Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the morality of society declining?
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 1 of 18 (223933)
07-15-2005 1:42 PM


I would suggest this topic for Social Issues.
Is there a decline in morality today? How does one define morality?
Certainly, the acceptance of certain practices is changing. Things that produced a heavy stigma fifty years ago are barely worth notice today. Homosexuality is now considered normal (by science), no longer a mental disorder. Gay marriage has become a topic of discussion, with many other nations legalizing homosexual unions. Sex and violence in the media (as a topic on the news, anyway) are rising. Words considered obscene just a few years ago are becoming accepted in the media and culture, while words considered obscene even today seem to be used more often. Divorce rates have been climbing, as have been the rates of single parents. The current trend seems to be that atheism seems to be growing slightly over the past decade.
Do these changes, with others, denote a decline in the morality of our society? Who defines what is moral and immoral? Is the Bible a universal moral guide that should apply even to non-Christians? If so, is it justifiable to legislate morality even to people who do not believe in the Bible?
I will post my opinions with those of others if and when this topic is promoted.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 07-16-2005 10:53 AM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2005 12:08 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 11 by mick, posted 07-17-2005 7:17 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 12 by jar, posted 07-17-2005 9:55 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 16 by rgb, posted 06-22-2006 1:12 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 18 by ikabod, posted 06-23-2006 3:50 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 18 (223996)
07-15-2005 6:34 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 3 of 18 (224076)
07-16-2005 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
07-15-2005 1:42 PM


There is no known absolute morality. Neither is there ever likely to be such, even if religion in some form is real.
Given this, morality is still a useful tool even if subjective in nature. Moral systems using "right and wrong" are not as useful to the human condition as those which simply allow people to define their moral character.
Most people are not common with the latter, abrahamic monotheism has all but wiped its general use from the planet, but it did exist and is still practiced by some. An example of the difference can be obtained from the act of someone killing another. Commonly the act is viewed as right or wrong. But in the other moral system the act may be both brave and a sign of loyalty, yet unjust. Whether you choose to do it or not will define you based on those characteristics.
But since it is all subjective either system may be used. Because of morality's subjective nature, society is almost always "in decline" to somebody, while it is increasing from someone else's vantage point. None are wrong.
Is the Bible a universal moral guide that should apply even to non-Christians?
The Bible is not a universal guide among Xians, so it is impossible to argue it is or could be applied to nonXians.
is it justifiable to legislate morality even to people who do not believe in the Bible?
No, and it isn't justifiable in a secular nation to legislate morality to people based on any other moral system either.
In a secular system rights are the basis for legislation, and these are taken for onesself and not from morality. That is laws are based on maintaining the integrity of one's rights from interference by others and govt, and not maintaing the moral integrity of society from interference by your thoughts and actions.
A secular society is focused on nonmoral, tangible issues.
This message has been edited by holmes, 07-16-2005 10:54 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 07-15-2005 1:42 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 4 of 18 (224086)
07-16-2005 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
07-15-2005 1:42 PM


Do these changes, with others, denote a decline in the morality of our society?
depends.
are condemnation, hatred, prejudice, hypocracy, and oppression morals?
if so, my answer is a resounding "yes!"

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 07-15-2005 1:42 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 07-16-2005 3:45 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 7 by Andya Primanda, posted 07-17-2005 7:30 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 5 of 18 (224112)
07-16-2005 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by arachnophilia
07-16-2005 12:08 PM


condemnation, hatred, prejudice, hypocracy, and oppression morals?
I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that you have no moral system of any kind, or are in no way repulsed by things which others enjoy, and wish people did not engage in those acts?
There is nothing that if people took it up more and more, despite there being no objectively horrible things happening, you'd not feel people were losing perspective and becoming "degraded" in some way?
This is of course outside the subject of willingness to condemn it by law or force of govt, which is a different subject.
As far as I can tell everyone is a bigot about something.
This message has been edited by holmes, 07-16-2005 03:46 PM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2005 12:08 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 07-17-2005 7:20 AM Silent H has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 6 of 18 (224177)
07-17-2005 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Silent H
07-16-2005 3:45 PM


