This is Whig history. I am not confidant that we are morally superior to prior generations and that future generations will be morally superior to us. Making this argument would require a non-trivial amount of intellectual labor.
I am not confidant that we are morally superior to prior generations and that future generations will be morally superior to us. Making this argument would require a non-trivial amount of intellectual labor.
A number of people have issued some variant of this response, to which I reply:
We don’t have to say that society is getting better, only that it is changing. If society is not changing then it is stagnant. If society is changing, then those best suited to whatever society currently exists are those born relatively recently.
In other words, maybe the society of 2700 isn’t actually any better than the world of 2200, but it is different. If 2700 is not different than 2200, than society is no longer “evolving”. It is static. However, since 2700 hopefully will be different, the people best suited to live in it are those born in 2650, not those born in 2200.
tl;dr- We don’t have to say that society is getting better. We just have to say that it’s changing and those born most recently are best adapted to it.
There is a significant amount of inferential distance here.
If society is changing, then those best suited to whatever society currently exists are those born relatively recently.
and
However, since 2700 hopefully will be different, the people best suited to live in it are those born in 2650, not those born in 2200.
I do not know what you mean by this. It is not obvious that, at this point in time, those individuals born relatively recently are better suited to current society than those individuals born less recently. However, I also am not sure what you mean by “better suited.” Your language sounds slightly Darwinistic. However, I do not think that you are talking about fitness.
This is Whig history. I am not confidant that we are morally superior to prior generations and that future generations will be morally superior to us. Making this argument would require a non-trivial amount of intellectual labor.
A number of people have issued some variant of this response, to which I reply:
We don’t have to say that society is getting better, only that it is changing. If society is not changing then it is stagnant. If society is changing, then those best suited to whatever society currently exists are those born relatively recently.
In other words, maybe the society of 2700 isn’t actually any better than the world of 2200, but it is different. If 2700 is not different than 2200, than society is no longer “evolving”. It is static. However, since 2700 hopefully will be different, the people best suited to live in it are those born in 2650, not those born in 2200.
tl;dr- We don’t have to say that society is getting better. We just have to say that it’s changing and those born most recently are best adapted to it.
There is a significant amount of inferential distance here.
and
I do not know what you mean by this. It is not obvious that, at this point in time, those individuals born relatively recently are better suited to current society than those individuals born less recently. However, I also am not sure what you mean by “better suited.” Your language sounds slightly Darwinistic. However, I do not think that you are talking about fitness.