>Slaves in slave societies had rising standards of living, did that make slavery okay?

I doubt anyone is making the argument slavery is okay. At least try to argue in good faith. This is a ridiculous example.

I don’t know if it’s that far off. Our current notions of progress haven't allowed us to avoid our current condition of extreme indebtedness and financial insecurity and I think we're at a point where we need to reexamine these notions. I don't think the author does enough to do that.

One unclear example doesn't negate his/her argument. Even one bad example doesn't do this. And neither does arguing in bad faith (if for some reason they are doing so). The argument still stands. You can't coherently make demands about 'progress' (whatever that could even mean) without having some rational and already worked out framework for what determines 'progress' in the first place.

And the commenter is right that failing this, such talk can be dangerous because by a sleight of hand you can substitute - without argument - what is supposedly rational with whatever you simply desire at that moment in time.

The example was very clear, and although it might not negate it, it certainly undermines it. If contrived examples don't have bearing on the validity of an argument, I don't know how we are supposed to move forward in a debate.

I agree with the spirit of the parent poster, but to claim the OP is arguing slavery is okay because of raising standards of living is just as dangerous to this discussion.

I definitely wasn’t making the argument that anyone was arguing for slavery, just that notional definitions of moral progress are much more complicated than simple economic metrics. There is so much more that goes into what is “right” and “wrong” than pure economic level, at a micro or macro level.

Now you might say I’m making a straw man of their argument, but then what are they even arguing then? I can’t figure it out. What does “advancement” mean? They alluded to social sciences having various measure of human happiness is and that a “Progress Studies” department could synthesize these metrics into... what exactly? Policy proposals? A religion? Metrics of human well being assume an underlying framework of morale agreement to begin with.

You simply cannot philosophically convert an objective metric into an “ought” without making a ton of morale assumptions. You cannot prove that your morality and values are better than anyone else’s because you will infinitely regress into definitions if what “good” means.

I agree with what you are saying, just that the way you originally went about saying it by including a contrived hyperbolic example regarding slavery was a poor way to frame your position, at least in my opinion, and made your argument less likely to be received in good faith.

If an argument is not novel (it's been presented before to many people and there is decent awareness of it), is well-understood, and is valid, then someone can use poor examples to explicate the argument and those examples do nothing to undermine the argument.

This commenter's argument was just such an argument.

If the position was one you didn't agree with, would you still be defending such a hyperbolic example?

Do we agree that how you present an argument is important in how the argument is received by others?

I don't follow why an argument with "decent awareness" (whatever that could even mean) or one that is non-novel has different standards to a novel argument or one that has less awareness.

I've no doubt that the presentation of an argument is important to its reception.

Again, the validity of the argument under discussion doesn't rest on the example that was used to explicate it. The examples are separate from the argument (this isn't always the case).

He’s not saying anyone is trying to argue that slavery is ok. He’s using it as hyperbole that without a specific definition, progress can’t be measured objectively.

An appeal to extremes is not the only way to get the point across.

Its just an efficient one.

By pulling to the extreme, you can remove a lot of the smaller and subtler points of the argument, to get pointedly at a core issue.

Unless of course the recipient tries to (re-)introduce irrelevant aspects of the fact that you tried to be pointed...

I haven't heard of an established logical fallacy being an efficient argument but, sure.

I'm curious about the logical fallacy that you can objectify morality. I would like to do more reading on this subject, could you direct me towards the proof for this? I'm genuinely interested.

In the limit, Gödel.

(I'm not joking, I swear! To objectify morality you have to encode it, eh? So you're sunk before you begin: there will be moral things that can't be encoded, and encode-able things that are not moral, or cannot be proven moral nor immoral. And then you have the problem of deciding whether "objectifing morality" is itself a moral goal, n'est-ce pas? )

I agree.

E.g. the Communists insist they are benefiting the Tibetans.

Or consider the native Hawaiians vs. the telescope on their sacred volcano Mauna Kea.

Without establishing the greater context "progress" is a shiboleth.

Wendell Berry has an essay, "What are People For?", that's worth reading in this connexion.

The simplest way to encounter the issue is be asking yourself, as a two-year old would, "And then what..? And then what..? And then what..?"