PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Australasian Journal of Philosophy· 2026Q1

The ‘Who’, ‘What’, and ‘When’ of Moral Progress

Paul Rehren, Charlie Blunden

Short summary

This paper identifies and addresses overlooked descriptive challenges in claims of moral progress, specifically concerning the unit and time period of change, which can undermine the validity of examples.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Moral progress claims have normative and descriptive components.
  • Descriptive components (unit and time period of change) are often overlooked.
  • Problems in selecting the unit and time period can invalidate moral progress examples.
  • The paper offers solutions to refine the methodology for assessing moral progress.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

The literature on moral progress is full of (supposed) real-life examples of moral progress. These examples have two distinct components: one normative and one descriptive. The former picks out the moral criteria by which an episode of change counts as morally progressive; the latter picks out the unit that has undergone progress and the period of time over which that progress has occurred. While there is general agreement that nailing down the normative component of moral progress poses a substantial challenge, potential problems with the descriptive component have received far less attention and have not thus far been systematically addressed. In this paper, we aim to change this. We describe in detail a series of problems that can arise when selecting the unit(s) and time period of one’s progress claims and show how they can undermine the soundness of moral progress examples. We also sketch and evaluate potential solutions to these problems to improve the methodology of research on moral progress.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Philosophy

PhilosophyArts and Humanities