Does the arc of the moral universe bend towards justice? CAN we all just get along?

Great Debates
41

The Late Bronze Age Collapse is probably a perfect example.

It’s a combination of factors at play, but I think they boil down to the evolution of human society and the nature of the environment. Accumulation and equilibrium depend on the forces involved and their momentum. We are talking about living things that can coagulate in organized groups with an insatiable desire to reshape and control their surroundings. Initially, the lack of resources and a focus on survival may result in long periods of stagnation. When the natural environment seems to be almost entirely under control and energy is readily available, the main obstacle in reaching thieir goals are their human competitors.

42

Let me quote myself as lead in to reframe my thoughts.

Technological advancement is not a linear progression nor an unbroken zigzag of improvement. But the Dark Ages weren’t the complete setback they are often depicted as. While Europe was struggling, China and the Middle East were still carrying on.

But if what we are taking about is the arc of the moral universe, technology is not really the deciding factor.

Some might think that science played a large role, as a replacement to superstitious thought, and maybe there’s an element to that, but I don’t think that’s the biggest driver.

Rather, I think what has set the arc of the moral universe is the balance of power. When a few bullies have the power, then they use it for their own advantage and screw everyone else. Biggest bully wins.

But as society spreads wealth and power downward, then the moral status of those people start to become more relevant as they grow power as a group.

Consider the transformation from Empire to “democracy” of the Greeks. Power shifted to a larger subset of the population, who took to looking after themselves.

The transformation of the Roman Republic to the Empire shows a reversal of moral concern. Yes, slavery existed in the Republic, but the empire was built on the backs of conquering foreign lands in brutal ways, and the Colloseum was a product of the Empire.

Similarly, look at the history in Europe and the growth of the merchant class distributed wealth beyond the few nobles to larger groups, who in turn pressed for controls on the nobility. The famed Magna Carta is precisely that - the merchant class fighting for some push back against the monarchy.

The Enlightenment is very much part and parcel of the rise of the non-noble merchant that has wealth.

You see it again in the fight of the American colonies for protections for themselves.

While the French Revolution and counter-revolution may feel like a counter trend, understand the fight for a power shift can be brutal to lead to a more humane outcome.

Again, the spread of moral goodness has come largely on the backs of the fight to include more diversity into the holders of power. Women getting the vote, civil rights, secularism and allowing diverse religions inclusivity, gay rights, Me Too, and even the efforts at Trans inclusivity - all are demonstrations of allowing a more diverse set of people to be included in the levers of power, whether it’s voting or running for office or getting to the top of businesses.

And yes, altruistic allies are an integral part, but they have to have their ideals alerted, too.

So currently we are seeing a sad and scary reversion, a reversal of the previous decades of moral improvement. We are seeing a grasp of the formerly priveleged fighting to recreate that privilege by oppression.

My observation is that it seems like the generation that dealt with the last big global catastrophe and the fallout therefrom - WWII to the Cold War - are dying off, and so the lessens of WWII are fading. Some people are beginning to think they should try it.

Thus, the christo- fascist oppressive regime is vying to take control, to throw off all the attacks on their privilege that most of us call progress.

But the saying doesn’t go “the arc of the moral universe is a straight line of improvement,” rather that it bends toward moral goodness over time. But it’s not a smooth arc, it’s a wiggly zigzag that looks like it’s going the other way some times.

I’m hoping the zigzag reverts sooner than later.

43

That was a wonderful post. Thank you.

I’ll explicitly emphasize a point you made sorta between the lines.

The duration of each of those zigs and zags generally significantly exceeds a single human lifetime. We are sort of conditioned by the recent example of Nazism that an evil can arise & be vanquished within a decade-ish. That is not how history has generally worked.

From e.g. 1950 to 2010 we in the West made a good deal of moral progress. Call that 60 years. Relatively few people who were adults at the 1945 nadir lived to see the 2010 apex of Progress.

The currently starting backlash may well take 60 years to get to its nadir, then another 60 to climb back to where we are today. Then real progress can begin again. If, and only if, we can sustain the collective desire for it over the objections of the elites who want to hog it all for themselves.

Improving society for everyone is the work of centuries, not of 4-year terms.


Having said all that, it’s certainly at least plausible that politics runs faster in an internet-enabled planet with jets and rockets than it did in Napoleon’s or Caesar’s time. But despite being plausible, it might not really be true. We shall see.

Human nature is eternal and the power of modern tech to produce a more stable 1984-style techno-police state is just now being developed by the Chinese. We don’t yet know just how balefully effective that can become.

44

Natural selection isn’t just about keeping the individual alive — it also leans hard into traits that help family members survive too, since they share a lot of the same DNA. That’s why ants and bees will literally sacrifice themselves for the colony. They’re not being noble — they’re just wired to play the long game for their genetic kin. In humans, that instinct got supercharged into fierce loyalty toward our family, then to our ever extending “families”. Try threatening someone’s kid at a playground and see what unfolds. Or worse, mess with a mama cat’s kittens — hope you have good health insurance.

As our brains got more complex, we developed mirror neurons — brain circuits that spark when we see someone else in pain or joy. It’s the reason we flinch when someone stubs a toe on a coffee table or tear up during a sad movie. This built-in empathy nudged our ancestors toward behaviors that kept harm at bay and social ties strong. In harsh environments, compassion often means the difference between life and death.

Groups that laid down shared rules — things like “don’t steal,” “don’t stab your neighbor,” and “share your McNuggets” — outlasted those that didn’t. No rules? Chaos. Rules? Dinner parties! Over time, emotions like guilt, shame, pride, and moral outrage evolved to keep us in check — rewarding good behavior, smacking down bad. We grew inner referees.

Then came language and story-telling, and suddenly our raw moral instincts got wrapped up in cultural codes of morality. Religion, philosophy, law — they all took our gut feelings and turned them into commandments, golden rules, and Straight Dope philosophers arguing about runaway trolleys.

The evolutionary root of morality is simple: stay alive, protect your kin, and don’t get exiled. It’s not just about being “good” or “noble”; it’s about being useful to the group. Our brains, shaped by millennia of trial and error, made us feel like doing the right thing is the right thing — because for most of human history, it was.

So, “does the arc of the moral universe bend toward justice? Can we all just get along?” Well, perhaps — as long as cooperation still gives us a leg up. But if civilization hits the fan like shit, all bets are off. It might just be every man, woman, child, and cat for themselves once again.