Future morality and the moral imagination

[Lance]

An interesting article.

Quote:

"This understanding offers us a fairly straightforward idea of moral progress: it means including ever more people (or beings) in the group of those whose interests are to be respected. This too is an ancient insight: Hierocles, a Stoic philosopher of the second century, describes us as being surrounded by a series of concentric circles. The innermost circle of concern surrounds our own self; the next comprises the immediate family; then follow more remote family; then, in turn, neighbours, fellow city-dwellers, countrymen and, finally, the human race as a whole. Hierocles described moral progress as 'drawing the circles somehow toward the centre', or moving members of outer circles to the inner ones."

see

http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/what-will-morality-look-like-100-years-hence/

[M Winther]

Post by Lance
An interesting article.
"This understanding offers us a fairly straightforward idea of moral
progress: it means including ever more people (or beings) in the group
of those whose interests are to be respected. This too is an ancient
insight: Hierocles, a Stoic philosopher of the second century,
describes us as being surrounded by a series of concentric circles. The
innermost circle of concern surrounds our own self; the next comprises
the immediate family; then follow more remote family; then, in turn,
neighbours, fellow city-dwellers, countrymen and, finally, the human
race as a whole. Hierocles described moral progress as 'drawing the
circles somehow toward the centre', or moving members of outer circles
to the inner ones."
see
http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/what-will-morality-look-like-100-years-hence/

"[M]orality means giving common concerns or the wellbeing of others as
much weight as one's own self-interest."

A person feels that a child on the remote continent of Africa is equally
dear to him as his own child. What kind of personality is this? Answer:
a psychopath. Characteristic of psychopaths is that their feeling of
care is completely levelled. On the other hand, to the empathic person,
the cat sitting in his lap is much more important than any African
human child. That's how human psychology works. Empathy and sympathy are
feelings of attachment that involve the near neighbourhood-- living
beings that we remain in contact with. There is no way that an
"evolution of morality" is going to change this. However, should
humanity be capable of following the psychopathic moral ideal, then
human civilization will soon collapse.

M. Winther
http://www.two-paths.com



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[Dave Smith]

Post by M Winther

Post by Lance
An interesting article.
"This understanding offers us a fairly straightforward idea of moral
progress: it means including ever more people (or beings) in the group
of those whose interests are to be respected. This too is an ancient
insight: Hierocles, a Stoic philosopher of the second century,
describes us as being surrounded by a series of concentric circles. The
innermost circle of concern surrounds our own self; the next comprises
the immediate family; then follow more remote family; then, in turn,
neighbours, fellow city-dwellers, countrymen and, finally, the human
race as a whole. Hierocles described moral progress as 'drawing the
circles somehow toward the centre', or moving members of outer circles
to the inner ones."
see
http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/what-will-morality-look-like-100-years-hence/

"[M]orality means giving common concerns or the wellbeing of others as
much weight as one's own self-interest."
A person feels that a child on the remote continent of Africa is equally
a psychopath. Characteristic of psychopaths is that their feeling of
care is completely levelled. On the other hand, to the empathic person,
the cat sitting in his lap is much more important than any African
human child. That's how human psychology works. Empathy and sympathy are
feelings of attachment that involve the near neighbourhood-- living
beings that we remain in contact with. There is no way that an
"evolution of morality" is going to change this. However, should
humanity be capable of following the psychopathic moral ideal, then
human civilization will soon collapse.
M. Winther
http://www.two-paths.com

Psychopathy is usually construed as caring nothing for others rather than as having equal concern for others.

Dave

[M Winther]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Smith" <***@btinternet.com>
Newsgroups: uk.philosophy.humanism
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Future morality and the moral imagination

Post by Dave Smith

Post by M Winther

Post by Lance
An interesting article.
"This understanding offers us a fairly straightforward idea of moral
progress: it means including ever more people (or beings) in the group
of those whose interests are to be respected. This too is an ancient
insight: Hierocles, a Stoic philosopher of the second century,
describes us as being surrounded by a series of concentric circles. The
innermost circle of concern surrounds our own self; the next
comprises
the immediate family; then follow more remote family; then, in turn,
neighbours, fellow city-dwellers, countrymen and, finally, the human
race as a whole. Hierocles described moral progress as 'drawing the
circles somehow toward the centre', or moving members of outer circles
to the inner ones."
see
http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/what-will-morality-look-like-100-years-hence/

