Progressivism: Architect or Arsonist?

In Search of Progressive Morality

As I demonstrated above in part one of this series, progressives’ appeal to the Freedom Principle cannot sustain their agenda apart from auxiliary principles that exclude anarchic, amoral, and destructive impulses from the scope of freedom. I will argue in this essay that progressives cannot admit such auxiliary principles without giving up the central tenet of progressivism and that every other principle that progressives invoke is a disguised form of the Freedom Principle. It is all they have.

First, we need to get clear on the types of moral principles to which contemporary progressives will never appeal openly. Contemporary progressives are self-consciously secular.* They will not acknowledge the moral force of divine law, creation, or any other principle that depends on the reality of a moral order transcendent of humanity. They will not appeal to traditional wisdom as normative or grant genuine authority to any teacher of morality. Indeed, progressives declare that relegating all these antiquated moral sources to the trashcan of history is a defining mark of progress. On what principles, then, do progressives exclude those behaviors of which they disapprove and include those they like?

Human Dignity?

If you ask progressives why they do not celebrate freedom to traffic human beings, engage in racist behavior, make a living as a child pornographer or an assassin, or any other behavior they consider evil, their first impulse will be ridicule and insult. They do not want to admit that their philosophy of freedom raises such prospects, and they accuse you of making an unwarranted and vicious association motivated by animus toward progressive causes.

But if you can get a progressive to take your question seriously, they may invoke the notion of human dignity. Such evils as human trafficking and racism treat human beings as things to be used rather than as persons of worth for their own sake. Sounds like a good answer…until we remember that progressives reject all transcendent principles. Progressives cannot ground human dignity in the notion that human beings are created “in the image of God,” that they are God’s beloved children, that they are responsible to God for their actions, or that they possess an eternal soul with an eternal destiny. In what then does human dignity consist? The only answer that makes sense within a progressive framework is this: human beings possess the power to determine their own destiny in what we call freewill. They know best how to attain their own happiness. Therefore we should not interfere with their free actions.

The first thing to notice about the progressive view of human dignity is that dignity is a quality attributed only to beings with freewill. Hence respecting a person’s dignity is identical to respecting their freedom. Using the word “dignity” adds nothing of substance to the concept of freedom. The progressive concept of dignity, therefore, shows itself beset by the same problems as those that plague the Freedom Principle, that is, self-contradiction and reduction to absurdity. If the dignity of a person is grounded in the power to act freely, I may have to refrain from acting in keeping with my dignity to make room for others to act according to their dignity. And, if dignity is grounded in human freedom, then to treat a person in keeping with their dignity may mean allowing them to exercise their freedom in ways I consider evil.

At best, progressive appeals to dignity draw deceptively (and illegitimately) on the traditional association of the idea of human dignity with God and creation. But such resonances do not fit within the progressive worldview. Hence, the progressive conclusion drawn above (Therefore we should not interfere with their free actions.) does not follow from the argument that preceded it. Simply because a person has the power to act freely does not obligate others not to interfere. Everything depends on what they do with this power! Are their actions good or bad, right or wrong, rational or irrational? We are no closer to answering this question!

Human Rights?

Progressives often appeal to human rights. Human rights are contrasted with constitutional or legislated rights. Such rights are supposedly given along with human existence and therefore trump all legislated rights. One can appeal to them without having to cite a law. It is similar to appeals to justice in criticism of an unjust statutory law. In both cases, one appeals to a law higher than legislated law. According to contemporary progressives, however, there is no law or principle that transcends the human reality. So why appeal to human rights? As in the case of the progressive appeal to human dignity, appeals to human rights draw deceptively (and illegitimately) on the resonance of the term human rights with the traditional concept of natural rights. In the natural law tradition, there is a certain normative order given by God in the fabric of nature and reason. The very notion of a right calls up the idea of a right-granting authority. Of course, because progressives deny that there is a moral law rooted in the divine will or the order of creation, they can do no more than assert gratuitously and arbitrarily that there are human rights. If there is no right-granting authority higher than humanity, from where do human rights come and how can they preempt legislated rights? Am I able to grant myself a right? What an absurd conclusion!