As far as I can tell everyone is a bigot about something.
yes, and my particular brand of bigotry is against bigots. and i'm only a hypocrite because i claim not to be.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 07-16-2005 3:45 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 07-17-2005 11:35 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 18 (224179)
07-17-2005 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by arachnophilia
07-16-2005 12:08 PM


quote:
are condemnation, hatred, prejudice, hypocracy, and oppression morals?
if so, my answer is a resounding "yes!"
I beg to differ.
I don't see that people are less bigoted in the past.
I'd say humans have always been bigots. Xenophobia is human nature. So you can't say morality of society is 'declining' in that sense. But it's not improving either...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2005 12:08 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 07-17-2005 7:39 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 8 of 18 (224181)
07-17-2005 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Andya Primanda
07-17-2005 7:30 AM


yeah, ok, people are tking this way too seriously. i was trying to be funny.
but sadly, andya, you are probably right.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Andya Primanda, posted 07-17-2005 7:30 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 9 of 18 (224200)
07-17-2005 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by arachnophilia
07-17-2005 7:20 AM


yes, and my particular brand of bigotry is against bigots. and i'm only a hypocrite because i claim not to be.
Of course that's not true. I realize you were trying to make a joke, but it was at the expense of another group and so it is a bit of hypocrisy and I stepped in.
As much as I dislike intolerance, it is different than bigotry and so I find it unfair (indeed intolerant) to riff on someone else's bigotry as somehow inferior.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 07-17-2005 7:20 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 07-17-2005 5:25 PM Silent H has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 10 of 18 (224266)
07-17-2005 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Silent H
07-17-2005 11:35 AM


alright, look, i was kidding. it was a joke.
never heard the expression that "turnabout is fair play?"

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 07-17-2005 11:35 AM Silent H has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 11 of 18 (224297)
07-17-2005 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
07-15-2005 1:42 PM


rahvin writes:
Is there a decline in morality today? How does one define morality?
For me, moral behaviour is behaviour that increases the total sum of happiness in the world, or that sets up a situation that will permit others to make themselves happy. Given, that we live in a society where others may be displeased with our behaviour, we need a way of deciding whether our happiness is more important than the unhappiness of others. I take a pragmatic view on this question - if our happiness causes others to be injured in a substantive way, then we need to offset their injury against our happiness.
rahvin writes:
Homosexuality is now considered normal (by science), no longer a mental disorder. Gay marriage has become a topic of discussion, with many other nations legalizing homosexual unions.
Homosexuality and gay marriage makes people happy, and it doesn't hurt anybody else. So it has to be considered a good thing.
rahvin writes:
Sex and violence in the media (as a topic on the news, anyway) are rising.
I don't care about sex and violence on TV. I care about violence in the real world. Most people would agree that violence in the real world doesn't really make anybody happy, there isn't much of a moral paradox there.
rahvin writes:
Words considered obscene just a few years ago are becoming accepted in the media and culture, while words considered obscene even today seem to be used more often.
Obscene words don't hurt anybody in a substantive manner. I mean the use of words such as shit, fuck, vulva, etc. Racial slurs and the like do hurt people, but I don't think that's what is exercising your imagination. So the increase in the use of foul language can only be a good thing. Who gives a fuck about foul language?
rahvin writes:
Divorce rates have been climbing, as have been the rates of single parents.
That's a tricky one. Divorce of people who have come to an agreement that they no longer wish to be married can only be approved. Sometimes children can be hurt by the divorce of their parents. But as long as parents carry out divorce in a sensitive manner, it need not hurt their kids that much. Being a child of an unhappy marriage is more miserable, in any case. For children, divorce can mean freedom from arguments and fights, and better relationships with mother and father, so is not necessarily a bad thing.
rahvin writes:
The current trend seems to be that atheism seems to be growing slightly over the past decade.
Atheism doesn't hurt anybody in a substantive way.
rahvin writes:
Do these changes, with others, denote a decline in the morality of our society? Who defines what is moral and immoral? Is the Bible a universal moral guide that should apply even to non-Christians? If so, is it justifiable to legislate morality even to people who do not believe in the Bible?
A quick summation of happiness versus unhappiness indicates that society is becoming more moral. This is thanks to the institution of gay marriage, more relaxed attitudes towards dress and behaviour, and less imposition of society's inclinations on individual human beings who have their own lives to lead.
Mick
added in edit:
of course, if you believe that morality is nothing to do with happiness, but is to do with the imposition of a traditional sense of right and wrong, then society is becoming more immoral. But for the reasons I've described above, that's also a good thing.
rahvin writes:
Is the Bible a universal moral guide that should apply even to non-Christians? If so, is it justifiable to legislate morality even to people who do not believe in the Bible?
No. The bible isn't a universal moral guide. It's just an old book. It shouldn't be "applied" to anybody, especially not non-Christians who have voluntarily abandoned its teachings or have never accepted them in the first place.
This message has been edited by mick, 07-17-2005 07:30 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 07-15-2005 1:42 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 12 of 18 (224315)
07-17-2005 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
07-15-2005 1:42 PM


