That's the problem.
Only to those adverse to the concept of liberty.
I have no idea what you are talking about, and I suspect you don't either.
You know very well what I am talking about, you wish to establish a philosophical/political criteria for employment by the state, you do recall the example you used, don't you? My statement is that this is no different than reqiring party membership for state employment.
Fascism, Nazism, Stalinism, the medicalization of homosexuality, the oppression of women in the 1950's,
All of which arose either in opposition to or as a reaction against the ideals of the enlightenment; and all of which were eventually corrected by following the ideals of the enlightenment.
the rise of consumerism......
I think it's great that our economic philosophy has contributed so much to the advancement of our economy and the general wealth of the nation that this is even a viable possibility.
Great. A new Empire to replace the previous Empire, which replaced the previous Empire..........I'm not sure how you can prove that this is somehow a "moral good" unlike the rise of the Ottomans or the Rise of the Greeks, or the rise of the Phonecians, or the rise of the Romans etc- none of which were the result of the Enlightenment.
So the west, consisting of dozens of states, is now an 'empire' akin to Greece or Rome? Imperialism is, in fact, quite contrary to the ideals of the enlightenment, economic and political, which was more concerned with free trade and a degree of isolationism in foreign policy, which was, in many ways, a reaction against Imperialism. In fact the first country founded on the ideals of the enlightenment was formed by rebelling against an Empire and the next country by overthrowing it's monarchy.
So your proof of what is morally good is how much it is adopted? Interesting criterion.
The point being that the freedom enjoyed in the west is a direct result of the enlightenment, without which we would have remained, philosophically, in the darkness of the middle ages.
Which is a moral good because....? Is it a moral good because:
1) Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day?
2) The GDP of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined?
3) Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names?
4) Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn't happen?
5) 51 percent of the world’s 100 hundred wealthiest bodies are corporations?
6) The wealthiest nation on Earth has the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation?
7) 20% of the population in the developed nations, consume 86% of the world’s goods?
8 ) The top fifth of the world’s people in the richest countries enjoy 82% of the expanding export trade and 68% of foreign direct investment — the bottom fifth, barely more than 1%?
9) In 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% — in 1997, 74 times as much?
10) The developing world now spends $13 on debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants?
11) A few hundred millionaires now own as much wealth as the world’s poorest 2.5 billion people?
Well, rather than take the time to reply to every point indivdually (it's getting close to bed time), I can observe that your points are essentially divided into two main categories: dichotomy between the developed and undeveloped world and dichotomy between the upper and lower classes in the developed world.
As for the dichotomy between the developed and undeveloped world, I think that demonstrates my point; the countries that adopted the political and economic philosophies of the enlightenment have advanced far beyond the other countries of the world, the ideals of liberty, self-determination, and free markets (and a state that upholds them) are essential to the advancement of a nation or people.
Or, if you want to start using religious notions of morality, those who have embraced the truth of the enlightenment have been blessed and have prospered, while those who have rejected it are paying the price of their iniquities through hardship and oppression.
As for the dichotomy between the upper and lower classes, it should first be noted that this dichotomy is greater in the undeveloped and unenlightened world than in the developed world. Secondly, it is not that the poor have become poorer, they have become wealthier and have come to enjoy a higher standard of living. At the same time the rich have likewise continued to increase their wealth, it may be true that the upper classes have been more successful at increasing their standard of living, but the important point is that standard of living has increased
for everyone. While the poor may not be making the same gains as the rich, they certainly arn't loosing out.
Then tell me: Why should a nation becoming a superpower be considered a moral good? I guess with a 17th century mindset, you can be excused for thinking so.
In and of itself, it is not. However, as this rise from colonial backwater to a superpower (which affords its citizens some of the highest incomes, standards of living, and degrees of freedom in the world) is the result of the philosophy of the enlightenment, it can be objectively observed that this philosophy is beneficial and has lead to the advancement and progress of those who have embraced it.