Ethical Progress as Problem Resolving

The conception of progress has been debated within critical theory, including questioning its usefulness and whether it is tainted by colonialist assumptions. I believe that we need a view of progress to establish criteria for critiquing current injustices, but our view of progress needs to avoid hegemonic, teleological, and utopian thinking. A decentered view of progress helps us achieve these goals. By decentered, I mean detaching the conception of progress from patterns of cultural dominance and being open to the dynamic of socially embedded intersubjective forms of life. What this means in practice is twofold. First, it means that our normative considerations of progress are detached from a backward-looking story of historical process leading to us, which helps us decolonize critical theory and understand dynamic processes of social change. Second, it means accepting that there are other beliefs than those of the dominant culture and its social institutions about the definition of progress and what social developments constitute progress, which allows us more clarity in analysis of social change, how individuals struggle for social progress, and how both progress and regression can manifest in social institutions and practices.

Historically and philosophically, 'progress' captures the idea of continuous improvement in a population's standard of living or something else of value. Although 'progress' is in good currency in our culture—indeed, the myth of progress drives our culture—the plight of (much of) humanity, ecological forebodings, and postmodern sensibilities all suggest the notion of progress is a nonsense or a con. Materialist science, and the ideology of economic growth as panacea, underpin the prevailing myth of progress, which does not serve us well. This essay suggests that the myth can be renewed if it embraces ways of knowing and being that are holistic and integral, rooted in the convergence of complexity theory and quantum science with wisdom traditions, such as Taoism. Only then can our collective actions be genuinely transformational—that is, make a difference that makes a difference.

Abstract. The idea of progress, wrongly regarded as only Western and modern, has faded away for many reasons. Some of it, or some myth of progress, still is alive (in particular, regarding science). Economically, progress is measured by GNP, with its familiar shortcomings. The ‘Genuine Progress Indicator’ is an appropriate alternative, aiming also at a sustainable and equitable world. Can such an aim be ethically supported? I briefly discuss Jonas’ proposal, inspired as it is by Judeo-Christian traditions. I agree with him that ethics might not be enough. Yet, religiously motivated programs, like WCC’s “Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation”, seemed to have had little specific, concrete influence on the situation in the world. This also goes for Jonas’ views. I conclude that, inasmuch as the belief in progress has to be replaced, it should be replaced by the hard work of finding generally – economically, ethically, culturally, religiously – acceptable sustainable solutions to our specific problems.

Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 1997

The Journal of Value Inquiry

In this paper, we discuss the concept of human progress and its inconsistencies in society suggesting a new general definition that synthetises previous concepts and endeavours to improve them. This study proposes, within a pragmatic point of view, human progress as an inexhaustible process driven by an ideal of maximum wellbeing of purposeful people, which, on attainment of any of its goals for increasing wellbeing, then seek another consequential goal in new socioeconomic contexts over time and space. The human progress enhances the fundamental life-interests of people represented by health, wealth, expansion of knowledge, technology and freedom directed to increase wellbeing in society. These factors lead to better and more complex forms of life. However, this study also shows the inconsistency of the equation economic growth= social progress because human progress – during its continuous process without limit – generate negative effects for human being such as a higher pollution and incidence of cancer in society. This study is propaedeutic for further studies focusing social-political and economic characteristics of human progress.

The Sociological Review, 2022

What might it take to learn to think and live after progress? The notion of ‘progress’ is arguably the defining idea of modernity: a civilisational imagery of a boundless, linear and upwards trajectory towards a future that, guided by reason and technology, will be ‘better’ than the present. It was this notion that placed techno-science at the heart of the modern political culture, and it was the global unevenness of ‘progress’ that imagined European imperialism as a civilising mission inflicted upon ‘backward’ others for their own sake. Whilst during the postcolonial era the modern idea of progress and its deleterious consequences on a global scale have deservingly been the object of fierce criticism, ‘progress’, its promises and its discontents still command global political imaginations, values and policies to this day. In the wake of its devastating social, political and ecological effects, this article argues that the imperative of progress is now one we cannot live with but do not know how to live without. Thinking of progress not as one modern value among others but as the very mode of evaluation from which modern values are derived, this article provides an introductory exploration of the question of what thinking and living after progress might mean. It also provides an overview of the many contributions that compose this monograph, as divergent experiments in the radical revaluation of our values.

The pursuit of progress has been a distinct feature of civilization at least over the last three hundred years. Yet the appeal of progress is now in decline. Many attribute several major problems we face today to our relentless pursuit of progress, including the degradation of the environment and climate change, the growing gap between the rich and the poor, the increasing control of governments over the life of their citizens, social instability, economic decline, and much else. Widespread criticism has raised fundamental questions about progress that even relatively recently we would not dare to raise without risking our intellectual credibility. The intense questioning encourages, indeed necessitates, a revisiting of the theory and practice of our pursuit of progress. This article represents an attempt at reexamining some critical issues that are related to progress. There are several questions to be addressed in the following pages: Is progress really necessary? What fundamental purpose does it serve? Can our civilization survive without progressing? Does progress have roots in nature or is it merely a human fancy? In answering these questions, this article will explain the important relationship between our idea and practice of progress, on one hand, and nature, on the other. It will show that progress is not a human fancy; it has deep roots in the evolution of nature and the universe. Substantive criticisms should not only point to mistakes and flaws. They should also lead to alternatives. This article will conclude by outlining some fundamental principles to be used in reshaping our progressive practice. The main feature of this reformed practice, as argued in the pages that follow, should be the process of creation that plays a vital role in the survival and evolution of our universe. The failure to embrace and understand this process has generated major flaws that that continue to plague our pursuit of progress. The article will explain that the reason for this failure is not an accident but a necessary result of anthropocentrism that has dominated and continues to dominate our civilization. By using the process of creation as the main organizing principle of our theory and practice of progress will make possible to eliminate the main cause of our numerous problems with progress.

F. Polak and K. Mannheim's reconceptualization of the role of the utopist as a radical/revolutionary who acts to shatter present reality and reconstruct it according to a vision of the future is evaluated in the light of K. Popper's critique of utopian engineering; also, Popper's proposal of piecemeal engineering is critiqued and found deficient. Polak's thesis of a vital image of the future is tested on the basis of J. B. Bury's idea of progress and found to be modern-born. The historic roots of the dominant utopian image of the future (within the idea of progress) are clarified as the technological/consumer society within industrial civilization. However, as this modern thesis become dystopic, an antithesis, in the form of utopian socialism, emerged to contend with the dominant utopian image of the future throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. The dialectical struggle between contending utopic images of the future within the idea of progress brought about the progressive-socialist synthesis, which in turn, opposed by reactionary neoliberalism (a "counter-utopia"), has realized a new, postmodern thesis - as global sustainable development - a reconstructed, 21st century utopian image of the future.