Social Progress: When and How? Two Conservative Responses and Their Limits

IF 0.4 3区 文学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Benoit Gaultier
{"title":"Social Progress: When and How? Two Conservative Responses and Their Limits","authors":"Benoit Gaultier","doi":"10.1007/s12136-026-00694-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In this paper I examine two common conservative responses to two questions about social progress: How should social progress be pursued? And when does social change constitute social progress? These two responses can be summarised as follows: “Less teleologically, and less often, than non-conservatives generally think”. The first response is anchored in a criticism of the claims of reason in the pursuit of social progress. I reconstruct and examine this criticism and its variants, and then turn to the second response, and more specifically to a way of arguing for it based on value conservatism. I argue that, even if correct, value conservatism speaks less often against social change than conservatives generally think.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44390,"journal":{"name":"Acta Analytica-International Periodical for Philosophy in the Analytical Tradition","volume":"41 4","pages":"1071 - 1086"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Analytica-International Periodical for Philosophy in the Analytical Tradition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12136-026-00694-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper I examine two common conservative responses to two questions about social progress: How should social progress be pursued? And when does social change constitute social progress? These two responses can be summarised as follows: “Less teleologically, and less often, than non-conservatives generally think”. The first response is anchored in a criticism of the claims of reason in the pursuit of social progress. I reconstruct and examine this criticism and its variants, and then turn to the second response, and more specifically to a way of arguing for it based on value conservatism. I argue that, even if correct, value conservatism speaks less often against social change than conservatives generally think.

社会进步:何时、如何?两种保守的回应及其局限性
在本文中,我考察了两种常见的保守主义者对社会进步的两个问题的回应:如何追求社会进步?什么时候社会变革构成了社会进步?这两种反应可以总结如下:“不像非保守派一般认为的那样,目的性更少,也更少。”第一种反应是对追求社会进步的理性主张的批评。我重构并审视了这种批评及其变体,然后转向第二种回应,更具体地说,是基于价值保守主义的一种辩论方式。我认为,即使价值保守主义是正确的,它反对社会变革的次数也比保守主义者通常认为的要少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Acta Analytica is an international journal for philosophy in the analytical tradition covering a variety of philosophical topics including philosophical logic, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of science and philosophy of mind. Special attention is devoted to cognitive science. The journal aims to promote a rigorous, argument-based approach in philosophy. Acta Analytica is a peer reviewed journal, published quarterly, with authors from all over the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书