- Francis Fukuyama on why we’re better than our ancestors.
Big Think, Jonny Thomson, 30 Sep 2026: Francis Fukuyama on why we’re better than our ancestors, subtitled “Everyone matters. If you believe that, it’s a good sign.”
Immediate reaction: well of course. Many do believe that now. But certainly the writers of the OT didn’t, nor do Christian nationalists.
Key Takeaways:
- A few weeks ago, John Gray told me that he believed there is no such thing as progress in politics and ethics. This week, Francis Fukuyama fundamentally disagrees.
- For Fukuyama, the fact that most people view all human beings as morally important is a definite sign of moral progress.
- Fukuyama argues that the nation-state is perhaps the best, necessary tool of governance. This can bring benefits and problems.
Recalling historical accounts of indifference to casual violence. Recalls Pinker’s BETTER ANGELS.
The writer recalls a rare case (in science or philosophy) of an opposite opinion.
A few weeks ago, I explained John Gray’s theory that we never make progress in ethics and politics because any advancement we make is short-lived and forever reversible. Technology and science accumulate over millennia. But ethics? Well, we’re no less brutal than we ever were. It only takes a strong wind to push us back into evil.
Recalling those historical accounts,
Fukuyama disagrees. … In other words, [those] societies had devalued another portion of society. They’d dehumanized them. The poor, the criminal, the outsider — these groups were considered below compassion. They were no longer moral subjects.
Fukuyama’s point is that this is no longer the norm. Of course, people still are terrible to each other. Just five minutes on your news app of choice will reveal that. Of course, we all treat people at work, on the street, or in our homes awfully from time to time. That’s a part of being human. But the point is that the norm is universality.
Most people, in most of the world, think that other human beings are at least worth some moral consideration. 73% of people think human rights exist. Most of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty. Four out of five people think that torture is wrong, no matter what. Today, it’s widely accepted that no one is valueless. And that, for Fukuyama, is progress.
As usual with sharp disagreements, it’s easy to see what’s happening here: different perspectives, and different timelines. Does violence go up and down? Sure, given whatever scale you’re looking at. But compare Fukuyama’s scale, and Pinker’s. Gray might be right that circumstances might “push us back into evil.” Circumstances might make us extinct, too. We try to guard against such circumstances.
The morality of religious fundamentalists, and Christian nationalists, are parts of the problem we must guard against.
A related question is asked, about how far empathy can extend.
I asked Fukuyama a common question about universalism or global cosmopolitanism: Does this mean that we have the same responsibility to those thousands of miles away as to those who live next door? Fukuyama thinks not.
First, it’s psychologically implausible. We grow to love those people we see regularly. We care for those we help and who help us in turn. Communities and relationships are established through real-life, felt actions. To ask someone to hang up these feelings or loyalties in the interests of a faceless, distant name or number is like asking a parent to not love their child.
Second, and most relevantly, it’s politically undesirable. “The nation-state is a necessary political structure,” Fukuyama says.
“They empower police forces and armies to protect the community, and those forms of power have to be territorially limited. If you have a police force that can arrest anybody anywhere in the world for a crime you deem to be a crime, you’re going to be living in a very, very chaotic world.”
Again, these are issues of scope. The same might have been said centuries ago about the feasibility of an entire nation of 330 million people living under one set of governmental principles. Some of us think we can. Many of us would overthrow those principles, if they could, in favor of their tribal priorities.
