Society and morality.

[vortexring 0]

There is a subject I've quite a lot of interest in; I assume you have too. Essentially it asks the question of morality in modern life, or even; why are things so shit these days? Now, you might have recently experienced some rather positive and uplifting factors in your day to day life. Theoretically you may have shared such factors with your family and friends so naturally feel disinclined to agree with my assertion. Equally, you could have experienced the opposite. Either way, to view the subject objectively brings about a rather apparant observation...

Immoral behaviour is on the rise throughout countless aspects of our societies. Could religion be the issue here? Probably not, if we consider moral behaviour 1000 years ago was apparantly a great deal worse, despite the vast, vast majority of the populace being religious.

But this is about today. And I'm convinced religion is the crux of the problem. More of that later.

Anyway - the commonly experienced breakdown of everything that's good in life. Where do I start? At family units commonly breaking down? Divorce rates rapidly increasing? Individualism? Power? Kudos? Wealth?

I know numerous families that have broken up through work commitments. Why? Military aside, what kind of person puts work before family? It doesn't just relate to our employments; it's from simple aspects of patience and our treatment of fellow humans to drugs and setting about people with knives and hammers. Our perception of our leaders, muddled beyond any reasonable comprehension through the medias of our choice?

Basic individual integrity and morality. Are we all somewhat lacking in this area?

WHY?

Going back to the religious point. It brings to mind atheism. Could this be the cause? I think it's simple: religion, through it's proper use and application provides a moral code which benefits us all and helps address the issues we're facing today. It's not worth harping on about Catholic child abusers or Taliban dickheads or Christian based acts of depravity through the ages. This is about today.

I'm convinced we all need a generic code to live by. You may well be atheist and an outstanding example of human integrity, honesty and morality. But are your fellow atheists? Ha, are your fellow Christians? It goes back to my point though: without a code of morality, and as 'things' are going, we're pretty much fucked I reckon.

What solutions can you provide?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[mnealtx 0]

You make some good points - but I don't think there's a solution. There are too many people willing to blame everything on an ideology or a religion as a whole to excuse the actions of individuals.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

It's tough to take you assertion seriously when you have to openly discount the exceptions to religious = moral AND the exceptions to atheism = immoral.

In other words, you have no evidence of any correlation at all. If I'm wrong, feel free to provide the evidence I claim is missing.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[vortexring 0]

But there in your reply lies a common problem in relation to my points.

This apparant lack of personal responsibility, so called 'rights' and of course; the inherent freedom to do whatever the individual choses, therefore points to an apparant solution.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[tmaricle55 0]

Where do you start with this one? We can look at what happen to the Family unit with women going to work. Or maybe keeping up with the Jones. There is no real right answer here. Let us look at the blame game that is an interesting place to start. How many times have you heard it was my parents fault? Then again let us now look at the parents who raises a kid on TV, fast food and little to no personal time. What came first the chicken or the egg? Religion can be a compass but who really sets the bar?

I need to edit to say... I am NOT a Mother rather, a career woman.

Muff Brother # 3883, SCR # 14796 ICD # 1 - Pres.
Yeah, I noticed and I think it's funny!

[wmw999 2,603]

You sure got me with that title

I think religion provided a decent framework for morality when social groups (tribes, effectively) were isolated from each other by distance and physical barriers. Wars happened where tribes intersected, but most people knew not to shit too much in their own homes.

Our tribes are all intermingled now; advances in transportation and communication have ensured that. But our religions and our natures haven't really kept up -- we still prefer to keep with our own.

It doesn't really need a new paradigm; it's just that somehow we have to begin to accept that "those people" "over there" are really just as worthy of being considered individuall as the ones we're all familiar with. Because "over there" is really pretty meaningless in these days of overnight travel across the world, internet, and broadcast.

Our definitions of morality might also come into play. They are, to some degree, tribally determined. Yes, we say we get them from God. But whose God is right? The one who says that men can marry multiple wives if they have children to support? The one who says you should beat them? The one who says that you should love your enemies? The one who says that an airplane is coming someday with God on it? We don't know, but we mostly think that our answers are the best, or right, ones.

Morality goes to the core of how we value ourselves as people. Many people who do things we consider to be immoral within our society still have values -- many criminals consider snitching or preying sexually on children to be beyond reproach.

There probably isn't a good way around this. We have to go through it, just as we have to go through pretty much everything else. But each of us can consider whether we're being tribal or trying to grow beyond it.

Nothing wrong with helping members of your tribe. We all have more than one tribe we belong to (most of us are skydivers; we all post on dz.com ). But don't consider someone worth hurting, or not worth considering, simply because they're not a member of your tribe.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[vortexring 0]

Putting evidence to one side, it's only an assertion through what I believe to be commonly apparant in our societies. Regarding evidence: what evidence do you feel is necessary? You either agree with me or you don't. If you don't please feel free to provide your counter argument.

