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.
Related Insights
While public support is vital, movements don't just happen. They require specific individuals who act as catalysts. The British abolitionist movement, for example, is inseparable from Thomas Clarkson, who was the first person to envision a national public campaign and dedicate his life to it, turning a latent issue into a powerful political force.
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.
Humans adapt their expectations downwards, becoming accustomed to systemic problems like corruption, sexism, or poor healthcare. This habituation makes terrible conditions seem normal and inevitable, alleviating personal pain but also blunting the collective motivation required to challenge and change them.
Anti-slavery movements thrived in 'societies with slaves,' like Pennsylvania, rather than 'slave societies,' like Barbados. In Pennsylvania, slavery existed, so people were confronted with its morality, but the economy wasn't dependent on it. This allowed for questioning without risking the collapse of the entire socio-economic order.
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.
People often fail to act not because they fear negative consequences (cowardice), but because they believe their actions won't have a positive impact (futility). Recognizing this distinction is critical; overcoming futility requires demonstrating that change is possible, which is different from mitigating risk.
We accept 40,000 annual US traffic deaths as a cost of convenience, yet a policy change like lowering speed limits could save thousands of lives. This reveals a deep inconsistency in our moral framework: we are apathetic to large-scale, statistical risks but would be horrified by a single, identifiable act causing a fraction of the harm. The lack of an identifiable victim neutralizes our moral intuition.
The successful anti-slavery movement in Britain was founded primarily by entrepreneurs who applied their skills in scaling companies and operations to a moral cause. This historical example shows that business acumen is a powerful, and perhaps essential, tool for large-scale social change.
Social movements build on one another. The campaign against slavery was not an isolated event; it directly inspired and provided the organizational template for the 19th-century women's rights movement. Similarly, the US Civil Rights movement created the model and momentum for the gay rights movement, showing how progress on one issue makes progress on others more likely.
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.