The Progress of Liberalism: Michael Huemer at TEDxMileHigh

[@philosophe5319]

I need this argument expanded in a book so that I can read it every time I start getting extremely skeptical about the utility of what I am studying.

[@becausetheworldisround7714]

His book The Problem of Political Authority discusses this in one of its chapters. :)

[@friedrich7891]

Emile Zola lived from 1840 to 1902 so he probably didn't say that in 1959. But it's a great lecture.

[@rodolfo9916]

Huemer states in the lecture that we cannot explain the changes in moral norms defended by society throughout history from cultural changes because that would not explain why these changes are converging, not diverging, and also why we consider these changes as evolution rather than mere change. As for the first point, culture is exactly the pattern that is formed from the interactions between people, the fact that the world becomes more globalized and more and more people from the most diverse parts of the world interact with each other seems to be the perfect explanation of why people increasingly agree on moral norms, the same phenomenon happens with all other cultural characteristics (art, language, behaviors and etc...), over time they are becoming more and more similar in all parts of the world. And obviously we consider these changes in the moral norms defended throughout history as an evolution because we always think that the moral norms of our time are correct, if we thought that the moral norms of the other time are correct, we would adopt the moral norms of the other time. Moreover, how would the existence of moral facts affect our beliefs about what is morally right and what is not?

[@rameshacharya6941]

each video is amazing in terms of ideas!

[@kingAtheistPower]

Good talk!

[@t.h.6597]

There have been five or six instances in the last 50 years where nuclear exchange was a near miss. One of those would undermine Huemer's (and Pinker's) entire argument about the decrease in violence and increase in moral progress. We are teetering on the brink of unfathomable destruction.

[@StrongbyLee]

What if the violent dictators centuries ago had access to nukes?

[@nosteinnogate7305]

How so? Why would the decision of one (or a few) people undermine his argument?

[@PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

7:40 "This is a coffee ad from the 1950s. It says, 'If your husband ever finds out you're not "store testing" for fresher coffee... if he discovers you're still taking chances on getting flat, stale coffee... woe be unto you. So it's just a little domestic violence humor there."

[@anshahouse]

As far as humans go, yes we are overall more compassionate towards other human beings around the world compared to history. But the more interesting question to me is what can philosophy tell us about humankind's increasing lack of connection with the natural world? We don't kill other 'tribes' as much as we used to, but we have also lost a connection to the place we live and the non-human life forms around us. Would this also be considered progress?

[@anshahouse]

Nice speech, Michael Huemer. Any differences between your take and Steven Pinker's?

[@Maceta444]

Pinker is a neoliberal shill and he's not

[@usandmexico]

Does anyone know the title of the music used here for the intro and end?

[@MoonChildMedia]

we moved from overt slavery to covert slavery....because it still does exist.

[@thatlogicalguy]

How is it Pinker' s thesis since in his book he even acknowledges that other people had the same ideas before him?

[@PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

7:40 *Strong* evidence of progress. That is insane!

[@christopheb9221]

education and better standards of living. if we didnt have machines I dont think slavery would be abolished. only once everybody has time to pay attention to whats going on cuz they are afraid of being killed or starving to death or being killed by -god's wrath- natural disaster or dieases. Also does democracy matter if you dont get to pick the candidates or other rigged system?

[@neuralvibes]

I know that Pinker's admitted to making extensive use of the research of others (he's a linguist after all, not a social scientist), however I'm not sure anyone presented all these points in the same package so to speak. This presentation reminds me a lot of how Pinker presented his case, but maybe I'm being unfair and Huermer has done some work of his own independent of Pinker's on the same subject? Either way, my comment was mainly provoked by the appalling quotations and examples used...

[@אליהברזל-ק3ק]

צריך לעשות כלכלה כמו של דנמרק ושבדיה

[@craigmom7210]

this guy looking all fly lol

[@scout2469]

In human nature there exists traits that explain this progress,which I think should be debated. 1= Humans tend to be 'insatiable', whether for good or bad we have a hard time with saying "good enough". 2= We are generally 'voyeuristic', we notice how other people live and compare it to are self's. And in the last 1-200 years information is spreading rapidly giving people in less modern countries a glimpse of how the more advanced cultures live.3=Humans tend to be 'competitive' this is worthy for advancement of a culture only when it leads to good, like justice and equality regardless of your religion,race,sex or the class you were born into. I'm not sure if freedom is innate, but it sure is important, the freedom to express your thoughts with out persecution is the salient feature to the whole thing.

[@אליהברזל-ק3ק]

ליברליזם זה התרופה

[@muzaffarsaleh8742]

Oh I see a lot of self-applied accolades here...

[@danilkopaskudnik3002]

Is the world becoming a better or worse place to live? imma sun worshiper ... leave it to the sun to decide ... di zun - der eyntsiker balebos..

[@Samsgarden]

I take it Huemer isn't a naturalist.

[@xxcrysad3000xx]

Isn't naturalism just the position that all phenomena are composed of or derived from natural elements, including concepts of the mind and ethical principles? I don't think Huemer said anything in this talk that would be incompatible with naturalism of this sort, unless there's something I'm missing.

[@Tyler-hf4uc]

Samsgarden not a moral naturalist in the same sense as Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins. He is a naturalist in the sense that he is a moral realist, that moral facts existence and we have the ability to understand these facts.

[@ishrendon6435]

9:40 liberalism isnt spreading lol this guy is confused. Many societies if you visit them are similar but there vast different morals throughout the world

[@DaveTerrasidio]

ugh

[@neuralvibes]

Irrelevant philosophers' quotes (philosophers like to provoke but are hardly representative of the population's sentiments), sensationalist pictures (e.g. the "doormat") and in general unoriginal content (more or less a rehash of Steven Pinker's thesis)...