To me, morality is about right and wrong, which the Bible clearly defines. It's about patience, helping each other and inspiring each other, because we all do affect people with our words and deeds. I think morality has been declining for a few decades, but is now improving with the explosion of Christian TV and the Conservative movement. (Last weeks Q- I wasn't raised that way.)
Examples could be multiplied, in every field. The whole rise of Western Civilization—science and technology, medicine, the arts, constitutionalism, the jury system, free enterprise, literacy, increasing productivity, a rising standard of living, the high status of women—is attributable to one major fact
Morality starts with you and how you live your life.Our prisions are FULL of people who think they didn't do ANYTHING wrong!Who's wright,but they have to live the rest of there life knowing that they(not God) messed up.
Morality is the presence of Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance. The closer to this, the higher the morality. The further away, the lower the morality. JMO
A recent poll conducted by the Australian Atheist Foundation was taken by 1500 people some of whom consider themselves to be religious and others who consider themsevles atheist. Of the three questions (which i will post later) 90% of people answered the 1st question the same way and 97% of people answered the 2nd and 3rd questions the same way.
Q1 A runaway boxcar is about to run over 5 people walking on the tracks. A railroad worker is standing next to a switch that can turn the boxcar into a side track killing 1 person, but allowing the 5 to survive. Flipping the switch is...
Q2 You pass by a small child drowning in a shallow pond and you are the only one around. If you pick up the child she will survive and your pants will be ruined. Picking up the child is...
Q3 5 people have just been rushed into a hospital in critical condition, each requiring an organ to survive. There is not enough time to request organs from outside the hospital, but there is a healthy person in the hospital's waiting room. If the surgeon takes this person's organs he will die, but the five in critical care will survive. Taking the healthy organs is...
Morality is being aware of what is good/right vs. evil/wrong. I think it's worsening but also improving. Worsening because there's so many movies out that send messages to people about violence etc. Also it seems like many people try to avoid religion, which means they think that includes morals. It could be improving though because of bad things happening, which is making people who want to do something about it, do so...
Even as conservatives we must recognize that real morality comes from conscious. Forcing someone to adhere to rules that are stricter than their personal moral code leaves us unable to assess morality at all because we would have no clue who was behaving out of a sense of morality and who was behaving out of a sense of fear of social and legal retribution.
I think it has gotten better on all fronts. Anyone who remembers when familial dysfunction was the norm and dysfunctional familial rules such as not taking family problems outside of the family, not talking about parent's abusive natures, not asking for help, etc. were touted as *loyalty and love for your family*.
I agree, just because people are looking into these issues more and the news talks about them more doesnt mean it was better in the past. I think people now a days are more vocal on what they say and people confuse that with being immoral. If you people liked the past so much, take a time machine and go back when slavory was moral or when blacks were beaten and killed for being black. Those times were so moral..aaaa
I think it is a totally subjective question. One whose personal morals lean toward conservative and who defines morality by sexual activity, physical discipline of children, etc would say morality has gotten worse. Anyone who leans a little liberal would say it has gotten better for those same reasons and things such as abortion rights, etc.
Now, suppose a theist says that God bases his decisions on OBJECTIVE REASONS not to steal or to otherwise behave immorally. In other words, he decided that stealing was immoral because there was already a good reason not to do so. But we don't need a god to realize that. The reason is simply there, and we live moral lives based on it. And if the theist says that God created the concept of the violation of rights, then we're getting into the problem of evil, and I don't want to get into that.
The problem I have with the religious view of morality is the lack of reasons for God's imposition of morality. Look at Exodus 20:15, the eighth commandment, which outlaws thievery. Why does God think that stealing is wrong? Are thieves immoral simply because God says they are? This standpoint is problematic, because it assumes that morality is arbitrary, and God could make anything immoral just by giving his word.
OK... by my definition, morality describes the acnkowledgement of your own and others' rights. For instance, we can all agree that killing someone is a violation of the victim's most important right - life. If you're taking something from someone who is not forcefully imposing their personal morals upon you, then we say that you are violating their rights.
Just to add to my deffence that morality was just as bad then as it was now, one doesnt need to look far back at all to really see it. The drugged up 70's is a good example. Be glad we are acctually breaking down on drug dealers. Also premerital sex was just as bad then as it was now, only back then it was more hush hush. Just because we are more vocal about these issues today doesnt not mean that they were this way back then.
Morality, like I have said before, is dependent on 2 things, your one belifies and those of others around you. The bounderies of right and wrong can never be drawn, and never should. People in the past were living in hardships of thier own times. To compair the two times would be almost forgeting the fact that people change over time. We can only compair the decay of civilization and morality only if we assume that peoples ideas and mindsets are the same, wich they are not.
The three periods of immoral priesthood for the Catholic Church are the 5th century, the 12th century and now! You didn't have the priestly immorality in the 19th century that you have now.
I could go on. Morals are in the toilet. That's not a cliché, it a sad fact!
No I wouldnt say morals are in the toilet. Morals evolve as times change with the generations. What you thought was immoral might not be anymore or visa-versa. You cannot judge a society based soully on your bias's. An example of this is in other culters. We find many of thier customs very IMMORAL yet they find it as part of thier society.
then also by your own deffiniton, you claim morality was already in the toilet in the 12 century. If thats the case why arent we living in anarchy and choas?
