Thrakum

Argument from progression and argument from prosperity

Two arguments from the stand point of utilitarian realism (as applied in practical ethics)
Exemplified in the context of European colonialism in the new world.

Materialistic prosperity isn’t gained by sniffing flowers or watching the clouds. Throughout history people have done what is necessary, and even more often they have done what , in the eyes of history, haven’t been necessary, but simply in their best interest. For generations beyond counting people have sacrificed time and wealth, sometimes their lives, and sometimes the lives of others, in order to progress civilization. Most of the time they have not done so intentionally, but progression has rather been a secondary effect of primary, short-term motives. These motives, the same as always – wealth, power, and somewhat more recently, knowledge and information.

This progression of ideals is exclusively at the expense of others. No single invention, whether it be a cultural, religious or technological one, has been made without suffering as a cause, and suffering as a consequence, but in the world view of a modern idealist this doesn’t seem to be true. In his mind there is a perfect image where there is always an option where no one gets hurt, and everyone gets what they want. The example being used above all others is that of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. According to the idealist they lived harmonious, fulfilling lives as one with nature, without prejudice and without suffering. This is no doubt a romanticized view. When studying the history of pre-Columbian America, specifically north America, it becomes clear that this is simply not the truth. The philosophy behind it is the same, but reality was far from the perfected version described.

This is where I choose to argue from the standpoint of progression. Even if what is described was true, then the fact remains that these tribes and clans were disorganized nomads, who over a timeline as long as that of Europe and China had not gotten any further than the Chinese had in 3000 BCE, and the Europeans had at the beginning of antiquity. These peoples did not have the cultural preconditions for organized civilization. Just as with biological evolution there is an evolution of thought, where there are dead branches of the tree of life, branches that are there for no other purpose than to become victims of prevailing schools of thought. That is not to say the indigenous peoples of America were any less human than the Europeans who came to colonize their land, or that it was written in stone that they would ended up being the backward natives of a distant shore, rather than the explorers who made the 30 day trip across open sea to discover new land.

Here the argument from prosperity takes over and states that since the idealist reaps the benefits of expansionism, imperialism and colonialism he is just as guilty as those who actually enslaved the tribal societies of the new world.
However, the argument from prosperity also states that the idealist, and everyone else for that matter, shouldn't feel bad about what their ancestral community did, because without those very deeds he would not be here thinking about it and without these deeds, science and reason would not have developed. Without these acts of cruelty and oppression, modern tolerance would not have evolved, because it is a precondition to any new ideal that it has other branches of the tree of thought to be tested against.
There is no reason to think that the native American tribal society would have evolved into a flourishing civilization of trade, culture and innovation, like the European and Chinese did, even if it had gotten another thousand or two thousand years. This branch was a dead end for the progress of humanity, and therefore was a necessary evil in the long evolution that led to modern society.

To summarize:

The argument from progression - It is preconditional for any ideal to have other ideals to compete with. Without dead branches on the tree of thought there would be no progression; failed ideals are necessary evils.

The argument from prosperity - If the argument from progression is true, then subsequently the decisions of the ancestral community were necessary, and to argue against those decisions would be to bite the hand that feeds. Anyone who, by declaring those decisions wrong, and is yet taking advantage of the benefits of those decisions, would be without credibility.

Are these two arguments valid from an ethical point of view?
Does this help in making a seemingly all-together cruel world less so?
Can suffering ever be justified or is this type of utilitarianism taking it one step too far?