Evolution and Progress [antikvár]

Introduction The essays included in Part I of this volume have a common theme and they develop a fairly continuous line of argument. In Chapter I, I have tried to show that, despite the attacks which have been made on it, the idea of progress retains its vitality. It is true that so far no general law of progress has been established. But along certain lines there clearly has been progress and there is reasonable justification for the belief in the possibility of further progress. The theme is, of course, too large for a single essay and, in particular, my survey included no discussion of what, to my mind, is the most important single contribution to this subject in the twentieth century, namely, that made by L. T. Hobhouse. I have, therefore, thought it worth while to reprint, with the kind permission of the publishers, the Introduction I wrote for the seventh edition of Morals in Evolution (1950), in which his views of the nature and possibilities of progress can be seen to be solidly based on a wide survey of the historical facts and of the growth of knowledge in the fields of theory and practice. Any theory of progress involves reference to ethical standards and, clearly, on this there are wide differences of opinion. With Hobhouse, I believe in the possibility of a rational ethic and in the lecture on "Reason and Experience in Ethics" I have tried to define my attitude to the claims of reason in this domain. I attach special importance to the notion of levels of development, and I believe that the criteria which are commonly employed in estimating advance in knowledge are applicable also in the sphere of conduct. The concluding essay in Part I stands somewhat apart from the rest. It deals with the causal analysis of social change generally, and is not directly concerned with evolutionary change or development. There are, however, points of contact with the other essays in the analysis of social purpose as a factor in social change and in the discussion of the role of teleology in sociological and historical explanation. The five chapters in Part II are devoted to a study of the