The argument that we shouldn't lock in our values to allow for future "moral progress" is flawed. We judge the past by our current values, so it always looks less moral. By that same token, any future moral drift will look like degradation from our present viewpoint. There is no objective upward trend to defer to.
Unlike scientific fields that build on previous discoveries, philosophy progresses cyclically. Each new generation must start fresh, grappling with the same fundamental questions of life and knowledge. This is why ancient ideas like Epicureanism reappear in modern forms like utilitarianism, as they address timeless human intuitions.
The purpose of economic progress is for future generations to live better, easier lives. This means your grandchildren's baseline lifestyle will seem indulgent or "spoiled" by today's standards. This isn't a moral failure; it's the definition of successful progress over time.
We underestimate how much we will change in the future, believing our current self is a finished product. To navigate change effectively, you must remain curious about your future self and regularly audit how your values, beliefs, and perspectives are evolving through the process.
We confuse our capacity for innovation with wisdom, but we are not wise by default. The same mind that conceives of evolution can rationalize slavery, the Holocaust, and cruelty to animals. Our psychology is masterful at justification, making our default state far from conscious or wise.
Our brains are wired to measure success relative to our peers, not in absolute terms. Even if future generations live with technology and medicine we can't fathom, they won't feel happier because their baseline expectations will have shifted, and they'll still be comparing themselves to others.
The fact that slavery abolition was a highly contingent event demonstrates that moral progress isn't automatic. This shouldn't be seen as depressing, but empowering. It proves that positive change is the direct result of deliberate human choices and collective action, not a passive trend. The world improves only because people actively work to make it better.
The project of creating AI that 'learns to be good' presupposes that morality is a real, discoverable feature of the world, not just a social construct. This moral realist stance posits that moral progress is possible (e.g., abolition of slavery) and that arrogance—the belief one has already perfected morality—is a primary moral error to be avoided in AI design.
There's a vast distance between knowing something is wrong and acting on it. Like modern people walking past the homeless or eating meat despite ethical concerns, societies for centuries possessed the moral insight that slavery was wrong but did nothing. Successful movements are the rare exception, not the norm.
The idea that growing wealth and education automatically lead to more compassionate values is historically false. Wealthy societies, from the Roman Empire to 18th-century Europe and Belle Époque France, have often been the most deeply committed to slavery and colonialism, using their resources to create more efficient systems of oppression.
Long novels, now the gold standard for deep focus, were once considered dangerous “junk food” that distracted people from prayer and duty. This historical pattern suggests our current panic over digital media may be similarly shortsighted and lacking perspective.