> Humanity seems to have progressively improved in the treatment of the underclass (e.g., slavery, poverty) Yeah, I don't buy that. At least not in this simpli

> Humanity seems to have progressively improved in the treatment of the underclass (e.g., slavery, poverty) Yeah, I don't buy that. At least not in this simplified form of the "moral progress narrative". While it is true that many modern societies at least nominally try to treat the underclass well, this is by no means a global undertaking, nor is it always successful. Slavery and poverty are alive and well. Human nature hasn't changed - we still have a phenomenal capacity for ignoring the suffering of others, especially when that suffering is conveniently far away. We have an equally great capacity for actively tolerating, or even directly causing this suffering, when it benefits us. "A society is measured by how it treats its weakest members", but this measure is (if at all) only weakly related with "civilisational progress". Many of the great civilisations of the past were absolutely barbaric, many of the advanced nations of the modern world continue to be - or at times, fall back into such a pattern. In the West, the combination of Christian ethics and Enlightenment ideals seem, on the whole, to have brought localised improvements for the underclass. But there are sufficient areas in which Western countries continue to ignore suffering, and multiple examples of "social moral progress" rapidly degrading into stark, ruthless, violence against the weak.