On Setting the Clock Right

Isn’t it curious that almost any serious social criticism today will be met with the retort that “You can’t turn the clock back”? If one hints that atomic energy may not be a good thing for mankind in its present state of moral development, one is accused of turning his back on the future. If one suggests that the war of unlimited objectives really settles no more than previous wars have done but entails immensely greater destruction of life and property, one is charged with wanting to return to the horse and buggy days. If one remarks that both theory and observation prove that collectivism is fatal to individual liberty, one is blamed for being out of step with the times. If one hazards an opinion that the amount of noise and confusion prevailing today is perhaps not the best thing for the human psyche, one is branded an enemy of progress. In fact, I can’t think of any objection to the present physical and moral order which will not likely be answered with some variety of the charge that the critic wants to turn the clock back.

This retort is heard so regularly and from sources so influential in the practical way that we need to make a serious examination of its argumentative basis. What is it that leads people who in other matters may exhibit good intelligence to suppose that they have an argument in the idea that “You can’t turn the clock back”? What is it that allows them to imagine they have the clincher in any debate over conduct or social policy when they assert that the future dictates a certain line of action to which alternatives are only futile attempts to move back the hour hand?

RW

About the Author

Richard M. Weaver

Featured Tags

Isn’t it curious that almost any serious social criticism today will be met with the retort that “You can’t turn the clock back”? If one hints that atomic energy may not be a good thing for mankind in its present state of moral development, one is accused of turning his back on the future. If one suggests that the war of unlimited objectives really settles no more than previous wars have done but entails immensely greater destruction of life and property, one is charged with wanting to return to the horse and buggy days. If one remarks that both theory and observation prove that collectivism is fatal to individual liberty, one is blamed for being out of step with the times. If one hazards an opinion that the amount of noise and confusion prevailing today is perhaps not the best thing for the human psyche, one is branded an enemy of progress. In fact, I can’t think of any objection to the present physical and moral order which will not likely be answered with some variety of the charge that the critic wants to turn the clock back.

This retort is heard so regularly and from sources so influential in the practical way that we need to make a serious examination of its argumentative basis. What is it that leads people who in other matters may exhibit good intelligence to suppose that they have an argument in the idea that “You can’t turn the clock back”? What is it that allows them to imagine they have the clincher in any debate over conduct or social policy when they assert that the future dictates a certain line of action to which alternatives are only futile attempts to move back the hour hand?