Is There a Trend of Moral Progress in the World, and What Is Its Significance?

The rabbi’s opening post

Is There a Trend of Moral Progress in the World, and What Is Its Significance?

Sent on 7/12/2007

In a discussion I had today with one of my friends, a point arose that I would be happy to hear the esteemed public’s opinion on.

He argued that morality is relative, since there are different norms in different societies, and therefore in his view everything is a matter of social constructs. I argued against him that although there are indeed different norms in different societies, one should note two important points:

1. There are quite a few norms that are almost universal (this is the standard argument against claims that rely on the existence of moral relativism).

2. The direction of value-based progress seems to follow a uniform trend (toward the West), and this points to an objective aspect in this value system.

I would like to discuss the second point here (only, as far as possible).

Clarification: In what follows I will use the term ‘Western values’ (freedom, equality, rights, and opportunities for everyone, etc.) and ‘moral values’ in parallel. The differences among Western approaches concern mainly the relative weight and priorities of freedom versus equality, but in the West there is no real dispute about the very validity of these values. In what follows I will use ‘moral progress’ and ‘progress toward Western values’ synonymously (although one could certainly debate this in detail, I would appreciate it if this point were not the main focus).

I have a sense that under ordinary conditions, when a society undergoes a change in values, without artificial and exceptional external pressure (military, economic, or otherwise), the direction in which the society advances is almost always positive (in the sense of the values of the democratic West). For example, a totalitarian society that undergoes a change of values from within itself, or under nonviolent foreign influence, will generally (or perhaps always) become more moral and more democratic; but a democratic society does not on its own become totalitarian or become a society that does not uphold values of equality, rights, and the like.

My sense is that non-democratic parts of the world tend, through normal and ordinary processes, to become democratic, but the reverse process does not occur, except perhaps under military pressure (a violent coup, etc.) or the like. Equality and individual rights, in normal processes, increase rather than diminish. Therefore traditional societies also feel threatened by modern-democratic societies (= what is sometimes called ‘Western culture’), but the other side does not tend to move toward the more traditional, less egalitarian side. If there is a sense of pressure among democratic and open societies (and there certainly is such pressure), it is mainly fear of a forceful takeover or coercion, and less fear of cultural takeover through normal evolutionary processes.

If my sense is indeed correct, and there really is such a trend, it seems to me that this points to something objective in these values, even though at any given moment they are not agreed upon and do not prevail in the same way in all societies. Still, the trend is that they spread rather than contract.

All of these are mainly intuitions, which occurred to me in the course of discussion and without any real investigation. I would be glad to discuss the following points:

1. Am I correct, from the historical standpoint, at least with respect to the last two hundred or three hundred years? And if it was not so earlier, why did this change itself come about?

2. How can one define a ‘normal’ evolutionary process of ‘peaceful’ change in values? I contrast this with change that results from external pressures (for this purpose, any pressure that is not a change of values brought about through persuasion is ‘external’). Such ‘external’ pressures can take the form of economic pressures, or social anarchy, or wars and coups. All of these can reverse the direction of change. Is there indeed a ‘normal state’ of transformative change in values (or is every change the result of pressures that I would call ‘external’)?

3. Assuming that I am indeed correct in identifying the dominant trend, am I correct in the conclusion I drew from it, namely, that there is an objective dimension (and not a relative one, which is the product of social construction) in Western values? Does the clear trend in the direction of normal cultural development indeed point to a universal feature of these values?

4. Of course, these processes can also be described in evolutionary terms or similar ones. For example, a utilitarian argument: a society will become more egalitarian or democratic because it is in the interest of citizens that they have rights. But the centers of power do not necessarily have an interest in moving in this direction, and yet we find that elites often concern themselves with the rights of the lower and less influential classes. And an evolutionary argument: a society is more resilient if it is democratic or egalitarian, and therefore that is the direction of progress. Even if this is true (and I am not at all sure that it is), it is still not clear why and how these processes occur at the local level (that is, why a given society in a given situation consciously chooses to advance in this direction?). Evolution is a global-teleological description, but I am interested in local-causal processes.

Do these arguments refute the conclusion I drew from these processes?

Source (forum ‘Atzor Kan Choshvim’): http://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=2325644