4 ms·
> All of which is to say that I think we've solved some violence with sheer wealth, some with fear of the state, and perhaps very little with our "better angels
by cgmg 9y ago
> All of which is to say that I think we've solved some violence with sheer wealth, some with fear of the state, and perhaps very little with our "better angels".
I think moral standards, at large, have certainly improved. The very concept of human rights, as understood today, was alien not so long ago. Same applies to concepts like presumption of innocence, equality before the law, equality of genders and ethinicities, freedom of the press, international laws regarding war/plunder/noncombatants, etc.
Peter Singer's concept of The Expanding Circle is relevant here.
- Bartweiss 9y ago> Peter Singer's concept of The Expanding Circle is relevant here. That's a work I can support, definitely. I don't mean to sound too cynical; it's easy to get caught up in presentism and forget that basic ideas like "what if racism is bad?" and "should we maybe stop doing torture?" are relatively recent. My concern with Pinker is less that nothing has gotten better, and more that he seems overly rosy about the decline of violence (I worry we've largely displaced it and rendered it intermittent) and that he appears to frame moral progress as some kind of fundamental improvement in the moral nature of humans or society. I'm much more inclined to Singer's argument, that we're the same semi-moral creatures we've always been, but have done steadily better at acknowledging the moral weight of groups other than our own.