自由派世俗进步主义者（包括人文主义者、无神论者、改革派等）认为，道德随时间而变化并没有什么不妥，并把这看作一个自然而不可避免的过程，我们都应当欣然接受。遗憾的是，他们对道德的本质其实存在深刻的混淆。

Liberal secular progressives (including humanists, atheists, reformists, etc.) think there is nothing wrong with morality changing over time and view it as a natural, inevitable process that we should all embrace. Unfortunately for them, they are deeply confused about the very nature of morality.

这些人并不在意宗教道德随时间被抛弃，因为他们原本就不认为宗教规范具有道德约束力。他们会说："过去因为宗教情绪，比如婚外性行为被视为错误，但时代变了，我们进步了，现在觉得它没那么糟糕了。"这种想法的混乱很容易说明。不妨考虑一个这些人确实认为具有道德约束力的价值，例如种族平等。可以问他们：如果有一天白人至上被视为道德上可以接受的，他们会同意吗？道德能够演变到某一天白人至上成为所有人都应当追求的伦理准则，这种说法合理吗？为什么不合理？如果白人至上本身并没有任何错误，只是我们尚未意识到，要等未来的人才能认识到，就像过去通奸被视为错误，而后人"发现"它并没有那么糟糕一样，那又有什么区别呢？为什么道德不能以那种方式演变？

These individuals have no problem with religious morality being discarded over time because they do not view religious norms as morally compelling in the first place. They say things like, “Well, in the past, due to religious sentiment, sex outside of marriage, for example, was considered wrong, but times have changed and we don’t find it so bad anymore because we have progressed.” It is very easy to show how muddled this thinking is. Simply consider a value that these people do find morally compelling, e.g., racial equality. Ask them, would they be OK with white supremacy being considered morally acceptable one day? Would it make sense to say that morality could evolve such that, one day, white supremacy is the ethical norm that all are expected to aspire to? Why not? What if there really isn’t anything wrong with white supremacy but we just don’t realize it yet and only future people will be able to realize it, similar to how at one point, fornication was considered wrong, but future people “discovered” that it’s not so bad? What’s the difference? Why couldn’t morality evolve in that way?

道德并非随意演变。它是朝着特定方向演变的。随着道德摆脱迷信、识别出各种伤害，它会变得越来越准确。唯一真正不道德的行为就是伤害他人，这被称为"伤害原则"。 那些受自由世俗主义熏陶的人往往持有这样的观点：唯一真正的道德原则就是伤害原则。依照这一逻辑，他们宣称（尽管存在大量相反的证据）我们已经发现通奸并不真正伤害他人，因此不应被视为不道德。此外，我们已经发现白人至上主义是有害的，因此它应被视为不道德。

Now the response to this might be: “Morality does not evolve haphazardly. It evolves in a specific direction. Our morality becomes increasingly accurate as it sheds superstitions and identifies harms. The only truly immoral act is to harm another person and this is called the ‘Harm Principle.’” Those indoctrinated by liberal secularism tend to have this view: The only true moral principle is the Harm Principle. Using this logic, they claim (despite plenty of countervailing evidence) that we have discovered that fornication doesn’t really harm people, so it should not be considered immoral. Furthermore, we have discovered that white supremacy is harmful, therefore it should be considered immoral.

但让我们先退一步。首先，如果自由主义世俗派声称伤害原则是所有道德的基石，那么他们是否会承认它也可能演变？如果道德会演进和进步，那么我们有朝一日是否会发现伤害他人在道德上是允许的，而伤害原则只是过时的遗迹？如果自由主义世俗进步派坚持认为这不可能，并主张伤害原则将永远具有规范上的约束力，那么在道德问题上，他们其实并不真正是进步的。他们相信存在道德绝对性。那么，他们又如何能责备虔诚的穆斯林也相信那些不随时间变化的道德绝对性呢？

But let’s step back for a moment. First of all, if the Harm Principle is the keystone of all morality as liberal secularists claim, then would they concede that it could also evolve? If morality evolves and progresses, then could we one day discover that it is morally permissible to harm people and that the Harm Principle is an obsolete relic of the past? If liberal secular progressives maintain that this is not possible and the Harm Principle will always remain normatively compelling, then they are not really progressive when it comes to morality. They believe that there are moral absolutes. So how could they fault devout Muslims for also believing in moral absolutes that are invariant with time?

现在驳斥伤害原则其实不难（只需追问究竟什么才算伤害、又由谁来决定；另外指出伤害本身就是一个负载价值的概念，取决于人的更广泛的道德与本体论立场，等等）。但我想把焦点放在道德演变的观念上。那些将伤害原则视为道德绝对的人，用“对什么才是真正有害之处的发现”来解释道德态度随时间的变化。但这种“发现”的过程究竟是什么？

Now, refuting the Harm Principle is easy enough to do (simply question what truly constitutes harm and who gets to decide that; and additionally, point out that harm itself is a value-laden concept that depends on your broader moral and ontological commitments, etc.). But I want to focus on the idea of evolving morality. Those who are dedicated to the Harm Principle as a moral absolute explain changing moral attitudes through time as a function of discovering what is or is not truly harmful. But what is this discovery process?

