I can see why you believe that you don't make that assumption, given there is a caveat sentence: "The fact that some new norm strikes us as annoying, or that those advancing it strike us as self-righteous, preachy or otherwise offputting, tells us nothing about whether the norm is an improvement or not, whether it represents moral progre…
I can see why you believe that you don't make that assumption, given there is a caveat sentence: "The fact that some new norm strikes us as annoying, or that those advancing it strike us as self-righteous, preachy or otherwise offputting, tells us nothing about whether the norm is an improvement or not, whether it represents moral progress or moral backslide."
However, nowhere do you talk about moral backslides or give examples of them, or discuss whether they, too, might happen to be annoying and not simply because they have been judged to be backslides. Starting with the title, "moral progress is annoying," almost every usage of "moral" is combined with either "progress" or some phrase indicative of progress. The article does not address whether the eye-roll heuristic is also a serious obstacle to moral backsliding.
I can see why you believe that you don't make that assumption, given there is a caveat sentence: "The fact that some new norm strikes us as annoying, or that those advancing it strike us as self-righteous, preachy or otherwise offputting, tells us nothing about whether the norm is an improvement or not, whether it represents moral progress or moral backslide."
However, nowhere do you talk about moral backslides or give examples of them, or discuss whether they, too, might happen to be annoying and not simply because they have been judged to be backslides. Starting with the title, "moral progress is annoying," almost every usage of "moral" is combined with either "progress" or some phrase indicative of progress. The article does not address whether the eye-roll heuristic is also a serious obstacle to moral backsliding.