are there any indications of decline?
Personally I believe we are seeing a decline of general morality but I also believe most people totally miss the indicators. Many point to things like divorce rate when it has nothing to do with morality. What folk miss are the people like the evangelicals and fundamentalists that are actively working to destroy morality.
The threat to morality is coming from a denial of individual value and worth. Should they succeed we will enter another Dark Age, but it, like all such periods of terror, too will pass.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 07-15-2005 1:42 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 13 of 18 (224643)
07-19-2005 2:27 PM


I don't believe the morality of socciety is declining.
The "examples" I brought up in the opening post are only examples of a declining morality to the news media, who seem to jump on any story that produces a feel of doom and gloom.
Violence in TV, movies, and videogames has nothing to do with morality. As previously mentioned, the only violence that matters is real-world violence, and the violent crime rate has actually been declining for some time now. The acceptance of homosexuals as full members of society is a step foreward, not back. The divorce rate is climbing because it is now easier for marriages that are not working (or even abusive) to be dissolved, which is actually a good thing for all family members involved.
I think that the philosophy of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is basically universal, if not in those exact words. Personal freedom should be paramount, restricted only insofar as is necessary to protect the rights and posessions of others. If an act does not hurt anyone, physically or economically, that act should be allowed, even if the majority of people don't "like" it. The above-mentioned examples are actually examples of individual freedom growing.
Personally I believe we are seeing a decline of general morality but I also believe most people totally miss the indicators. Many point to things like divorce rate when it has nothing to do with morality. What folk miss are the people like the evangelicals and fundamentalists that are actively working to destroy morality.
The threat to morality is coming from a denial of individual value and worth. Should they succeed we will enter another Dark Age, but it, like all such periods of terror, too will pass.
I agree with you for the most part - the threat to morality does come from the denial of individual value and worth. I also agree that the evangelicals and fundamentalists who are actively working to restrict personal choice and destroy freedom are morally bankrupt. I'm a bit more optimistic about society as a whole, though. I still hold out hope that the majority of people see that destruction of freedom without rational justification (ie, "the Bible says so" doesn't count), in the name of God or otherwise, is immoral.

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 14 of 18 (224647)
07-19-2005 2:50 PM


Ok look folks,
It all depends on what one cares to call "morality".
It is impossible to determine from a universal context IMO.
The Church has always come out and bluntley drew the lines in bold what one could and could not do to keep within grace of the church.(IMO) But I doubt the Pagans that stoked the fires of the inquisitions were aware of they're newly labled "imorality".
We have laws on the books that made it illegal to shoot indians from inside city limits. But they were fair game out on the range.
The hipocracy of would be moral gurus can fill volumes.
I think the question of whether society is become less moral is unanswerable unless one is willing to narrowly define which society and which moral standards they are talking about.

  
Jonson-Needs_proof
Inactive Junior Member


Message 15 of 18 (324862)
06-22-2006 12:55 PM


Defining morality is a difficult one but I wouldn't say its strictly speaking impossible.
I'd tend to agree with Mick in that moral behaviour is that which DOES NOT AFFECT THE OVERALL WELLBEING OF ANYBODY ELSE, but therein lies the problem.
Every day every one of us is doing something that affects others in a negative way. Be it driving your car to work or even buying coffee. Pretty much every time you spend money you help to reinforce the inequalities in the world today unfortunatly thats just the way things go.
Ultimately the more people in the world the less fair the world becomes, with everybody innocently trying to make themselves comfortable, somebody is always on the loosing end.
Remember they said something like; For everybody to have the same standard of living as the average American we would need 5 plantes.
And is the average American completely satisfied?
Edited by Jonson-Needs_proof, : Spelling Mistake - Yes it matters

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024