I diagree. Morals are applications of ethics which is based on doing the will of God. I never claimed morality was in the toilet in the 12th century. Just the morality of the cleargy. But in the 19th is wasn't. By the way I've never judged anyone in my life.
No, your basing your own opinion on your own bias's. everyone does, you and me. To claim that the past was so much better today is ignoring all the things that went wrong in the past. I would say today we are alittle bit more loose fitted, but ethics and morality is sertainly not in the toilets. And I also think when people have a better understanding of that things can change for the better.
Wrong, you claim with no proof. There are many things happening today that have never happened before. Level of sexual promisculity increasing by a factor of 20, people flying plane into skyscrapers, Internet sexual preditors.
If you're going to claim bias on my part, you're going to have to prove it. Statements like: "everyone does," are simply untrue.
Everything that has happened today is a bi-product of the past. With the internet came preditors that no one stoped, with aviation airlines wanted more profet then protection and as such things like hijackings accured. Parients with buissy jobs have no time to spend with kids, and as such they go on their own corse.
o and i want to see were you got 'by factor of 20' thats 20,000 percent is it not? and by what generation are you comairing it to? 70's, 60's? if you want this to be a fact war then you got it.
This value was reported by the CDC. The increase was a factor of 20. I would suggest contacting the CDC, not every piece of research they conduct is posted on the internet. Most of their research, in fact, is not posted on the internet.
As a result to the promiscuity of the 70's and 80's, the rates of sexually transmitted disease increased dramatically in those decades. Note the genital herpes ads being televised today. Again due to the massive rates of sexual promiscuity.
If you check the New England Journal of Medicine for either 1989 or 1990 there is a study of individuals with over 250 different sexual partners. The high count was an individual with over 13,000 confirmed, different, documented sexual partners.
Here is a brief list of the number of politician sent to jail or forced to resign in recent memory due to ethics violations: Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham, Bob Nay, Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff for the Republicans -- Dan Rostenkowski and Jim Wright for the Democrats. Not to mention the House Banking Scandal. The political party doesn't matter. Soon to follow: Denny Hastert and Tom Reynolds.
Maury Povich routinely conduction paternity tests for certain guests. It is not uncommon for a woman to list up to ten potential fathers for the child. That mean this woman has been sexually active with at least ten different people in a one month period!
The epidemic of rapes committed by soldiers in the war in Bosnia was unprecedented. The rule was: if you raped her, you had to kill her. Interviewed soldiers felt no remorse for their actions. Unprecedented!
Speaking of the former President, Clinton while committing adultery inserted a cigar into his mistress's vagina and brought her to climax. He then presented that same cigar to a foreign dignitary.
The former mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown, conceived a child out of wedlock, while he was in office. Preceding cultures would have demanded his resignation. However the event went unnoticed and virtually unreported.
Politicians usually are lacking in morals. They always have been. We can look back at Kennedy's presidency when he had an affair. The only difference between he and Clinton is that in those days the government was willing to cover up those types of scandals. These days, scandals are practically searched for.
So politics has always lacked morals, due to its competitive nature and innate desire for power. There's bound to be corrupt, immoral politicians, and there has been for quite some time. So I'd say in that respect, the immorality of politics is more a constant rather than degrading further.
Politics hasn't always lacked morals. Point to the Kennedy administration's fight for civil rights. Their fight against corruption in trade unions. Also read "Miracle at Philadelphia," by Catherine Drinker Bowen on the contruction of our constitution.
Again, I never said that. The sub-issue I am addressing here is: "Politics has always lacked morals." The civil-right revelution was one of the great benefits of the 1960's. An event that I lived through. Again: read "Miracle at Philadelphia," by Catherine Drinker Bowen on the contruction of our constitution.
Adultery and fornication are immoral acts. - said by you. I will tell you kennedy was a great man, i will also tell you by your own deffinition you claim kennedy was immoral. People make mistakes and just because you only look at the mistakes doesnt mean thats all thier is in society.
to clear up what I said, The one action of a person cannot dictate if the person is immoral or not. The same can be said for this generation. You cannot judge its faults as the intire society itself.
The basis of the obscene and the profane is hatred. It is evident in the denotation and connotation. That is unethical.
Furthermore, the amount of sexual immorality is epidemic. From the 1980 -- 2000 the rate of sexually transmitted disease in America increased by a factor of 20! Research project backward to imply that the amount of sexual promiscuity over that same period increased by the same factor. Adultery and fornication are immoral acts.
And yet we do nothing to stop it. The church just bitches about how bad it is and the governers are stuck in the rut of thier own contravercies. This was an internal decay, not external.
I would argue that sexuality is not immoral(between consenting adults). Adultery certainly, since it is breaking a trust and a vow but not simply fornication. Sex is a natural biological thing. I would even go so far as to argue that restrictive attitudes towards sex can lead to more problems in society rather than less. For example abstinence only education and the teaching of the immorality of condom use by Catholic missionaries in AIDS ridden Africa.
Human dignity for all is not just a right, it is ethical behavior.
