Progressive morality is an ideology that suggests morals can, should, and do change on a universal basis over time. If I’ve seen it once, I’ve seen it a thousand times over. “Get with the times!” or “It’s (insert current year)!” These all-too-common catch phrases are used to suggest that because time is progressing, so should our values, standards and morals in terms of many hot topic issues facing our country. As if we are *now* somehow more informed, more intelligent, wiser, and more responsible than we were “back then” (at any time prior to the argument – which could even be just the day prior).
The passage of time should not, cannot, and does not dictate a change in morality and values. We cannot assume that we are smarter, wiser, more responsible or more informed than we were yesterday, or 20, 50, 100 or even thousands of years ago without first defining some of the terms mentioned in the above paragraph, then taking a look to see if we actually fit the definitions of the very things we say we are. But first, let’s talk a little bit about what it means to live by a code of ethics.
Values, morals and standards are a code upon which to live by – something that not so long ago was an honorable thing to do in society’s eyes. We looked up to people who stood their ground and did the right thing, not being persuaded by emotional or personal attachment to a situation, monetary gain, or even the threat of legal action. We admired those people who could do so in the face of adversity without making a spectacle of themselves, as truth and honor does not require pomp and circumstance.
A code of ethics is what guides our decisions in the face of adversity and popular opposing opinion. Like the old adage goes, “If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything.” When we determine right from wrong and good from bad with a pre-set code of ethics, we can always refer back to it in times of confusion. If we truly believe in our soul that something is right or wrong, our code of ethics will not be compromised simply because we find ourselves in what appears to be a gray area, or when others tell us we are wrong. Our value system is OUR value system and others will not be able to intrude on it. What good does it do to have a code of ethics that changes at a whim? Should values and beliefs not be something we defend to the end? We are now living in a time when we literally place no value on values – ironic, isn’t it?
If we insist on updating our values with each passing day, we have to determine whether or not our faculties are living up to the hype, so let’s take a look at the definitions of the terms mentioned earlier. All definitions are either taken from the first search result that pops up when Googling each specific term or from the online version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary (at the time of writing, of course – my little disclaimer in case these definitions have been chanced by the time you read this, as that is the thing to do lately, to change definitions).
Informed: having or showing knowledge of a particular subject or situation. Technically, we do have more information than we did yesterday or last century. We are bombarded online with the tiniest little details of every possible subject and scenario imaginable. We have instant access to information on virtually anything we’re interested in learning more about, and even the things that we don’t want to know more about; things that matter, and things that don’t matter; things that are true and things that are false. But there’s a difference between having more information and being more informed.
Here is where it’s important to also define the word “knowledge” used in the definition of “informed.” Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education. Please take a moment and put emphasis on the word facts. A fact is a thing that is indisputably the case. Facts don’t change, because facts are true. So, to be informed about something, we must know the indisputable truth about it; whereas simply ‘having information’ does not necessarily mean we are informed, because information in and of itself is not necessarily factual.
Intelligent: Having or showing the ability to easily learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations:
Are we any more intelligent today than we were “back then?” We have to put it to the test to find out, we can’t just assume.
Wise: aware of or informed about a particular matter; having or showing wisdom or knowledge usually from learning or experiencing many things; based on good reasoning or information: showing good sense or judgement. Judgment is defined as a decision or opinion based on careful thought; the ability to make good decisions about what should be done. Judgment is NOT a bad thing! I have a lot more to say about that in my article, “Being Called “Judgmental” Can be a Compliment!” But for now, back to definitions:
Responsible: Able to answer for one’s conduct and obligations.
Another issue with this idea that morals should change over time is that nobody can ever seem to identify what happened that would require our morals to change. Or *when* (other than ‘over time’) such an event took place. If it is a simple case of finding out that we were wrong, we must be able to identify *how and/or when* we were wrong.
The progression of time, in and of itself, does not dictate a moral behavioral change. You can apply these guidelines to literally any moral subject and get the same results.
In the end, I would argue that while the passage of time does not mandate a modernized morality, but rather DEMANDS us to become more informed and intelligent, and much wiser and responsible. I will try to convince you of this is upcoming articles on specific topics relating to progressive morality, as I’ve done in an article titled, “Progressive Morality on Abortion.”
The Armentrout Shout-out 