When I've tried this argument out in other places, I noticed that people would immediately try to dodge by using a non-metaphysical definition of progressivism. Which is exactly what I wanted them to do... to try and avoid that here, let's establish two definitions of progressivism. One definition is a metaphysical, quasi-religious idea. It presumes the existence of a "moral arc of history." This belief holds that progress is natural, essentially endless and that those who are morally superior both deserve and will have primacy over those who are morally inferior (by which they generally mean the "regressive" conservatives and reactionaries). To establish that there are people who really believe in progress in a quasi-religious sense, let's use a link to an article. Here a writer discusses these presumptions as recently as a few days ago in the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.187c2d188f0d Moving on, let's establish a second definition of progressivism: the idea that seeking "social progress" is worthy as an ethical goal, modus operandi or as a way of life. Note that I'm not criticizing that in this post (although I have nitpicked through it in others) but specifically here, let's notice how this idea is not the same thing as the first idea. The first idea believes that progress is a natural and inevitable "part of the universe". The second idea does not necessarily make those presumptions; it merely describes a perceived philosophical direction that some people follow as a sort of code. In what follows, we aren't referring to this second definition of progressivism, we are referring to the first definition. Onto the argument. At the outset, the argument that "progress" is a real metaphysical phenomenon is very appealing. But a number of subtle problems prop up. First, if the past is always morally inferior (and therefore must be subservient to) the future, this means that the present is also inferior to the future. But since progressivism has no agreed upon end point, we can actually take this a step further: not only is the past inferior to the future, not only is the present inferior to the future but ipso facto each and every future is also necessarily inferior to a future that comes after that future. According to these metaphysics, there is no endpoint or ultimate, no reliable or objective value (besides progress itself), no God or Buddha, only an endless line of subservient inferiors who must serve whatever will come after them. Is this why progressives have become increasingly totalitarian over time? After all, why shouldn't someone serve their moral superiors? Inevitably then, what appears on its face as a promise for liberation is actually an eternity of servitude. I believe that if one can free their mind from the presumption that the future is always naturally better, the present becomes actionable and worthwhile. The only argument against this that I have been able to come up with, besides the aforementioned people who try to dodge by abandoning the metaphysical definition of progressivism, would be to argue that yes, the future is always better, always deserves our subservience and that's OK. And if someone actually took that position I think it would, in some ways at least, be consistent and therefore philosophically respectable but I have yet to see anyone truly take that position. It strikes me as highly contrary to human nature because people naturally want to be happy, they want things to come to a resolution, they want to live in the moment but perhaps most of all they just don't believe that metaphysical progress is real in the first place.
I don't think that there's any decent argument to make regarding the future. For starters it doesn't exist. In fact the future can never actually exist. There is only the present, the now. Decisions we make now may have ramifications or they may not. But any ramifications actually take place in the ever-present. Social progress is simply social change. It occurs in the present. It can't occur in the future because the future doesn't exist.