The comic Steve Allen was asked near the end of his career, "What's the difference between comedy now and comedy when you were getting stated?" He replied, "It's a lot dirtier. But then the whole world is a lot dirtier. You have nine year old girls using language that would have shocked truck drivers forty years ago."
I teach morals and ethics, so I know a little about them. Ethics are not only doing what is right, but also doing what God wants you to do. Morals are applied ethics. The universal standard for applying ethics has always been: "How would I like to be treated under the reverse conditions."
Under these standards the level or moral decay is prevalent. One only needs to examine the amount of vulgarity, profanity, and obscenity on YouTube directed at children, let alone adults. There seems to be an implied anonymity associated with YouTube that one does need to conduct oneself with courtesy. The concept that outside one's culture, a person is free to behave without the restraints of courtesy, ethics and morals.
but your forgetting that forty five years ago, many people were alot more isolated then they were before. Just because you judge were you live to be moral, doesnt mean all the other places were like that. Now because we have the internet we can see the average spread of tolerances of people around the world.
Don't talk down to me. I am open minded enough to review my points of view and modify them if I deem it so. After listening to thethiefess she makes good points about the strived for positive morality.
The depravity of humanity in negative acts of morality is getting worse, however we also have made positive strive, which I am willing to acknowledge.
im not talking you down, you claim morality was in the toliet many times. As I have said before, if you picked a side, which im guessing form what you have said earlyer you have, stick with it.
I'm allowed to modify my position if someone convinces me otherwise. That being open minded. I'm willing to admit that my position is open to modification.
then we can get some progress with any disscution we had. And truelly alot of what she said is things I have said from time to time. Im not as aregent to say that all she said is what i said, but the basics are in my arguements.
morality should be a very personal thing unless your morals disrupt other person's rights of course. Greed, love and hate all have a part in our society,both good and bad. The problem with everyone agreeing to the same morals is that it can then be easily taken advantage of. Case in point, many people regard religion as the highlight of their morality, yet the bloodiest of wars, murders, and crimes against humanity had religion as the main cause or as one of the tag along causes.
Morality a person defines as being the "right way to conduct yourself". Since the definition of what is moral or immoral is constantly changing throughout history and cultures, I think it is hard to evaluate if they are worsening, improving or the same.
Morality is what a person defines as being the "right way to conduct yourself". Since the definition of what is moral or immoral is constantly changing throughout history and cultures, I think it is virtualy impossible to evaluate if they are worsening, improving or the same.
News was more localized. Today, the story is on TV before all the facts are even in. All this additional information makes it appear that tragedy occurs more often. First, more of us humans are around. Second, we hear about it a lot more when bad stuff does happen. Finally, our entertainment is full of horrible crazy things that rarely ever happen, yet they happen in fiction constantly. At least we can fake what they use to really do in the Roman Coliseum.
My first post. I agree with meadowrue that morality is a social contract, but extends to the earth and the other species. As for crime, I have always believed, without any proof, that society is merely more open and informed, from cable news and the internet, about the ills of the world. Fifty years ago, many news stories would only have regional coverage. When national TV news was only 22 minutes a night, we only saw a small piece of what was going on in the world.
I agree, I believe we are simply more informed about today's tragedies due to advancements in technology and because of the fact that there used to be a greater stigma around reporting crimes (like rape and domestic abuse)
Since we are social animals I'm defining morality as a social contract. We behave morally by respecting human and civil rights. If you look at society over the last 100 years there have been great strides towards equality in gender and race. If we believe in the basic humanity of men and women of all races then the most moral society is one that protects the rights of them all. Our society today is much closer to that goal than it has ever been in the past.
I'm not disagreeing with you as far as you go, but I think morality should not be restricted to interactions amongst people. If morality is seen as the right action, then it would apply to all your actions, even those that don't have to do with other people. I think that a person on a desert island needs morality as well as a person in society. He should recognize that certain actions will help him and others will hurt him.
That's a very interesting point. What kind of actions would you consider immoral in such a situation? Off the top of my head I'm having a hard time thinking of something that is immoral that *doesn't* harm others.
I think lying to oneself is the ultimate example of an immoral action that doesn't directly relate to other ppl. If you get stranded on an island and say, "I don't have to do anything, someone will rescue me," and you keep saying that as the days tick by without getting off your ass and building a shelter or finding food, then you will die. Similarly, I think being lazy in such a situation is immoral, as is complacency.
That has certainly given me a lot to think about! I can easily see how this could be classified as immoral since it goes against our own instincts and results in harm to ourselves. It's certainly not an admirable way to behave in any sense and I'd personally at least aspire to better.
I'm not sure where to take that however. It goes against my own beliefs to dictate the morality of other people's actions when there is no effect on another. I have no problem viewing self harm or apathy negatively but I tend to see it more as an issue of psychological defect than morality.
Going back to morality in society there is certainly psychological defect involved in rape or murder as well. The difference being that then you are infringing on another person's life and as social creatures we cannot allow that. It destroys our society and ability to function even beyond the parties directly involved.
Yes, I was initially annoyed!! everyone else seems to be going right along ok-- I think I'll just stay tuned to your channel without re-posting what I tried to multiple times before for now!
