better, they changed because the circumstances of the society in which they lived changed, something that enabled them to change also.

If you read something like the Old Testament, even though there are things that are, for many in modern society, utterly bizarre and difficult to understand, there is still an overlap between many of the values expressed in that book (well, books) and the values of modern, liberal, humanist society (indeed much of the latter is drawn directly from Christianity, Judaism etc). In fact, even if you read something like the Iliad, which is arguably even more alien to the values of modern society than parts of the Old Testament, you still find large areas of overlap. Human values in many ways haven't changed significantly, but of course society has changed significantly and thus the way in which those values are put into practice has changed significantly alongside it. This is why morality is in the eye of the beholder; all of us are prisoners of the circumstances into which we were born, the circumstances in which we grew up and the circumstances that we live now, which inevitably reorders our moral priorities. Suppose some great societal shock threw back material wealth and technological progress across the board. I suspect in that scenario many of the advances that Scott identifies above would be thrown back with them.

On the other side of the coin, technological progress and material wealth don't necessarily have to correlate with progress towards liberal humanism (and of course, assuming that liberal humanism is per se 'good' is something else in the eye of the beholder). The former can actually create more violence and suffering; in many parts of the world the 20th century was considerably more violent and brutal than any century that came before, something that was, in part, enabled by technological advances. As for the latter, it's difficult to say that many of the more sophisticated regimes that emerged throughout history were less brutal than their more primitive antecedents. Which was more brutal: a Germanic tribe in the 1st century AD, or the Greater German Reich of Adolf Hitler (not positing direct continuity between the two obviously)?

Modern society has many, many problems that older societies did not have to face (and ones that they did have to face, just in a different guise). We in the West occupy a position of extreme privilege vis a vis our ancestors and, indeed, much of the rest of the modern world. That doesn't mean we'll keep the position of privilege that has enabled some of the developments that Scott described, nor does it means that future developments won't force us to make horribly difficult choices that won't look good from a future perspective, or indeed from the perspectives of the past. We should be very weary of saying that we are more morally enlightened than those in the past simply because we've had the luck of being born into such materially wealthy circumstances.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

If you read something like the Old Testament, even though there are things that are, for many in modern society, utterly bizarre and difficult to understand, there is still an overlap between many of the values expressed in that book (well, books) and the values of modern, liberal, humanist society (indeed much of the latter is drawn directly from Christianity, Judaism etc). In fact, even if you read something like the Iliad, which is arguably even more alien to the values of modern society than parts of the Old Testament, you still find large areas of overlap. Human values in many ways haven't changed significantly, but of course society has changed significantly and thus the way in which those values are put into practice has changed significantly alongside it. This is why morality is in the eye of the beholder; all of us are prisoners of the circumstances into which we were born, the circumstances in which we grew up and the circumstances that we live now, which inevitably reorders our moral priorities. Suppose some great societal shock threw back material wealth and technological progress across the board. I suspect in that scenario many of the advances that Scott identifies above would be thrown back with them.

Well I certainly don't believe that a reversion in technological progress would lead to reinstatement of slavery or the ideology that inspired it. Unless you're going full materialist (or relativist) here, there is inherent meaning in the development of human thought. A moral thought or idea might be influenced by material conditions, but the extent to which material conditions are tied to the evolution of moral human thought is not a testable theory.

Ideas are intangible things. And I think the ever-changing norms on gender and sexuality (i.e. 18-year-olds with 12-year-olds no longer being okay, teachers not being acceptable sexual partners to their prepubescent students, sex not only being defined as an act that involves a penis, thereby disqualifying lesbians as, uh, lesbians, etc.) is proof that, at the very least, material wealth and technological progress are not the sole drivers of evolution in morality or cultural norms.

The World Wars marked a turning point in how geopolitics works. Europe is no longer an incomprehensible mess of tribes constantly at war with each other, or fighting strong men like Napoleon or Hitler. They are nation states, and a proper historical education is why there is no "Lost Cause theory for the Third Reich" the same way there is for another country that no longer exists (ingrained in Southern culture and printed in textbooks nationwide).