DE-MORALIZATION AS EMANCIPATION: LIBERTY, PROGRESS, AND THE EVOLUTION OF INVALID MORAL NORMS *

2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 108-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen Buchanan ◽  
Russell Powell

Abstract:Liberal thinkers of the Enlightenment understood that surplus moral constraints, imposed by invalid moral norms, are a serious limitation on liberty. They also recognized that overcoming surplus moral constraints — what we call proper de-moralization — is an important dimension of moral progress. Contemporary philosophical theorists of liberty have largely neglected the threat that surplus moral constraints pose to liberty and the importance of proper de-moralization for human emancipation. This essay examines the phenomena of surplus moral constraints and proper de-moralization, utilizing insights from biological and cultural evolutionary thinking

Author(s):  
Allen Buchanan ◽  
Russell Powell

The idea of moral progress played a central role in liberal political thought from the Enlightenment through the nineteenth century but is rarely encountered in moral and political philosophical discourse today. One reason for this is that traditional liberal theorists of moral progress, like their conservative detractors, tended to rely on underevidenced assumptions about human psychology and society. For the first time in history, we are developing robust scientific knowledge about human nature, especially through empirical psychological theories of morality and culture that are informed by evolutionary theory. In addition, the social sciences now provide better information about which social arrangements are feasible and sustainable and about how social norms arise, change, and come to shape moral thought and behavior. Accordingly, it is time to revisit the question of moral progress. On the surface, evolutionary accounts of morality paint a pessimistic picture, suggesting that certain types of moral progress are unrealistic or inappropriate for beings like us. In brief, humans are said to be “hard-wired” for rather limited moral capacities. However, such a view overlooks the great plasticity of human morality as evidenced by our history of social and political moral achievements. To account for these changes while giving evolved moral psychology its due, we develop a dynamic, biocultural theory of moral progress that highlights the interaction between adaptive components of moral psychology and the cultural construction of moral norms and beliefs; and we explore how this interaction can advance, impede, and reverse moral progress.


2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-194
Author(s):  
Allen Buchanan ◽  
Russell Powell

Abstract The idea of moral progress played a central role in liberal political thought from the Enlightenment through the nineteenth century but is rarely encountered in moral and political philosophical discourse today. One reason for this is that traditional liberal theorists of moral progress, like their conservative detractors, tended to rely on under-evidenced assumptions about human psychology and society. For the first time, we are developing robust scientific knowledge about human nature, especially through empirical psychological theories of morality and culture that are informed by evolutionary theory. On the surface, evolutionary accounts of morality paint a rather pessimistic picture of human moral nature, suggesting that certain types of moral progress are unrealistic or inappropriate for beings like us. Humans are said to be ‘hard-wired’ for tribalism. However, such a view overlooks the great plasticity of human morality as evidenced by our history of social and political moral achievements. To account for these changes while giving evolved moral psychology its due, we develop a dynamic, biocultural theory of moral progress that highlights the interaction between adaptive components of moral psychology and the cultural construction of moral norms and beliefs, and we explore how this interaction can advance, impede, and reverse moral progress.


Author(s):  
R. Jay Wallace

Moral sentiments are those feelings or emotions central to moral agency. Aristotle treated sentiments as nonrational conditions, capable of being moulded into virtues through habituation. The moral sense theorists of the Enlightenment took sentiments to provide the psychological basis for our common moral life. Kantian approaches deny the primacy of sentiments in moral personality, and treat moral sentiments as conditioned by our rational grasp of moral principles. A central issue is whether moral sentiments incorporate moral beliefs. Accounts which affirm a connection with moral beliefs point to the complex intentionality (object-directedness) of such states as resentment or indignation. Against this, some observe that moral emotions may be felt inappropriately. Of special interest are the sentiments of guilt and shame. These seem to reflect different orientations towards moral norms, and questions arise about the degree to which these different orientations are culturally local, and whether either orientation is superior to the other.


Author(s):  
David Bromwich

Liberty of thought and discussion, as it came to be understood in Europe and North America, arose from the schismatic energies of the Protestant reformation and the political idealisms of the Enlightenment. The uncertain future of the principle can be estimated by the spread of demands for codified speech and the widening context of recent proposals for censorship—proposals that are often advanced in the cause of cultural identity and sensitivity. Libertarian writings by Milton and Mill are pertinent for their emphasis on the connection between free speech and “moral courage,” and for their warning against the supposition that the future course of moral progress is already known to some people. The distinction between words and actions is worth preserving, as much as the distinction between persuasion and force. Censorship presumes an innocence in the censor that can never be humanly tenable.