"[M]orality means giving common concerns or the wellbeing of others as
much weight as one's own self-interest."
A person feels that a child on the remote continent of Africa is equally
a psychopath. Characteristic of psychopaths is that their feeling of
care is completely levelled. On the other hand, to the empathic person,
the cat sitting in his lap is much more important than any African
human child. That's how human psychology works. Empathy and sympathy are
feelings of attachment that involve the near neighbourhood-- living
beings that we remain in contact with. There is no way that an
"evolution of morality" is going to change this. However, should
humanity be capable of following the psychopathic moral ideal, then
human civilization will soon collapse.
M. Winther
http://www.two-paths.com

Psychopathy is usually construed as caring nothing for others rather
than as having equal concern for others.
Dave

As I understand it, psychopathy implies that the empathic function is
impaired, but not necessarily non-existent. Some people with a
psychopathic brain structure are good people, because they have had a
good upbringing and received much love as a child. One such case is
neuroscientist James Fallon, who discovered that he has a murderers
brain:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/?no-ist

The tendency of such people is that they are capable of caring for
others too a certain degree. However, they tend to empathize equally
much with all people, which is completely absurd from the point of view
of a normal person.

M. Winther
http://www.two-paths.com



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[Dave Smith]

Post by M Winther
----- Original Message -----
Newsgroups: uk.philosophy.humanism
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Future morality and the moral imagination

Post by Dave Smith

Post by M Winther

Post by Lance
An interesting article.
"This understanding offers us a fairly straightforward idea of moral
progress: it means including ever more people (or beings) in the group
of those whose interests are to be respected. This too is an ancient
insight: Hierocles, a Stoic philosopher of the second century,
describes us as being surrounded by a series of concentric circles. The
innermost circle of concern surrounds our own self; the next comprises
the immediate family; then follow more remote family; then, in turn,
neighbours, fellow city-dwellers, countrymen and, finally, the human
race as a whole. Hierocles described moral progress as 'drawing the
circles somehow toward the centre', or moving members of outer circles
to the inner ones."
see
http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/what-will-morality-look-like-100-years-hence/

"[M]orality means giving common concerns or the wellbeing of others as
much weight as one's own self-interest."
A person feels that a child on the remote continent of Africa is equally
a psychopath. Characteristic of psychopaths is that their feeling of
care is completely levelled. On the other hand, to the empathic person,
the cat sitting in his lap is much more important than any African
human child. That's how human psychology works. Empathy and sympathy are
feelings of attachment that involve the near neighbourhood-- living
beings that we remain in contact with. There is no way that an
"evolution of morality" is going to change this. However, should
humanity be capable of following the psychopathic moral ideal, then
human civilization will soon collapse.
M. Winther
http://www.two-paths.com

Psychopathy is usually construed as caring nothing for others rather
than as having equal concern for others.
Dave

As I understand it, psychopathy implies that the empathic function is
impaired, but not necessarily non-existent. Some people with a
psychopathic brain structure are good people, because they have had a
good upbringing and received much love as a child. One such case is
neuroscientist James Fallon, who discovered that he has a murderers
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/?no-ist
The tendency of such people is that they are capable of caring for
others too a certain degree. However, they tend to empathize equally
much with all people, which is completely absurd from the point of view
of a normal person.
M. Winther
http://www.two-paths.com

What evidence is there for your assertion that people with psychopathic tendencies "tend to empathize equally much with all people" ?

Dave

[M Winther]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Smith" <***@btinternet.com>
Newsgroups: uk.philosophy.humanism
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: Future morality and the moral imagination

Post by Dave Smith

Post by M Winther
----- Original Message -----
Newsgroups: uk.philosophy.humanism
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Future morality and the moral imagination

Post by Dave Smith

Post by M Winther

Post by Lance
An interesting article.
"This understanding offers us a fairly straightforward idea of moral
progress: it means including ever more people (or beings) in the group
of those whose interests are to be respected. This too is an ancient
insight: Hierocles, a Stoic philosopher of the second century,
describes us as being surrounded by a series of concentric
circles.
The
innermost circle of concern surrounds our own self; the next comprises
the immediate family; then follow more remote family; then, in turn,
neighbours, fellow city-dwellers, countrymen and, finally, the human
race as a whole. Hierocles described moral progress as 'drawing the
circles somehow toward the centre', or moving members of outer circles
to the inner ones."
see
http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/what-will-morality-look-like-100-years-hence/