If progressives attempt to justify their appeal to human rights at all, they invariably return to the concept of freedom. A right is a designated area for the exercise of freedom. So, we return to the Freedom Principle with all its problems: Do we have a human right to do anything we please? Must I curtail my human rights so that you can exercise yours? May I interfere with your rights if I believe you are acting destructively and violently? As is the case with freedom, the concept of human rights by itself contains no limiting principle that specifies what we are and what we are not permitted to do.

The Secret

The secret of contemporary progressivism is that it can do nothing but destroy. It possesses no principle of order. It views order as oppressive and alienating. Its appeal is its promise of greater and greater liberty from oppression, and to deliver on its promise it must constantly seek new areas of order to destroy. It is not architect but arsonist. It cannot stop until nothing is left, nothing but nothingness, death.

*You cannot be consistently progressive and Christian (or even religious) at the same time. But this is a topic for another occasion.

To be continued…

4 thoughts on “Progressivism: Architect or Arsonist?

  1. Dr Jonne Smalhouse

    Stratospheric Ron!
    Excellent, scintillating, refulgent and beaming! Thank you.
    Yes, we’ve looked at ( viz.) Nichomancean ethics and Alexaner the Persian to the epicureans, the stoics, the chryssinians, later to Augustinian and Alexander of Cyprus, all the way through to Hobbs, Locke, Neitzche, Kant etc etc.
    But by goodness me, your modern language has to be helpful…
    We can get mired down in history if we’re not careful– it’s a mammoth undertaking, and indeed, trying to teach prevenient grace and total depravity has recently left me exactly so. Mired.
    If certain ‘folks’ are unindividuated (for whatever reason) and have no indwelling character whatsoever, how on earth can they ever begin in know their own free will??
    It has to be a “let’s get back to God!” Sermon. Rhetorically speaking.
    I pray that many read your modern words, leaving no confusion, and that your continuance and doggedness leads many back to God, either for the first time, or for regeneration.
    By jove Ron.
    I don’t like the term ‘dignity’, it’s been corrupted a bit like ‘piety’. And for these reasons the US constitution and abolishonists didn’t use it. I’m more a ” milk of human kindness, common decency and mutual respect” fellow.


  2. ifaqtheology Post author

    When I was writing my book God, Freedom & Human Dignity, I discovered the difference between American and European views on the relationship between freedom and dignity. Americans tend to index dignity to freedom and Europeans tended to do the reverse, especially after WW II. There are many reasons for this contrast rooted in the different histories of the two. But one reason is the experience of the NAZI disregard for human dignity. BTW “dignity” is a Latin (through French) based word. It means “worth.” I think “dignity” is fuzzy to English speakers. Perhaps that is why we can read all sorts of stuff into it. Blessings to you. Ron


    1. Dr Jonne Smalhouse

      Of course your are right.
      But dignitas was a roman word originally referring to an emperor, king or high official, or priest. It was alledgdley based upon merit ( much like the greeks would apportion honour) but Romans used it as a way to control the masses. A kind of reward for being a citizen, like the many virtues, but as a matter of fact–the citizen minions of the empire were bribed into being offered ‘dignity as part of their freedom’ even if they were poor freed slaves. I see this as a smart way of preventing civil unrest, and those same minions from shouting ” where’s my portion of the wealth? I’m going to TAKE it”.
      It strikes me then (and now) that controlling the masses with an outdated concept of freedom, and offering them a simple but meaningless word {dignity} instead of kingly wealth, may not work when you’re being arrested and beaten to death for a parking offence? Where is the dignity there?
      May be i’m wrong. No offence meant.
      Looking forward to the next piece.


      1. Dr Jonne Smalhouse

        I think you’re doubly right. It’s very fuzzy.
        There is a popular organization today in the EU/UK called ‘Dignitas’ that fights legal battles for assisted dying for people with serious terminal disabilitating illness or cancer, as opposed to euthenasia. Most folks would associate dignity in death with such a meaning here.
        Though of course, we’ve come full circle, because the right to end ones’ life in a chosen manner is a free will issue. Often religious in many countries of the world. And in the far east, dignity in death ‘songenshi’ is a potent cultural tradition- identical to the ancient greek ideals of dying before dishonouring the family.
        Closely associating dignity with death however, is not a happy thing to dwell upon.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s