Racial tolerance and sexual equality have improved markedly in the past century. That's good. Politics being reduced to marketing is bad—never have so many well-dressed people trampled over each other to get before cameras and spout mind-numbing bullshit. Now it's influencing the way activists behave. Truth has seen better days.
Defining morality is hard for me. We all know basic morals~ basically do the right thing, don't hurt other people, help others when they need it, etc... Where I come to compromise my standard of morality is based on individuals. If a starving mother steals formula to feed her child how can I judge her as being immoral. She's trying to do what's right. If a man walks into a courtroom and kills a known child molester, how can we say he is wrong for that?
This is probably part of the problem, because once you start saying one persons reason for the crime is better than anothers you are compromising your morals but as human beings we can't help it. We empathize with each other.
Now if that mother turns out to be a crack addict then I go back to my morals and say well if you weren't compromising your morals by doing that then you wouldn't be in your situation. Does that make sense? I'm not saying it's right to use your morals when it's convenient for you but it happens.
I know I'm not fact-based and philosophical but am I getting my point across
One thing about morality, at least from what I've learned in religion class (Catholic school), is that moral values aren't set in stone. You have to look at the situation from a subjective and objective standpoint before you make your moral decision.
One example of this is that objectively speaking, giving someone a gift is a good moral action. But then subjectively, if they're giving that gift to bribe the person, than that is morally wrong. So morals always depend on the situation, which only adds to their complexity.
Finally a simple question: Lies, propaganda, taking from the poor and tax cuts to the rich, fail in security, false accusations, double standarts, breaking own laws, revenge, murder, superstition, cutting off science budget, no admiting, no excuses.
Morality is NOT teaching childrens about heaven and hell, that is child abuse, thoose 2 get mixed up too often in religion because religion is based on unexplainable natural fears.
Worsening: The golden rule of morality from the new testament is: "do as you would be done by" and I think that applys to all societies because the golden rule is not a new moral teaching, it's more like a reminder.
"do as you would be done by" has the problem of being egoistic and double standart, it only works within small groups of very similar interests and is not universal or global. I may like a boxing match with you, you may not. You may like to make us both listen to Britney Spears music, I may not!
Still a pretty self evident rule untill you notice and accept differences between individual interests.
This question almost has no wrong answer, because all moral philosophies use logical axioms such as "Someone dying is undesirable" or "People have a right to property." It is not correct to say any such statements are objectively true. With no correct defenition of morality, there exists a theoretical moral philosophy that is being infinitly more respected and one that is being infinitely less respected.
I've already said a lot on this, but I have to say that for one it's hard to know how "moral" people were back in history. How do we know? From myths, clay pots and hearsay?
Where's your proof. You better site ever event that occurred in the last ten years, because the typical sources your site are regularly falsified. And the falsification stories have been standardly reported on the news.
The Bell Curve talks about how every generation is losing about 2 IQ points and also how IQ is strongly correlated to standard measures of morality such as children within wedlock and gainful employment. So those statistics indicate a declining of morality due to new breeding patterns among people in the first world.
Losing 2 IQ points? Stupidest thing I've ever heard. For one, IQ is relative and not at all accurate, and it only measures a few factes of the human brain. Bah I don't care anymore actually. You guys can all believe we're going to hell in a handbasket. Meanwhile I'm going back to my air-conditioned home to play with my little cousin, and I won't have to worry about any pesky Vikings invading and raping the neighborhood.
IQ tests are highly innacurate because they aren't adapted to cultural, environmental or social differences. That is to say IQ tests are not adapted to different types of "inteligences". For example, just because you can't read or write doesn't mean you aren't intelligent. Also IQ tests basis itself on only one definition of inteligence therefore excluding all other possibilities of what could be considered a basis for inteligence.
Question, this doesn't have anything to do with the discussion, but I'm having difficulty uploading my video. It's under the 10 minute length, but how long does it usually take to upload? I think I did something wrong.
That's the problem 100 MB is the limit. Assuming you are running Windows (not a Mac), download a program called 'SUPER' by eRightsoft. Drag the file into that and set the 'output container' to be the (Windows Media Video) .WMV. This will covert it down to an acceptable size. Set the converstion settings to be 30 frames per second and a bitrate of over 1000 kbps.
Going back to the Greeks, morality is simply "right action". This is an easy definition, but the problem is in choosing a standard by which to judge actions as right or wrong. Aristotle talked about Eudemonia, or "the good life" where all actions are judged to be moral or not if they led to a good life on earth. Christians talk about what will or will not please God and get them into heaven. You can't say if morality is getting better or worse without defining what standard you are looking at.
I tried to write more, but it only allows 500 chars which is nothing! =)
Being atheist I look towards a successful life on earth as my standard for morality. I think that growing atheism could be a good sign for improving morality but unfortunately I don't see people replacing the old morality of religion which is better than nothing in many ways, which worries me. Hedonism and moral relativism which seem to be on the rise and filling the vacuum are not improvements in my opinion.
Yeah, actually I heard Skylarkking a couple times, but not too attentively. I guess that's why it sounded familiar ... heh. "Dear God" was their most famous song.
