Better World and Moral Progress Synonymous?

Is it a fair observation when Russ Shafer-Landau describes, in The Fundamentals of Ethics, 2nd edition, how societal, moral progress appears to have existed in the United Sates following a reduction in racist and sexist attitudes? (295).  I like to think so.  Contrarily, ethical subjectivists and cultural relativists reject that speculation.  Ethical subjectivists and cultural relativists make up the two subdivisions of the broader term: ethical relativism (290).  Shafer-Landau explains how ethical relativists adopt the viewpoint that some moral claims are true; however, morality is a human construct and would cease to exist if humanity became extinct (291).  Furthermore, ethical subjectivists assume the idea that morality is constructed by an individual’s commitments and ideals, while cultural relativists believe morality is ultimately determined by a society’s guiding principles.  Moving on, Shafer-Landau enlightens us by providing several implications both parties face when broken down and analyzed.  One in particular, the idea of moral progress, caught my attention.  According to both ethical subjectivists and cultural relativists, all acknowledged guidelines, whether on an individual or societal level, are morally correct.  Next, Shafer-Landau introduces controversy by questioning the existence of moral progress if all assumed standards are ethically right (296).  Wouldn’t previously viewed moral progress such as the earlier example simply be a shift of ideals rather than ethical progression?  Without a definite standard, progress becomes immeasurable.

This seems like a very disheartening conclusion, in my opinion.  If we as societies and individuals are incapable of moral progress, what will the future behold? Putting aside my opinion that there exists an eternal, divine standard for ethical morality, Shafer-Landau’s arguments are sound and logically conclusive. Conversely, I do think his wording can manipulate his readers (which is a very important skill when writing a persuasive argument).  For starters, moral progress is discussed from a societal level in the previous example, in a context that suggests it is synonymous with the world becoming a better place.  If there is no standard to measure moral progress, does that necessarily mean that the world cannot become a better place? Theoretically, individuals and societies could experience moral change, without measured progress, and the world, as we know it, could become safer, more tolerant, cleaner, etc.  Although no progress has taken place, wouldn’t ethical subjectivists and cultural relativists like those improvements?  The so-called improvements may only be deemed good because ethical relativists like them, but, nevertheless, the world would become a better place even in the absence of moral progress.  My point is, although Shafer-Landau concluded for both ethical subjectivists and cultural relativists that moral progress is impossible, we cannot mistake this conclusion to portray a subliminal message disregarding the possibility of the world becoming a better place; or at least a safer, more tolerant environment.