> I'm puzzled about the definition of "progress." You say that it's natural for society to progress from strict moral codes to looser ones.

I said nothing of the sort. If you were to look at history, you'd notice that moral codes have a tendency of shifting around a lot. In general, though, we see a shift toward greater personal liberty, but there are ups and downs. Athens had a democracy of sorts thousands of years ago, and then we had a few millennia of monarchies and dictatorships. These things even happen in the short term; compare Germany in 1910, 1925 and 1940 for a telling example.

In the U.S., we've had our share of twists as well. Compare the "Roarin' '20s" to the 1950s to the 1970s. The attitudes toward various things shift back and forth, based on a variety of factors.

I think it's natural for human society to improve through evolution, though. Ultimately I believe we settle on which moral codes are the most effective, though like biological evolution there are constant hiccups and setbacks, which is why growth isn't linear.

> But does progress have to travel in *this* direction? If society went from its current state into one that was more morally-conscious and critical about specific "rights and wrongs," could that be called progress also? It would probably be called regression, quite the opposite.

I think it really depends on your definition of morality. I personally believe we should follow a moral code that encourages us to help others if we can, prohibits us from harming others directly and discourages us from engaging in activities which are detrimental to ourselves. I think it is important to note, though, that I feel an overly rigid moral code to be a hindrance to society.

A big part of personal growth (and by extension societal growth) is having the freedom to experiment and to learn from mistakes. People should have the freedom and the liberty to figure out what is bad and good on their own. Having a society (and particularly a government) that is too overbearing encourages the opposite and leads to a stunted intellectual maturity. It's sort of like parents who are over-protective: their children tend to end up dependant upon them and unable to think rationally.

I'm not saying detailed moral codes are bad, but we do need to be constantly analyzing any morals we hold. A society which encourages more freedom to try different things (within reasonable limits) and doesn't condemn people for having different beliefs is the best possible one. This is the core of why I am against overly strong government and authority.

Stephen