I'm not trying to position myself onto morally higher ground to then have an advantage to debate and argue with people on the subject of atheism. The important subject lies in the title to the thread.

What evidence do you therefore have to disagree with my point? To be honest, I'll read it with interest. I'm not on any point scoring mission here.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

I appreciate your points Wendy, especially in regards to tribalism. Iraq popped into my pea-brain when I read that. It does breakdown the question of a moral code: you're loyal to your tribal elders. But that in itself demonstrates an obvious problem if we relate it to Iraq. Consider the manipulation! Which therefore brings to mind the greater misuse and misapplication of religion.

Sure, it's a problem which isn't easily addressed, but that doesn't mean it isn't addressable. (Fuck me, does such a word exist?)

My point being: we have a common problem, to brush it under the carpet is morally irresponsible.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Great point: who does set the bar!? But that question lies predominantly with the problem. Bastard to answer.

Regarding women working. If it supports the family unit then it can only be for the common good of the family. So it's therefore good.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[quade 4]

I think you're on to something from an anthropological stand point.

I'd also like to add in the differences between a mostly agricultural society where cooperation among the members is required versus a manufacturing/capitalist society where competition (actually crushing the competition) is highly encouraged.

Just look at how this spills over into politics for example.

We're also the product of what we learn through stories.

From the '70s forward, more and more stories (movies & television) have "taught" us that it's ok to be rude and obnoxious as long as "we" think it's all in good fun. Look at a typical TV show such as "House". The guy is a complete and utter tool, but since he's "funny" and gets the job done, we accept him. Try to pull that off in real life and you're going to end up with either a real or metaphorical knife in the back.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[vortexring 0]

A pat on the back is only a recce for a knife.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

Putting evidence to one side, it's only an assertion through what I believe to be commonly apparant in our societies. Regarding evidence: what evidence do you feel is necessary? You either agree with me or you don't. If you don't please feel free to provide your counter argument.

The USA. Vastly greater rates of church going/ devoutness than in the UK, yet no discernable difference in overall morality. Sure they win on some points, but they lose out bigtime on some others too. What have they, as a nation, gained from their religiosity that we in the UK have lost through secularism?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

It's not worth harping on about Catholic child abusers or Taliban dickheads or Christian based acts of depravity through the ages. This is about today.

Since it's about today why is it not applicable to talk about catholic child abusers or taliban dickheads (or at least their homegrown counterparts). Last time I checked they were both still happening, today.

You mention that you're talking about religion through it's proper use and application - well there are a huge amount of people who are much more devout than you who would argue that the proper use of religion is a whole lot different from what you think it is, so in order for religion to keep us on the straight and nrrow, who's going to make sure that religion conforms to your standards? Quis Custodiet ipsos custodes?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

That isn't the point - any similarities lie with my initial point. What are the causes then? What are the solutions? If you 'dunno' like last time, don't worry.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Going back to the religious point. It brings to mind atheism. Could this be the cause? I think it's simple: religion, through it's proper use and application provides a moral code which benefits us all and helps address the issues we're facing today. It's not worth harping on about Catholic child abusers or Taliban dickheads or Christian based acts of depravity through the ages. This is about today.

Well, it seems like the whole question falls apart if you don't accept the premise that things are shit now. Is that your sense of the world? For just the UK? I'm sure a lot of doom and gloomers in the US will agree. Not me. I see 2008 as less good than other years, but hardly shit. And when I think about a couple generations back, life was shit for minorities, for women, for gays (up until pretty recent here), etc.

As for your hypothesis, would that not result in religious types being happier than heathens? Or is the implication that us godless heathens are destroying your lives too? Historically I don't think you'll find great backing - lots of 'shit' has come from religious differences, and while everyone had to at least pretend to be a Christian, I question that more people were devout moral Christians then than now. I question the claim that immoral behaviour is on the rise.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

It's not worth harping on about Catholic child abusers or Taliban dickheads or Christian based acts of depravity through the ages. This is about today.

Since it's about today why is it not applicable to talk about catholic child abusers or taliban dickheads (or at least their homegrown counterparts). Last time I checked they were both still happening, today.

You mention that you're talking about religion through it's proper use and application - well there are a huge amount of people who are much more devout than you who would argue that the proper use of religion is a whole lot different from what you think it is, so in order for religion to keep us on the straight and nrrow, who's going to make sure that religion conforms to your standards? Quis Custodiet ipsos custodes?

Not worth arguing over them in regards to the context of my point.

Of course it's a well worthy point of contention in regards to religion in general but it simply isn't where I'd like this thread to go to. If you feel it's an essential issue then we've reached a point of disagreement; you'll therefore have to start your own little thread on this issue.

I enjoyed your latter point though. I agree completely: who will ensure religion conforms to 'my' standards. What are the standards in actual fact? What body will set them?