"[M]orality means giving common concerns or the wellbeing of
others
as
much weight as one's own self-interest."
A person feels that a child on the remote continent of Africa is equally
a psychopath. Characteristic of psychopaths is that their feeling of
care is completely levelled. On the other hand, to the empathic person,
the cat sitting in his lap is much more important than any African
human child. That's how human psychology works. Empathy and
sympathy
are
feelings of attachment that involve the near neighbourhood-- living
beings that we remain in contact with. There is no way that an
"evolution of morality" is going to change this. However, should
humanity be capable of following the psychopathic moral ideal, then
human civilization will soon collapse.
M. Winther
http://www.two-paths.com

Psychopathy is usually construed as caring nothing for others rather
than as having equal concern for others.
Dave

As I understand it, psychopathy implies that the empathic function is
impaired, but not necessarily non-existent. Some people with a
psychopathic brain structure are good people, because they have had a
good upbringing and received much love as a child. One such case is
neuroscientist James Fallon, who discovered that he has a murderers
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/?no-ist
The tendency of such people is that they are capable of caring for
others too a certain degree. However, they tend to empathize equally
much with all people, which is completely absurd from the point of view
of a normal person.
M. Winther
http://www.two-paths.com

What evidence is there for your assertion that people with
psychopathic tendencies "tend to empathize equally much with all
people" ?
Dave

I got it from the documentary about James Fallon. As I remember it, he
said that he felt equally much for his neigbour's kids as his own kids.
This phenomenon, if correct, should be described somewhere on the
Internet. It sounds plausible, because empathic feeling is inversely
proportional to the distance from the individual (in terms of emotional
rapport).

Mats



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[Lance]

James Fallon in his book "The psychopath inside" points out that despite his brain pattern he is NOT a psychopath. So if he feels equal empathy for all children etc., then that is NOT how a psychopath feels since he is NOT a psychopath. Actually it sounds rather like the way Peter Singer, the utilitarian philosopher and animal rights activist suggests a very moral person should feel. In more than 20 interviews with severe criminals (e.g., a person who had kiled five girl friends and cut them up and kept their body parts under his bed) not one showed any real interest in any one else except themselves. All showed strong evidence of excessive self-esteeem (as Baumesiter said high self-esteem is often a mark of criminality) and little comprehension of how other people would view them. I don't thnk they had any empathy at all, though that can't be entirely true since their histories showed evidence of cruelty, and I think cruelty requires some capacity to imagine how others will feel. At any rate they were far from showing equal empathy for all people.

Charles Dickens once talked of "telescopic philanthropy" - a burning passion to do good in far away places whilst being oblivious of the needs of one's own children and neighbours. I think you anger is really directed at telescopic philanthropy rather than at "equal empathy". Charles Dickens of course grew up in early Victoria England where the working classes and their children were living in extremely distressed circumstances, but he describes people whose only concern was doing good in far away places like Africa, and (in Bleak house) whose own children had heads through railings and the like. Telescopic philanthropy suggests not a moral nature but rather ulterior motives. Middle class people in Victorian England didn't want the differences between their status and that of the working classes to be eroded (something which would diminish their status) but did want the accolades of doing good works. I'm not at all sure, though, that such charges can really be directed at middle class people in Sweden today.