2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 467-484
Author(s):  
Paul Morrow

Abstract Philosophical accounts of moral progress commonly acknowledge the problem of mass atrocities. But the implications of such events for our ability to perceive, and achieve, progress are rarely considered in detail. This paper aims to address this gap. The paper takes as its starting point Allen Buchanan’s evolutionary theory of moral progress in his 2020 book Our Moral Fate. Through critical analysis of Buchanan’s theory, the paper shows that moral philosophers seeking to draw evidence from atrocities must pay closer attention to social scientific research into such crimes, and particularly to findings concerning the diverse motives, intentions, and ideological influences on perpetrators. At the same time, the paper suggests that mass atrocities exhibit the action-guiding influence not only of moral norms, but also of social and legal norms. The paper concludes by briefly considering the significance of mass atrocities for theories of moral progress beyond Our Moral Fate.


Author(s):  
Allen Buchanan

The focus in this volume is on the implications of the biological evolutionary origins of morality for the possibilities for moral progress. It makes no attempt to cast an account of the conditions under which progress or regression occurs in terms of cultural evolutionary explanations. The most rigorous, mathematically modeled cultural evolutionary explanations are of the “invisible hand” variety: they present cultural changes as the unintended emergent results of the actions of many individuals. Consequently, such explanations have limited applicability to cases of cultural change, including those that are morally progressive, which are the intended results of actions guided by moral reflection or changes in moral beliefs. Nonetheless, as analyses of the explanations of reductions in violence offered by the likes of Norbert Elias and Steven Pinker suggest, cultural evolutionary explanations of the invisible hand sort may be important pieces of the larger puzzle of moral progress.


Author(s):  
Henry Richardson

The book’s primary aim is to set out an account of how the moral community—the community of all persons—can fill in gaps in morality that result from indeterminacies in objective morality by authoritatively adopting new moral norms. “Morality” is here taken to refer to the norms binding on all persons, making no distinctions purely on the basis of person’s particular identities (as distinct from their features). Reducing indeterminacies in morality stands as a potential source of moral progress—one quite distinct from that of reducing our moral ignorance. Moral indeterminacy can arise in relation to wholly novel moral questions or clashes of incommensurable moral considerations. Illustrative possible cases of newly introduced moral norms are given. For the moral community to exercise moral authority, it must find its voice. The book’s three-stage account of that process is previewed, as are the individual chapters.


Author(s):  
Allen Buchanan

The focus of this chapter shifts from moral progress in the form of inclusion to moral progress in the dimension of “de-moralization,” which occurs when behavior once thought to be morally impermissible comes to be seen as morally neutral or even laudable. The chapter shows that evolutionary processes act as both constraints and enablers in this important dimension of moral progress and then draws upon this analysis to rebut a different set of evoconservative arguments that view de-moralization as a hubristic endeavor that is bound to have unintended bad consequences. These evoconservative arguments are premised on overly simplified conceptions of evolutionary theory, and as a result they underestimate the extent to which cultural evolution permits the origin, proliferation, and preservation of invalid moral norms. Although the conservative worry that de-moralization (or other forms of moral reform, for that matter) could result in unintended bad consequences is valid, contained and limited experiments in de-moralization can manage this risk without forgoing the benefits of emancipation from invalid moral constraints.


1998 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 421-445 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Perkins

Increasing compassion for animals led in Wordsworth's era to a polemic against hunting. Wordsworth's "Hart-Leap Well" is part of this campaign. Wordsworth's strategy and arguments in the second part of "Hart-Leap Well" are typical of the discourses that attacked hunting, chiefly for its cruelty, but Wordsworth was unusual in also leading readers in the first part of the poem to sympathize with the hunter's emotions, and he illustrates in the figure of Sir Walter the warrior virtues that hunting was said by its defenders to inculcate. The poem reaches more deeply, however, to explore irrational grounds of hunting's appeal in Sir Walter's enlarged sense of secure dominance, power, lust, and megalomania in the aftermath of the chase. As with Coleridge's Ancient Mariner, egoistic self-assertion expresses itself in killing an animal and is figured as solitude. Just as Sir Walter embodies "the coarser pleasures of my boyish days" (as Wordsworth represents them in various poems), the figure of the poet possesses the more reflective, sensitive, and profound awareness that Wordsworth credits to his adult self. In "Hart-Leap Well" Sir Walter's mentality is that of the historical past, and the poet's represents the future. The poem offers a version of the Enlightenment plot of history as the moral progress of mankind. But in the end the poem may contemplate, with pleasure, the vanishing of mankind from the face of the earth, while nature remains in its beauty.


2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie Bronstein

The Enlightenment bequeathed to us the notion that the human mind can and should dominate over nature—that there is nothing we cannot know or should not attempt. And, in fact, there is something to be said for this position, since a truthful historian has to admit that standards of living have generally been greatly bettered by the technology of the last two centuries. Without confidence in our ability to remake nature, the great medical advances of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries would never have been possible: antisepsis, the discovery of the tuberculosis bacillus, sulfa drugs, the polio vaccine. Like twentieth-century researchers who faced polio and smallpox, Mark Walker has perhaps identified the central ethical malady of our twenty-first century civilization—how the lack of virtue impedes our moral progress. And just as biological researchers sought to use science to eradicate these diseases, so Walker seeks to use genetic manipulation to eradicate evil.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document