Talk:Social progressivism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How is this page under the neutrality warning when nobody is even discussing? I personally think it's fine. NPoV grade A.

I agree. I will remove the tag now. --The1exile 16:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Why follow social progressivism? 2 Merge with social liberalism 3 Article POV, and the Netherlands 4 Meaning?

[edit] Why follow social progressivism?

Dear Friends:

Why the heck would anyone want to follow social progressivism? I am better off with social conservatism. PLEASE tell me here if anyone here are social conservatives.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.133.106 (talk)

What does that have to do with the article in any way? --Amokk 09:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with social liberalism

The two ideologies have a lot in common. Many social liberals such as myself are also social progressives. This article is small enough and could easily be merged into the social liberalism article. Regards, Signature^brendel 01:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article POV, and the Netherlands

The following quote from the article leaves me puzzled: "whereas a social progressive campaigning to outlaw recreational drugs in the Netherlands would be seen as right-wing.". How can outlawing drugs possibly be social progressive? Outlawing "new" social phenomenaes inorder to preserve the social order, is the very heart of social conservatism.

Is this some political oddity in the Netherlands or just somebody inserting his own POV into the article? Carewolf 10:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning?

'Social progressivism is the view that social mores, human nature, and morality are capable of progress through history in a manner similar to that of scientific knowledge.'

I am not sure I agree with this sentence. The structure of science does not progress, but the understanding of the world does. There might be changes somehow, yet if science were not consistent, than it would not be of much use. So, to compare a political philosophy to science in the manner as has been done would not seem particularly correct.

Human nature may, in general, be susceptible to progress, but I think in the scheme of progressivism, it is the ability of an individual to react to innate human nature. That is, we are not simply at the whim of instinct.

In the same way in regards to social mores and morality, it is the relation of understanding that changes. Woman did not get to vote because of a moral change. Slavery was not outlawed because of a basic moral change, but a change in seeing what is moral.

The change is not in the underlying concept, however it is in how the concept is seen, or revealed.

Science strives to find the truth. A comparison than would be that progressivism does, too, strive to find the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NantucketNoon (talk • contribs) 12:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)