Is morality objective? · Quiz question 28/35
Moral Progress and Moral Realism
Was giving women the vote just a change of opinion — or real moral progress? Whether moral progress is evidence for moral realism.
Many societies used to deny women the right to vote. Today most don't.
That's not just a change of opinion — it's actual moral progress.
"Moral progress" seems to assume there's a better direction to go. A leading paper using this as an argument for realism is Michael Huemer's 2016 article. Huemer argued that over the past few centuries morality has converged in one consistent direction — abolishing slavery, women's suffrage, declining violence (liberal values) — which is best explained as the discovery of moral truths. On women's rights, John Stuart Mill's The Subjection of Women (1869) is the classic argument.
If you agreed, you think morality can "get better" — and that requires a standard for better. For realists, the standard is the moral facts themselves: just as science gets closer to the truth, morality corrects its mistakes and gets closer too.
Anti-realists can still talk about progress. First, applying principles we already hold (like equality) more consistently can count as progress. Second, constructivists see progress as moving toward a more inclusive, fairer agreement. Then there's a tradition, like Nietzsche's, that doubts the whole "progress" story. Allen Buchanan and Russell Powell combine evolutionary biology and cultural history to explain when moral inclusion expands — and when it backslides.
Abolition and expanded voting rights came from discovering moral truths. Progress is discovery.
Key names: Huemer, Derek Parfit, Peter SingerProgress means applying principles we already share more consistently and more widely.
Key names: John Rawls, Jürgen Habermas"Progress" is just judging the past by today's values. No reason to see value change as discovering truth.
Key names: Nietzsche, J. L. Mackie