I wish I knew, hence my post. The current trend is to disregard such issues, as I've earlier alluded to. But to disregard such issues will surely only see the continuance of our ever increasing morality problems.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

That isn't the point - any similarities lie with my initial point.

What? You've put forward what you think is the solution - religion. I've put forward a counter-example of a much more religious country (even one that uses the same brand of religion as us) that is no better when it comes to the social problems you're talking about. You asked for counter-examples, you can't just refuse to address the ones that are presented and expect to retain any credibility.

Quote

What are the solutions?

Public education needs a damn good overhaul in some areas, that'd be a start.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

Hey, I don't disagree with you when you say things were less shit in regards to your timelines and examples. Where I do disagree with you though, is that 'things' really are far more shit now in the context of general Western society and morality. It's a generalisation. If you find it disagreeable then what should I do? Provide my examples to countless issues to prove my point? Argue your further points you'd no doubt be able to provide to counter my own?

I think the problem is so apparant it isn't worth arguing over, so I won't. Glad it's all nice in your reality though, as i'm also surprised you counter my claim.

My hypothesis relates to a generic moral code I believe our societies lack. Are you telling me we don't need one? That everything, is in fact, peachy?

C'mon!

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[quade 4]

Quote

Public education needs a damn good overhaul in some areas, that'd be a start.

PUBLIC education? What about education on this particular topic being handled by the PARENTS?

Isn't the basic idea to keep government OUT of our personal lives?

Public education, in my view, ought to have more to do with reading, writing, math and science. "Morals" and normal social behavior ought to be left up to the parents. True, there does have to be a certain minimum of socialization training that goes on in schools, but without a parental base to build on, that's never going to happen.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

My hypothesis relates to a generic moral code I believe our societies lack. Are you telling me we don't need one? That everything, is in fact, peachy?

The only real "moral" code you need is summed up in "The Golden Rule" of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Beyond that, there's really no need if you think about it.

More here.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[vortexring 0]

You're only providing points to be objectionable, on your quest to disregard religion. You're basically going back to the point I mentioned on my initial post on this thread: I'm not interested in arguing over the misapplication of religion today.

My point is how we address the issues of a general society being ever more immoral. My view points to a generic moral code. I feel the proper honest encouragement of religion can at least aid this problem. All your trying to do is gob off about religion being a load of pish again.

The moral code is the key here. If for you religion isn't the answer then fine! What is? Atheism certainly isn't. You can 'morally' do whatever you like then. If it isn't religion, then what's the alternative. An all enforcing police state?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[tmaricle55 0]

Quote

PUBLIC education? What about education on this particular topic being handled by the PARENTS?

Isn't the basic idea to keep government OUT of our personal lives?

Public education, in my view, ought to have more to do with reading, writing, math and science. "Morals" and normal social behavior ought to be left up to the parents. True, there does have to be a certain minimum of socialization training that goes on in schools, but without a parental base to build on, that's never going to happen.

That is kinda where I was going with my post. Not that my parents were perfect but they did hold me to a certain code of morals and ethics. My Father always taught ME that if I did not respect myself no one would. We had quality time to talk about issues, problems and events going on. With the way the family unit works today I am not sure a lot of that goes on. Maybe I am wrong but I think the core of the family sets the expectation.

Muff Brother # 3883, SCR # 14796 ICD # 1 - Pres.
Yeah, I noticed and I think it's funny!

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

My hypothesis relates to a generic moral code I believe our societies lack. Are you telling me we don't need one? That everything, is in fact, peachy?

The only real "moral" code you need is summed up in "The Golden Rule" of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Beyond that, there's really no need if you think about it.

More here.

Great! Can you now apply this to our societies? No? Why not?

Have you any links to this more impertinent question???

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Public education needs a damn good overhaul in some areas, that'd be a start.

PUBLIC education? What about education on this particular topic being handled by the PARENTS?

Isn't the basic idea to keep government OUT of our personal lives?

Public education, in my view, ought to have more to do with reading, writing, math and science. "Morals" and normal social behavior ought to be left up to the parents. True, there does have to be a certain minimum of socialization training that goes on in schools, but without a parental base to build on, that's never going to happen.

Well said!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Hey, I don't disagree with you when you say things were less shit in regards to your timelines and examples. Where I do disagree with you though, is that 'things' really are far more shit now in the context of general Western society and morality.

compared to when? The turn of the century when nations frequently went to war as a means of population control? The 50s? Great for white men, lousy for the rest. I saw very little morality in the Red Scare where you could rat your competitors out to the House UnAmerican committee and ruin their lives.

It's hard to accept your premise when its so fuzzy. Are you grandpa Simpson shouting on the lawn, or can you identify real change?

Quade answered your moral compass question easily. It's not that hard to identify right/wrong.