认识论上讲，发现危害与发现新行星或新化学物质相似吗？它是一种经验性的事情吗？我们在哪里能看到危害？更重要的是，我们看见危害的能力如何随时间推移而进步？我们能理解，随着望远镜技术的改进，发现宇宙中的行星变得越来越容易。但是，是什么使我们能够随时间推移发现新的危害？

Epistemologically speaking, is discovering harms akin to discovering new planets or new chemicals? Is it an empirical thing? Where can you see harm? And, more importantly, how does our ability to see it progress as a function of time? We can understand how discovering planets in the universe has become easier with improved telescope technology. But what is allowing us to discover new harms over time?

当然，自由派世俗进步主义者不会对此给出一个不荒谬、不牵强附会的回答，因此他会转而采用这样的说法："伤害一直为人所知，但有权势的、邪恶的、自私自利的人阻止道德情感的改变，以便不去应对这些伤害。"对此有几点需要说明。第一，有什么证据证明某些伤害一直为人所知？如果纵观世界历史，许多按照当今标准被认为是严重"有害"的事情在历史上是闻所未闻的。同性恋恐惧就是一例，跨性别恐惧是另一例，文化挪用是又一例，微侵犯是再一例，通过代词使用造成的压迫也是一例。事实上，只要去听一堂自由艺术课，最好是在附近大学的性别研究系，就会发现几乎所有被教授为压迫、剥夺权利、性别歧视等的事物，在历史上都是闻所未闻的。这些"不公"所依据的概念本身，在一两代人之前才被提出。那么，今天自由派世俗进步主义者所认定的许多严重"伤害"在历史上为人所知这一观点，又有多大的可信度呢？

Clearly, the liberal secular progressive is not going to have a non-ridiculous, non-grasping-at-straws answer to this, so he will resort to this line: “Harms were always known but powerful, evil, self-serving people prevented moral sentiments from changing in order to address those harms.” A couple of notes on this. First, where is the proof that certain harms were always known? If we survey world history, much of what is considered seriously “harmful” by present standards was unheard of historically. Homophobia is one example. Transphobia is another. Cultural appropriation is another. Microagression is another. Oppression through pronoun usage is another. In fact, just attend a liberal arts class, preferably in the Gender Studies department at your nearest university, and virtually everything that is taught as oppression, disenfranchisement, sexism, etc., was historically unheard of. The very concepts upon which these “wrongs” are based were not coined prior to one or two generations ago. So how plausible is this view that many of the serious “harms” recognized by liberal secular progressives today were known historically?

其次，你的回应再次削弱了道德进步的整个观念。如果伤害原则是一个不变的绝对，什么是伤害、什么不是伤害也是不变的绝对，人们对什么是伤害、什么不是伤害的认识同样是不变的绝对，那么人们常常大谈的道德进步究竟体现在哪里呢？我们的对话者可能会说，进步发生在坏人被打败、真正的正义获胜的时候。但这种道德进步的观念非常薄弱。每个人都相信这种意义上的道德进步！善与恶之间的斗争是永恒的，有时好人获胜，有时好人失败。即使是非自由主义、非世俗的有神论者也相信这一点！这远不是自由主义世俗主义者所诉诸的、贯穿人类历史的持续道德进步的概念。

Secondly, again this response undermines the whole idea of moral progress. If the Harm Principle is an un-evolving absolute and what is or is not harmful is an un-evolving absolute and people’s knowledge of what is or is not harmful is an un-evolving absolute, then where exactly is all the moral progress we keep hearing so much about? Our interlocutor could say that the progress happens when the bad guys get beat and true justice triumphs. But that is a very weak idea of moral progress. Everyone believes in this kind of moral progress! The fight between good and evil is perpetual and sometimes, the good guys win. Other times they lose. Even non-liberal, non-secular theists believe this! This is hardly the notion of continuous moral progress over the course of human history that liberal secularists like to appeal to.

归根结底，当这种道德进步的观念受到批判性审视时，它经不起哪怕最低限度的推敲。这一概念存在严重的认识论问题，部分原因在于伤害原则本身的概念缺陷。当自由主义的世俗进步派援引道德进步时，那些坚持伊斯兰道德原则从启示之时直至今日普遍适用且永不改变的穆斯林，应当予以反驳。穆斯林应当指出这些问题，并要求其意识形态的对手回应他们思想中明显的漏洞。

Ultimately, when this idea of moral progress is critically examined, it does not withstand the most minimal amount of scrutiny. The notion suffers from serious epistemological problems and this is partly due to the conceptual deficiencies within the Harm Principle itself. When liberal secular progressives invoke moral progress, Muslims who maintain the universal, unchanging applicability of Islamic moral principles from the time of revelation to present, should push back. Muslims should point out these problems and demand that their ideological opponents address the gaping holes in their thought.