[M Winther]

Post by Lance
James Fallon in his book "The psychopath inside" points out that
despite his brain pattern he is NOT a psychopath. So if he feels equal
empathy for all children etc., then that is NOT how a psychopath feels
since he is NOT a psychopath. Actually it sounds rather like the way
Peter Singer, the utilitarian philosopher and animal rights activist
suggests a very moral person should feel. In more than 20 interviews
with severe criminals (e.g., a person who had kiled five girl friends
and cut them up and kept their body parts under his bed) not one showed
any real interest in any one else except themselves. All showed strong
evidence of excessive self-esteeem (as Baumesiter said high self-esteem
is often a mark of criminality) and little comprehension of how other
people would view them. I don't thnk they had any empathy at all,
though that can't be entirely true since their histories showed
evidence of cruelty, and I think cruelty requires some capacity to
imagine how others will feel. At any rate they were far from showing
equal empathy for all people.
Charles Dickens once talked of "telescopic philanthropy" - a burning
passion to do good in far away places whilst being oblivious of the
needs of one's own children and neighbours. I think you anger is really
directed at telescopic philanthropy rather than at "equal empathy".
Charles Dickens of course grew up in early Victoria England where the
working classes and their children were living in extremely distressed
circumstances, but he describes people whose only concern was doing
good in far away places like Africa, and (in Bleak house) whose own
children had heads through railings and the like. Telescopic
philanthropy suggests not a moral nature but rather ulterior motives.
Middle class people in Victorian England didn't want the differences
between their status and that of the working classes to be eroded
(something which would diminish their status) but did want the
accolades of doing good works. I'm not at all sure, though, that such
charges can really be directed at middle class people in Sweden today.

Lance,

There are many psychopaths in leading positions in society. They may
function as a company CEO, for instance. These people have families and
children. The point is that psychopaths *know* what is right and wrong,
so they can be upstanding citizens and do reasonably well as family
fathers. So the popular notion that psychopaths collect bodily parts
under the bed isn't quite correct. As a matter of fact, according to
statistics, psychopaths are *less* violent than normal people.

You could, of course, argue that Fallon does not suffer from a
psychopathic disorder because he never murdered his family and collected
the insurance. But then you have simply substituted the word "criminal"
for "psychopath". Facts are that his law-abiding attitude is not
atypical among psychopaths:

"The researchers said their findings show that criminal and non-criminal
psychopaths share the same neuropsychological profile.
So what is it that makes criminal psychopaths get into trouble, while
non-criminal psychopaths do not? The researchers speculated that
criminal psychopaths may be steered towards criminality by their
backgrounds, in particular a lack of early parental supervision,
deprivation and having a convicted parent."
http://digest.bps.org.uk/2008/06/not-all-psychopaths-are-criminal.html

M. Winther






--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[Lance]

"When I use a word it means what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less". If psychopaths are not cruel and not violent and are full of empathy for all then, like it or not, they are not psychopaths.

Lance

[M Winther]

Post by Lance
"When I use a word it means what I choose it to mean - neither more
nor less". If psychopaths are not cruel and not violent and are full
of empathy for all then, like it or not, they are not psychopaths.
Lance

The point is that they are *not* empathic--they can follow the rules
anyway. Indeed, in a rule of court, it is only the outer conduct that
counts. On the other hand, the scientist is interested in the inside. In
psychology, people are categorized according to their inner
characteristics, and not the outer conduct. What constitutes your true
personality is what goes on in your soul. The outside is secondary,
because anyone can fake a persona.

Mats



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[Lance]

"The point is that they are *not* empathic--they can follow the rules
anyway." According to you they are empathic - just equally empathic for other people.

Lance

[M Winther]

Post by Lance
"The point is that they are *not* empathic--they can follow the rules
anyway." According to you they are empathic - just equally empathic for other people.
Lance

The empathic function is stronger in some individuals and weaker in
others. Psychopathic personality disorder is characterized by a weak
empathic function. Another factor is that the little empathy they have
is equally distributed--but this needs to be verified.

Mats



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[Dave Smith]

Post by M Winther

Post by Lance
"The point is that they are *not* empathic--they can follow the rules
anyway." According to you they are empathic - just equally empathic for other people.
Lance

The empathic function is stronger in some individuals and weaker in
others. Psychopathic personality disorder is characterized by a weak
empathic function. Another factor is that the little empathy they have
is equally distributed--but this needs to be verified.
Mats

So your claim that the little empathy psychopaths have is equally distributed needs to be verified - i.e. you have provided no satisfactory evidence to support it.

