The progress vs. drift framing neglects the possibility that moral decay can exist from a quasi-realist perspective: that people in the past got some things right that people today are getting wrong. I don’t think this should be a particularly out-there hypothesis in the current year?
Right. Take nearly any person who lived >~ 500 years ago, drop them in the modern world, and they’ll think that all the cool tech is great but also that we’re clearly living in a time of moral decay.
I’m pretty suspicious of anyone claiming progress or decay in any absolute sense. I’m happy to admit there’s been progress or decay relative to some ethical framing, but it’s hard to justify that “no, really, we got morality right this time, or at least less wrong” when for literally the entirety of human history people would plausibly have made this same claim and many would have found it convincing.
Thus, it seems there’s insufficient information in the evidence about claims of progress or decay.
The progress vs. drift framing neglects the possibility that moral decay can exist from a quasi-realist perspective: that people in the past got some things right that people today are getting wrong. I don’t think this should be a particularly out-there hypothesis in the current year?
Right. Take nearly any person who lived >~ 500 years ago, drop them in the modern world, and they’ll think that all the cool tech is great but also that we’re clearly living in a time of moral decay.
I’m pretty suspicious of anyone claiming progress or decay in any absolute sense. I’m happy to admit there’s been progress or decay relative to some ethical framing, but it’s hard to justify that “no, really, we got morality right this time, or at least less wrong” when for literally the entirety of human history people would plausibly have made this same claim and many would have found it convincing.
Thus, it seems there’s insufficient information in the evidence about claims of progress or decay.