First to comment? Perhaps. Anyhow, just thought I'd give you a heads up: I'm making a video response! I just discovered my computer camera can also record, rather than just take pictures, so I'm excited.
Awesome, can't wait to see it. Those cameras tend to work pretty well. They now make $100 digital video cameras now that record near TV quality video. I saw one for sale in a Target newspaper insert last weekend.
To me, morality is about right and wrong, which the Bible clearly defines. It's about patience, helping each other and inspiring each other, because we all do affect people with our words and deeds. I think morality has been declining for a few decades, but is now improving with the explosion of Christian TV and the Conservative movement. (Last weeks Q- I wasn't raised that way.)
skaggmo 4 years ago
there is no god
UniversalAtheist 4 years ago
Examples could be multiplied, in every field. The whole rise of Western Civilization—science and technology, medicine, the arts, constitutionalism, the jury system, free enterprise, literacy, increasing productivity, a rising standard of living, the high status of women—is attributable to one major fact
artdecocoz 4 years ago
Morality starts with you and how you live your life.Our prisions are FULL of people who think they didn't do ANYTHING wrong!Who's wright,but they have to live the rest of there life knowing that they(not God) messed up.
charleszoe 4 years ago
that relegion is nurture and not nature? somewhat like the discusion over sexuality wheter it's hard wired or thaught.
bibg 5 years ago
Morality is the presence of Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance. The closer to this, the higher the morality. The further away, the lower the morality. JMO
Talk25 5 years ago
A recent poll conducted by the Australian Atheist Foundation was taken by 1500 people some of whom consider themselves to be religious and others who consider themsevles atheist. Of the three questions (which i will post later) 90% of people answered the 1st question the same way and 97% of people answered the 2nd and 3rd questions the same way.
BipedalHumanoid3 5 years ago
Q1 A runaway boxcar is about to run over 5 people walking on the tracks. A railroad worker is standing next to a switch that can turn the boxcar into a side track killing 1 person, but allowing the 5 to survive. Flipping the switch is...
A)Obligatory
B)Permissible
C)Forbidden
BipedalHumanoid3 5 years ago
c) it's not for teh person at the switch to deside who lives or dies. if there is a god let him do it/or not. after al he is omnipotent
bibg 5 years ago
Q2 You pass by a small child drowning in a shallow pond and you are the only one around. If you pick up the child she will survive and your pants will be ruined. Picking up the child is...
A)Obligatory
B)Permissible
C)Forbidden
BipedalHumanoid3 5 years ago
A) i don't know if it is in the law ooks but actualy it would be amoral to choose a pant over a life. regardles of opinion,relegious inclining ect.
bibg 5 years ago
Q3 5 people have just been rushed into a hospital in critical condition, each requiring an organ to survive. There is not enough time to request organs from outside the hospital, but there is a healthy person in the hospital's waiting room. If the surgeon takes this person's organs he will die, but the five in critical care will survive. Taking the healthy organs is...
A) Obligatory
B) Permissible
C) Forbidden
BipedalHumanoid3 5 years ago
C)unles the willing person is willing to sacrifice him self than it wil be his choice not the doctors or anyone for that matter
bibg 5 years ago
Morality is being aware of what is good/right vs. evil/wrong. I think it's worsening but also improving. Worsening because there's so many movies out that send messages to people about violence etc. Also it seems like many people try to avoid religion, which means they think that includes morals. It could be improving though because of bad things happening, which is making people who want to do something about it, do so...
rachelynn 5 years ago
Even as conservatives we must recognize that real morality comes from conscious. Forcing someone to adhere to rules that are stricter than their personal moral code leaves us unable to assess morality at all because we would have no clue who was behaving out of a sense of morality and who was behaving out of a sense of fear of social and legal retribution.
ClassyMissFancy 5 years ago
I think it has gotten better on all fronts. Anyone who remembers when familial dysfunction was the norm and dysfunctional familial rules such as not taking family problems outside of the family, not talking about parent's abusive natures, not asking for help, etc. were touted as *loyalty and love for your family*.
ClassyMissFancy 5 years ago
I agree, just because people are looking into these issues more and the news talks about them more doesnt mean it was better in the past. I think people now a days are more vocal on what they say and people confuse that with being immoral. If you people liked the past so much, take a time machine and go back when slavory was moral or when blacks were beaten and killed for being black. Those times were so moral..aaaa
jaykia 5 years ago
Morality
I think it is a totally subjective question. One whose personal morals lean toward conservative and who defines morality by sexual activity, physical discipline of children, etc would say morality has gotten worse. Anyone who leans a little liberal would say it has gotten better for those same reasons and things such as abortion rights, etc.
ClassyMissFancy 5 years ago
You do have a point that atheists can ascribe moral values apart from attributing them to God or a god.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
Now, suppose a theist says that God bases his decisions on OBJECTIVE REASONS not to steal or to otherwise behave immorally. In other words, he decided that stealing was immoral because there was already a good reason not to do so. But we don't need a god to realize that. The reason is simply there, and we live moral lives based on it. And if the theist says that God created the concept of the violation of rights, then we're getting into the problem of evil, and I don't want to get into that.
