Well, I would first (and this is because it is a no-no from where I come from) question your use of the term "men." It's gender exclusive, even if it wasn't meant that way.

I edit what I was going to say because I obviously read the question wrong.

I would say that there could be (and in my opinion are) modes of thought which are receptive of equality and are not brutal. As to whether these modes can be put into practice--that is something entirely different.

Well at least- surely, there will always be shepherds leading the way- with their research, discovery, investigation, reasoning and the like; the herd, and those individuals who fall away from the herd in the midst of playing catch-up. Finally, those who oppose the progress, revolution or whatever form of improvement it is in question.

Dan

Pessimist,

:)Progress would need to be redefined, as population growth and greater industrialization it cannot be said to be progress. Progress should be reduction of both industrialization, reduction of human population and a suitable mythology developed which would stress greater harmony with nature. Hopefully this would be global, and not directed at any given group of people. In fact we could institute some sort of control units which might prevent anyone being victumized. At any rate, progress cannot be said to be a continuation of our present path---that is suicide!! :eek:

It seems that the only reasonable definition of progress is discovery of that which maximally furthers human interest and the act of implementing such things. Minimal suffering for maximal benefit on the large scope is the preferred outcome. The objective of man (in the classical sense referring to human) is first self preservation and then species preservation through trying to offer maximal benefit for their offspring.
For example, If protection of the environment is not directly related to man's interest then it is by its nature a secondary concern, as soon as it is, it becomes primary. Any measure taken by the species must be maximally beneficial when all possiblities that can reasonably be considered are such by logic via the afformentioned parameters . This way leads to balance, and definitly approaches perfection by trial and error, as the data gathering becomes more efficient, decisions can be made more and more logically.
This manner of action or thought cannot provide the deepest of answers which prove unyeilding to logical analysis, but rather a basic set of natural directives that is somewhat artificialy reinforced. The natural instinct of man can be redirected to a natural prerogative of which logical directives flow and thus provides man with his most reliable and understandable compass.

How about the 'progress' of antibiotics, and antibacterials such as soap? A bar of soap is available to all, in one form or another. Life is 'enhanced' globally.. All man benefits.
How about science finally catching up to millennia of understanding, and finding the 'Oneness' of the universe of the moment. If all are 'self', we treat 'others' as 'self' and there are no 'victims' here either. How can we victimize 'self'?
Is this what you are asking for?