Dave

[M Winther]

Post by Dave Smith

Post by M Winther

Post by Lance
"The point is that they are *not* empathic--they can follow the rules
anyway." According to you they are empathic - just equally empathic for other people.
Lance

The empathic function is stronger in some individuals and weaker in
others. Psychopathic personality disorder is characterized by a weak
empathic function. Another factor is that the little empathy they have
is equally distributed--but this needs to be verified.
Mats

So your claim that the little empathy psychopaths have is equally
distributed needs to be verified - i.e. you have provided no
satisfactory evidence to support it.
Dave

Since behavior control plays a bigger role in pro-social psychopaths, it
is only logical that they are equally empathic about their neighbour's
children as their own. After all, they have developed cognitive empathy
through learned notions of moral duty. Moral duty says: if your
neighbour's child has hurt himself, step in and help him. So it is
exactly the same as how you would react toward your own child. Thus,
empathy is "equally distributed", because the affective empathy, i.e.
the extra empathy that normal parents would feel toward their own child,
is largely void.

M. Winther



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[Dave Smith]

Post by M Winther

Post by Dave Smith

Post by M Winther

Post by Lance
"The point is that they are *not* empathic--they can follow the rules
anyway." According to you they are empathic - just equally empathic
for other people.
Lance

The empathic function is stronger in some individuals and weaker in
others. Psychopathic personality disorder is characterized by a weak
empathic function. Another factor is that the little empathy they have
is equally distributed--but this needs to be verified.
Mats

So your claim that the little empathy psychopaths have is equally
distributed needs to be verified - i.e. you have provided no
satisfactory evidence to support it.
Dave

Since behavior control plays a bigger role in pro-social psychopaths, it
is only logical that they are equally empathic about their neighbour's
children as their own. After all, they have developed cognitive empathy
through learned notions of moral duty. Moral duty says: if your
neighbour's child has hurt himself, step in and help him. So it is
exactly the same as how you would react toward your own child. Thus,
empathy is "equally distributed", because the affective empathy, i.e.
the extra empathy that normal parents would feel toward their own child,
is largely void.
M. Winther

Who are these "pro-social" psychopaths you write about? As I understand it, psychopaths are defined in terms of their lack of empathy. They may understand moral rules at an abstract intellectual level but feel no emotional compulsion to follow them. They may be clever at pretending to be moral but are not "pro-social".

Dave

[M Winther]

Post by M Winther

Post by M Winther

Post by M Winther

Post by Lance
"The point is that they are *not* empathic--they can follow the rules
anyway." According to you they are empathic - just equally empathic
for other people.
Lance

The empathic function is stronger in some individuals and weaker in
others. Psychopathic personality disorder is characterized by a weak
empathic function. Another factor is that the little empathy they have
is equally distributed--but this needs to be verified.
Mats
So your claim that the little empathy psychopaths have is equally
distributed needs to be verified - i.e. you have provided no
satisfactory evidence to support it.
Dave

Since behavior control plays a bigger role in pro-social psychopaths, it
is only logical that they are equally empathic about their
neighbour's

children as their own. After all, they have developed cognitive empathy
through learned notions of moral duty. Moral duty says: if your
neighbour's child has hurt himself, step in and help him. So it is
exactly the same as how you would react toward your own child. Thus,
empathy is "equally distributed", because the affective empathy, i.e.
the extra empathy that normal parents would feel toward their own child,
is largely void.

Post by M Winther
M. Winther

Who are these "pro-social" psychopaths you write about? As I understand
it, psychopaths are defined in terms of their lack of empathy. They may
understand moral rules at an abstract intellectual level but feel no
emotional compulsion to follow them. They may be clever at pretending
to be moral but are not "pro-social".
Dave

It seems, it is not an uncommon trait among creative people, such as
artists.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20362611

(ever heard of Internet "search engines", by the way?)

Mats



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[Dave Smith]

Post by M Winther

Post by M Winther

Post by M Winther

Post by M Winther

Post by Lance
"The point is that they are *not* empathic--they can follow the rules
anyway." According to you they are empathic - just equally empathic
for other people.
Lance

The empathic function is stronger in some individuals and weaker in
others. Psychopathic personality disorder is characterized by a weak
empathic function. Another factor is that the little empathy they have
is equally distributed--but this needs to be verified.
Mats
So your claim that the little empathy psychopaths have is equally
distributed needs to be verified - i.e. you have provided no
satisfactory evidence to support it.
Dave

Since behavior control plays a bigger role in pro-social psychopaths, it
is only logical that they are equally empathic about their
neighbour's

children as their own. After all, they have developed cognitive empathy
through learned notions of moral duty. Moral duty says: if your
neighbour's child has hurt himself, step in and help him. So it is
exactly the same as how you would react toward your own child. Thus,
empathy is "equally distributed", because the affective empathy, i.e.
the extra empathy that normal parents would feel toward their own child,
is largely void.