PinocchiOpiate 5 years ago
The problem I have with the religious view of morality is the lack of reasons for God's imposition of morality. Look at Exodus 20:15, the eighth commandment, which outlaws thievery. Why does God think that stealing is wrong? Are thieves immoral simply because God says they are? This standpoint is problematic, because it assumes that morality is arbitrary, and God could make anything immoral just by giving his word.
PinocchiOpiate 5 years ago
and lets not forget that the bible not only allows slavory, it encorages it. It also incurages disliking others who have a different point of view.
jaykia 5 years ago
OK... by my definition, morality describes the acnkowledgement of your own and others' rights. For instance, we can all agree that killing someone is a violation of the victim's most important right - life. If you're taking something from someone who is not forcefully imposing their personal morals upon you, then we say that you are violating their rights.
PinocchiOpiate 5 years ago
Just to add to my deffence that morality was just as bad then as it was now, one doesnt need to look far back at all to really see it. The drugged up 70's is a good example. Be glad we are acctually breaking down on drug dealers. Also premerital sex was just as bad then as it was now, only back then it was more hush hush. Just because we are more vocal about these issues today doesnt not mean that they were this way back then.
jaykia 5 years ago
Morality, like I have said before, is dependent on 2 things, your one belifies and those of others around you. The bounderies of right and wrong can never be drawn, and never should. People in the past were living in hardships of thier own times. To compair the two times would be almost forgeting the fact that people change over time. We can only compair the decay of civilization and morality only if we assume that peoples ideas and mindsets are the same, wich they are not.
jaykia 5 years ago
The three periods of immoral priesthood for the Catholic Church are the 5th century, the 12th century and now! You didn't have the priestly immorality in the 19th century that you have now.
I could go on. Morals are in the toilet. That's not a cliché, it a sad fact!
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
No I wouldnt say morals are in the toilet. Morals evolve as times change with the generations. What you thought was immoral might not be anymore or visa-versa. You cannot judge a society based soully on your bias's. An example of this is in other culters. We find many of thier customs very IMMORAL yet they find it as part of thier society.
jaykia 5 years ago
then also by your own deffiniton, you claim morality was already in the toilet in the 12 century. If thats the case why arent we living in anarchy and choas?
jaykia 5 years ago
I diagree. Morals are applications of ethics which is based on doing the will of God. I never claimed morality was in the toilet in the 12th century. Just the morality of the cleargy. But in the 19th is wasn't. By the way I've never judged anyone in my life.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
No, your basing your own opinion on your own bias's. everyone does, you and me. To claim that the past was so much better today is ignoring all the things that went wrong in the past. I would say today we are alittle bit more loose fitted, but ethics and morality is sertainly not in the toilets. And I also think when people have a better understanding of that things can change for the better.
jaykia 5 years ago
Wrong, you claim with no proof. There are many things happening today that have never happened before. Level of sexual promisculity increasing by a factor of 20, people flying plane into skyscrapers, Internet sexual preditors.
If you're going to claim bias on my part, you're going to have to prove it. Statements like: "everyone does," are simply untrue.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
Everything that has happened today is a bi-product of the past. With the internet came preditors that no one stoped, with aviation airlines wanted more profet then protection and as such things like hijackings accured. Parients with buissy jobs have no time to spend with kids, and as such they go on their own corse.
jaykia 5 years ago
o and i want to see were you got 'by factor of 20' thats 20,000 percent is it not? and by what generation are you comairing it to? 70's, 60's? if you want this to be a fact war then you got it.
jaykia 5 years ago
It's from the CDC.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
20,000 percent?! i dont have time to check it out but i will. if you can give me a website to check that out.
jaykia 5 years ago
This value was reported by the CDC. The increase was a factor of 20. I would suggest contacting the CDC, not every piece of research they conduct is posted on the internet. Most of their research, in fact, is not posted on the internet.
As a result to the promiscuity of the 70's and 80's, the rates of sexually transmitted disease increased dramatically in those decades. Note the genital herpes ads being televised today. Again due to the massive rates of sexual promiscuity.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
If you check the New England Journal of Medicine for either 1989 or 1990 there is a study of individuals with over 250 different sexual partners. The high count was an individual with over 13,000 confirmed, different, documented sexual partners.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
Also, a factor of 20 is not 20,000%, it's 2,000%
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
Here is a brief list of the number of politician sent to jail or forced to resign in recent memory due to ethics violations: Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham, Bob Nay, Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff for the Republicans -- Dan Rostenkowski and Jim Wright for the Democrats. Not to mention the House Banking Scandal. The political party doesn't matter. Soon to follow: Denny Hastert and Tom Reynolds.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
Maury Povich routinely conduction paternity tests for certain guests. It is not uncommon for a woman to list up to ten potential fathers for the child. That mean this woman has been sexually active with at least ten different people in a one month period!
The epidemic of rapes committed by soldiers in the war in Bosnia was unprecedented. The rule was: if you raped her, you had to kill her. Interviewed soldiers felt no remorse for their actions. Unprecedented!
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
Speaking of the former President, Clinton while committing adultery inserted a cigar into his mistress's vagina and brought her to climax. He then presented that same cigar to a foreign dignitary.
