Conflict and Progress: A Philosophical Analysis

Moving a society forward requires a goal for all to work towards. Philosophers like Smith and Hegel believe that progress in society comes from conflict. While the conflict is not necessarily the primary goal, progress comes from an invisible hand. However, Marx will argue that class conflict should be eliminated to allow for the free development of all. All three try to explain societal progress, the only difference is in execution. So, it must be asked; Is conflict beneficial for progress? Is progress known from experience? Does experience prove that a radical rupture of ideas is needed? Do members of the society need to be aware of the goal, or is an invisible hand present? Each with their own strengths and weakness all three philosophers attempt to answer these questions. For Adam Smith, the desire to obtain conveniences and appeal to the thoughts of others leads to progress for society. In his theory, humans are morally motivated to appeal to the view of

History for Hegel is a rational process that cannot be knowing a priori. The conflicts that occur in society allow for the universal mind to work out its own ideas (788) . His thought of progress is done by dialectical reasoning, where opposition occurs, but the conflict leads to a synthesis of both sides. The world for him is a history of rational development, the end goal is achieving the currently unknown world mind. This reasoning is to be done at the rational level and it is something that is to be found out rather than just assumed (828) . The history of the world allows for these dialectic thoughts, by having conflict and synthesis a better society will continue to be produced. Hegel believes that to have a fulfilling life individuals will want to reach the universal mind; going against it would be a waste of a life. History is a rational process; it is the universal mind working out its own