Post by M Winther
M. Winther

Who are these "pro-social" psychopaths you write about? As I understand
it, psychopaths are defined in terms of their lack of empathy. They may
understand moral rules at an abstract intellectual level but feel no
emotional compulsion to follow them. They may be clever at pretending
to be moral but are not "pro-social".
Dave

It seems, it is not an uncommon trait among creative people, such as
artists.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20362611
(ever heard of Internet "search engines", by the way?)
Mats

Thanks for the reference to the abstract, but it doesn't help me much since the full article doesn't seem to be available without payment.

Maybe the term 'prosocial psychopath' has been coined by Fallon to describe his own supposedly psychopathic tendencies and isn't widely used? This review of his book seems to me to makes some good points:

http://lareviewofbooks.org/review/psychopath-ish


Dave

[Dave Smith]

Post by Lance
An interesting article.
"This understanding offers us a fairly straightforward idea of moral progress: it means including ever more people (or beings) in the group of those whose interests are to be respected. This too is an ancient insight: Hierocles, a Stoic philosopher of the second century, describes us as being surrounded by a series of concentric circles. The innermost circle of concern surrounds our own self; the next comprises the immediate family; then follow more remote family; then, in turn, neighbours, fellow city-dwellers, countrymen and, finally, the human race as a whole. Hierocles described moral progress as 'drawing the circles somehow toward the centre', or moving members of outer circles to the inner ones."
see
http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/what-will-morality-look-like-100-years-hence/

Yes, the article is thought-provoking. Morality involves intellectual and emotional components that can drive us in different directions. From an objective point of view perhaps we should treat all people equally, but this doesn't fit easily with the special regard we hold for those closest to us. The idea of attempting to draw everyone into the 'inner ring of concern' doesn't seem entirely practical or even desirable to me.

The notion of moral progress over time is perhaps rather suspect. We have little idea what social and environmental conditions will be like a century from now, so considering how norms etc. will and should evolve in response to those conditions is rather speculative. Maybe what the authors of the article are really doing is examining how current society might be changed for the good. Here, 'goodness' involves what benefits the well-being of all rather than what helps a particular individual to flourish, but does 'all' apply just to humans or to other sentient creatures as well......

I like the approach of viewing morality as 'human ecology', so that we inquire into the conditions in which humans live relatively happy and satisfying lives.

Dave

[Abhidevananda]

Post by Lance
An interesting article.
"This understanding offers us a fairly straightforward idea of
moral progress: it means including ever more people (or beings) in
the group of those whose interests are to be respected. This too is
an ancient insight: Hierocles, a Stoic philosopher of the second
century, describes us as being surrounded by a series of concentric
circles. The innermost circle of concern surrounds our own self;
the next comprises the immediate family; then follow more remote
family; then, in turn, neighbours, fellow city-dwellers, countrymen
and, finally, the human race as a whole. Hierocles described moral
progress as 'drawing the circles somehow toward the centre', or
moving members of outer circles to the inner ones."
see
http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/what-will-morality-look-like-100-years-hence/

I read the article some time back, found it interesting, but didn't
get an opportunity to reply till now. (If I recall correctly, I did
wonder why there was no example regarding abortion in the article.)

Anyway, I don't think I would describe the above as "moral progress".
To be effective, morality must be a set of principles that is clear
and consistent, not a moving target. So I would have called the above
"spiritual progress", not "moral progress".

Different societies - different in space or time - could have a higher
or lower moral standard, but the principles of morality would be the
same. The standard only reflects the degree to which the citizens of a
society adhere to those moral principles.

Spirituality, on the other hand, is all about loving an all-inclusive
Supreme; and that is essentially what is being described above...
although the spiritualist's circles don't end with "the human race as
a whole". Spiritualists are always universalists. Spiritualists love
God, and God is perceived by spiritualists to be everywhere and
everything.