The former mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown, conceived a child out of wedlock, while he was in office. Preceding cultures would have demanded his resignation. However the event went unnoticed and virtually unreported.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
Politicians usually are lacking in morals. They always have been. We can look back at Kennedy's presidency when he had an affair. The only difference between he and Clinton is that in those days the government was willing to cover up those types of scandals. These days, scandals are practically searched for.
thethiefess 5 years ago
So politics has always lacked morals, due to its competitive nature and innate desire for power. There's bound to be corrupt, immoral politicians, and there has been for quite some time. So I'd say in that respect, the immorality of politics is more a constant rather than degrading further.
thethiefess 5 years ago
Politics hasn't always lacked morals. Point to the Kennedy administration's fight for civil rights. Their fight against corruption in trade unions. Also read "Miracle at Philadelphia," by Catherine Drinker Bowen on the contruction of our constitution.
The depravity is getting worse!
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
and yet kennedy sleept with god know how many women when he was married. sounds like something you said is a simptom of today....
jaykia 5 years ago
Again, I never said that. The sub-issue I am addressing here is: "Politics has always lacked morals." The civil-right revelution was one of the great benefits of the 1960's. An event that I lived through. Again: read "Miracle at Philadelphia," by Catherine Drinker Bowen on the contruction of our constitution.
The function of the law is to legislate morality.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
Adultery and fornication are immoral acts. - said by you. I will tell you kennedy was a great man, i will also tell you by your own deffinition you claim kennedy was immoral. People make mistakes and just because you only look at the mistakes doesnt mean thats all thier is in society.
jaykia 5 years ago
to clear up what I said, The one action of a person cannot dictate if the person is immoral or not. The same can be said for this generation. You cannot judge its faults as the intire society itself.
jaykia 5 years ago
The basis of the obscene and the profane is hatred. It is evident in the denotation and connotation. That is unethical.
Furthermore, the amount of sexual immorality is epidemic. From the 1980 -- 2000 the rate of sexually transmitted disease in America increased by a factor of 20! Research project backward to imply that the amount of sexual promiscuity over that same period increased by the same factor. Adultery and fornication are immoral acts.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
And yet we do nothing to stop it. The church just bitches about how bad it is and the governers are stuck in the rut of thier own contravercies. This was an internal decay, not external.
jaykia 5 years ago
I would argue that sexuality is not immoral(between consenting adults). Adultery certainly, since it is breaking a trust and a vow but not simply fornication. Sex is a natural biological thing. I would even go so far as to argue that restrictive attitudes towards sex can lead to more problems in society rather than less. For example abstinence only education and the teaching of the immorality of condom use by Catholic missionaries in AIDS ridden Africa.
meadowrue 5 years ago
Human dignity for all is not just a right, it is ethical behavior.
The comic Steve Allen was asked near the end of his career, "What's the difference between comedy now and comedy when you were getting stated?" He replied, "It's a lot dirtier. But then the whole world is a lot dirtier. You have nine year old girls using language that would have shocked truck drivers forty years ago."
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
I teach morals and ethics, so I know a little about them. Ethics are not only doing what is right, but also doing what God wants you to do. Morals are applied ethics. The universal standard for applying ethics has always been: "How would I like to be treated under the reverse conditions."
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
Under these standards the level or moral decay is prevalent. One only needs to examine the amount of vulgarity, profanity, and obscenity on YouTube directed at children, let alone adults. There seems to be an implied anonymity associated with YouTube that one does need to conduct oneself with courtesy. The concept that outside one's culture, a person is free to behave without the restraints of courtesy, ethics and morals.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
but your forgetting that forty five years ago, many people were alot more isolated then they were before. Just because you judge were you live to be moral, doesnt mean all the other places were like that. Now because we have the internet we can see the average spread of tolerances of people around the world.
jaykia 5 years ago
First of all, I haven't judged. Second, it doesn't mean all the other places weren't like that.
thethiefess makes a good point that reflexively the amount of good moral acts may have also increased.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
yet from what I see your argument is that morality is down the toilet. Make up your mind about an arguement and stick with it.
jaykia 5 years ago
Don't talk down to me. I am open minded enough to review my points of view and modify them if I deem it so. After listening to thethiefess she makes good points about the strived for positive morality.
The depravity of humanity in negative acts of morality is getting worse, however we also have made positive strive, which I am willing to acknowledge.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
im not talking you down, you claim morality was in the toliet many times. As I have said before, if you picked a side, which im guessing form what you have said earlyer you have, stick with it.
jaykia 5 years ago
I'm allowed to modify my position if someone convinces me otherwise. That being open minded. I'm willing to admit that my position is open to modification.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
then we can get some progress with any disscution we had. And truelly alot of what she said is things I have said from time to time. Im not as aregent to say that all she said is what i said, but the basics are in my arguements.
jaykia 5 years ago
morality should be a very personal thing unless your morals disrupt other person's rights of course. Greed, love and hate all have a part in our society,both good and bad. The problem with everyone agreeing to the same morals is that it can then be easily taken advantage of. Case in point, many people regard religion as the highlight of their morality, yet the bloodiest of wars, murders, and crimes against humanity had religion as the main cause or as one of the tag along causes.
