Sally
Have you heard the news?
John
Yes, all gloom and doom.
S
Sometimes I wonder whether we're progressing or going backwards. The same problems seem to repeat over and over.
J
Well, I'm optimistic. I think things can get better.
S
Why?
J
Because I prefer to take that view - it makes me more progressive in outlook.
S
Need a progressive be optimistic? And does an optimist have to be progressive? And I take it that the opposite of a progressive is a reactionary and his outlook retrogressive, as the opposite of an optimist is a pessimist. These things need discussing, wouldn't you say? Your round, John.
J
I think we'd need to pin down 'progress' first. I'll get 'em in.
[John goes to the bar and orders the drinks. Sally stares out the window. John comes back with the drinks.]
S
You were saying?
J
I reckon I'm a progressive because I believe man can overcome his problems. He can, through his own hand and brain, create an environment that is more and more suitable to his needs.
S
... and she/her!
J
Of course. You know I'm speaking about all humans when I say man and mankind.
S
Of course.
J
The opposite view would be that we, as a species, are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. It seems to me that on the contrary, we seem to be able to continually come up with new mistakes. [Both laugh.]
J
... and can continually find solutions to old problems and better ways of doing things. Look at the Internet and mobile phones for example - great boons to human communication. Think of what they replace.
S
Are you ready to say what progress is though? You've said that a progressive will advocate progress, and you've said you're a progressive yourself. You've even given two technological examples of what you call progress. But until you've given me a test for recognizing progress I'm afraid I shall be able to recognize neither progress nor progressives when I see them.
J
Progress in some field, for humans, is made when mankind moves from a position of getting what he doesn't want to not getting what he doesn't want, or from not getting what he wants, to getting what he wants.
S
You need to prove that what he doesn't want is bad for him and that what he wants is good for him. I say that because, as I'm sure you'd agree, progress implies bad being replaced by good. Also, does a man necessarily know what he wants, and does he necessarily want good?
J
Well on the last point, that is how he will define good. I agree that progress must be bad being replaced by good. And since what is good can be defined only by man, what is good is what man says is good.
S
Men say lots of things. Some may imagine, and say, that something that is actually bad for them is good for them.
J
I see what you mean. I can't define progress as man getting what he wants, because he might want something, and even believe it's good, when it is actually bad. So can I redefine human progress as man getting what is good for him?
S
Go ahead. Some make the distinction between wants and needs in that way.
J
I note that what is good for him he will eventually like and want.
S
That has to be true. There is no other viable way to define 'what is good for someone', since all definitions come from man.
J
So the only test of whether something - an object or an experience or an activity or action - is good for someone is that he eventually comes to like it.
S
It looks like it.
J
And that whatever in his past has led to his current approval and satisfaction can be deemed to be good?
S
Yes. And each step that led to his current approval and satisfaction was progressive, and each step that hindered this process was regressive.
J
Yes. And those who advocated progress progressives, and those who advocated or unwittingly hindered it reactionary.
S
I think so - near enough - yes.
[Pause]
J
You realize that defining good and progress in this way some would call subjective and relativistic? They'd say that what man says is good isn't necessarily. Their 'proof' would be that men disagree and change their minds about what is good. They'd also say that unless the notion of good already existed, independent of man, he could never have recognized it when he first saw it. They'd want to define 'absolute' good - perfect good - as being a pre-existing 'ideal' as Plato did, floating about independent of mere imperfect examples of good.
S
Let's talk about philosophical idealism some other time - when we're much more drunk! [Both laugh].
J
It doesn't seem to help much, especially when you consider the fact that man, as you said earlier, is the source of all definitions.
S
Hmmm.
J
Hmmm.
J
But what about that? It is true, isn't it, that we don't all agree on what is good?
S
We've dealt with part of that. Where we are now is that good is what leads to satisfaction of a want and that progress is the realization of good.
S
But what's in the interests of one man may be against the interests of another. What leads to the satisfaction of a want of one man may involve the frustration of a want for another. Theft would seem to be an example. One gets what he wants and another loses it. So is talk of progress for mankind ill-conceived?
J
Unless you resort to some sort of statistical definition.
S
Or a democratic-style definition - Progress is what leads to or realizes good for the majority.
J
Actual good rather than want or perceived good.
S
For over over 50% of the population.
J
In the long term.
S
Given that what leads to good may be replaced at any time with something that leads to it faster and/or to something better.
J
Getting complex Sal. Drink?
[They get their drinks and settle down again.]
S
Even when we narrow down our definition of progress to democratic progress we still have problems unless we carefully define the 'constituency'. [Sal signifies the quotes with finger movements in the air and a little pause before the word.] I suppose what might have seemed progress for the pilot of Enola Gay - mission accomplished - might not have seemed progress for the citizens of Hiroshima.
J
No. And not just 'seemed'. Not progressive for them. But progressive, apparently, for the pilot and crew and the men and women who sent and subsequently congratulated them.
S
You say 'apparently'.
J
Remember we agreed that progress requires long term good for its beneficiaries.
S
We did. That still seems undeniable.
J
And we kind of implied that if you added up all the good for each beneficiary and subtracted the total of all the bad for those who would suffer as a consequence of some action or idea, and the result came out positive, then we would deem the thought or action democratically progressive.
S
We did.
J
But what we've left out of the equation is the degree of good or bad for each individual. We've also ignored the fact that there are often several alternative ideas or actions - not just do it or not do it.
S
Back to the drawing board.
J
Back to the drawing board.
S
Let's take the first point. It seems to me that in what we've called democratic or statistical progress, a great deal of good coming to one person might be balanced by a little bad for several people, and a great deal of bad for one person might be balanced by a little good for several.
J
Yes, depending on how much of each in each case. We'd have, in practice, to be able to measure good and bad before we could do the calculation.
S
How about periodic ballots? I suppose you'd say they measure only expected or apparent good for future policies and ...
...
J
One thing I am sure of is that progress implies change. You can't have progress without change. Of course I'm not saying all change is progress.
S
No, that's not what implication means. Progress implying change means that wherever there's progress there's change. Misunderstanding implication is a common enough logical error though. Let's discuss that some day. I once heard a BBC commentator, after being told by one guest that twenty-five percent of paedophiles go to church, asked the other guest whether she agreed that a quarter of church-goers are paedophiles.
J
Poor girl. What do they teach them in schools these days? Classic misunderstanding of implication - and elementary set theory. At least she seems to understand percentages. Did anyone correct her?
S
No, in the flurry of indignation that followed, the point was lost.