jaykia 5 years ago
Morality a person defines as being the "right way to conduct yourself". Since the definition of what is moral or immoral is constantly changing throughout history and cultures, I think it is hard to evaluate if they are worsening, improving or the same.
megazort 5 years ago
Morality is what a person defines as being the "right way to conduct yourself". Since the definition of what is moral or immoral is constantly changing throughout history and cultures, I think it is virtualy impossible to evaluate if they are worsening, improving or the same.
megazort 5 years ago
News was more localized. Today, the story is on TV before all the facts are even in. All this additional information makes it appear that tragedy occurs more often. First, more of us humans are around. Second, we hear about it a lot more when bad stuff does happen. Finally, our entertainment is full of horrible crazy things that rarely ever happen, yet they happen in fiction constantly. At least we can fake what they use to really do in the Roman Coliseum.
mawkish29 5 years ago
My first post. I agree with meadowrue that morality is a social contract, but extends to the earth and the other species. As for crime, I have always believed, without any proof, that society is merely more open and informed, from cable news and the internet, about the ills of the world. Fifty years ago, many news stories would only have regional coverage. When national TV news was only 22 minutes a night, we only saw a small piece of what was going on in the world.
mawkish29 5 years ago
I agree, I believe we are simply more informed about today's tragedies due to advancements in technology and because of the fact that there used to be a greater stigma around reporting crimes (like rape and domestic abuse)
v8m9t 5 years ago
Since we are social animals I'm defining morality as a social contract. We behave morally by respecting human and civil rights. If you look at society over the last 100 years there have been great strides towards equality in gender and race. If we believe in the basic humanity of men and women of all races then the most moral society is one that protects the rights of them all. Our society today is much closer to that goal than it has ever been in the past.
meadowrue 5 years ago
I'm not disagreeing with you as far as you go, but I think morality should not be restricted to interactions amongst people. If morality is seen as the right action, then it would apply to all your actions, even those that don't have to do with other people. I think that a person on a desert island needs morality as well as a person in society. He should recognize that certain actions will help him and others will hurt him.
Bedevere13 5 years ago
That's a very interesting point. What kind of actions would you consider immoral in such a situation? Off the top of my head I'm having a hard time thinking of something that is immoral that *doesn't* harm others.
meadowrue 5 years ago
I think lying to oneself is the ultimate example of an immoral action that doesn't directly relate to other ppl. If you get stranded on an island and say, "I don't have to do anything, someone will rescue me," and you keep saying that as the days tick by without getting off your ass and building a shelter or finding food, then you will die. Similarly, I think being lazy in such a situation is immoral, as is complacency.
Bedevere13 5 years ago
That has certainly given me a lot to think about! I can easily see how this could be classified as immoral since it goes against our own instincts and results in harm to ourselves. It's certainly not an admirable way to behave in any sense and I'd personally at least aspire to better.
meadowrue 5 years ago
I'm not sure where to take that however. It goes against my own beliefs to dictate the morality of other people's actions when there is no effect on another. I have no problem viewing self harm or apathy negatively but I tend to see it more as an issue of psychological defect than morality.
meadowrue 5 years ago
Going back to morality in society there is certainly psychological defect involved in rape or murder as well. The difference being that then you are infringing on another person's life and as social creatures we cannot allow that. It destroys our society and ability to function even beyond the parties directly involved.
meadowrue 5 years ago
I am unable to respond properly here under the constrains of a limitation to 500 characters. Sorry.
mf0rz 5 years ago
The character limit is very annoying. You have two options. One is to release a video reponse. Or two, split your comment into 2 or more replies.
Castaa 5 years ago
Yes, I was initially annoyed!! everyone else seems to be going right along ok-- I think I'll just stay tuned to your channel without re-posting what I tried to multiple times before for now!
mf0rz 5 years ago
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh it's danny boniduchi!!!! he's going to drink loads of liquor and take loads of drugs and beat his wife!!!!
vonollie666 5 years ago
I wish I had his ratings. :)
Thank you, drive thru...
Castaa 5 years ago
lol. You're much smarter and more handsome than Danny Bonaducci will ever be.
gqueen79 5 years ago
Thank you! But please don't anger Bonaducci.
Castaa 5 years ago
Racial tolerance and sexual equality have improved markedly in the past century. That's good. Politics being reduced to marketing is bad—never have so many well-dressed people trampled over each other to get before cameras and spout mind-numbing bullshit. Now it's influencing the way activists behave. Truth has seen better days.
markeverett49 5 years ago
Defining morality is hard for me. We all know basic morals~ basically do the right thing, don't hurt other people, help others when they need it, etc... Where I come to compromise my standard of morality is based on individuals. If a starving mother steals formula to feed her child how can I judge her as being immoral. She's trying to do what's right. If a man walks into a courtroom and kills a known child molester, how can we say he is wrong for that?
gqueen79 5 years ago
This is probably part of the problem, because once you start saying one persons reason for the crime is better than anothers you are compromising your morals but as human beings we can't help it. We empathize with each other.
gqueen79 5 years ago
Now if that mother turns out to be a crack addict then I go back to my morals and say well if you weren't compromising your morals by doing that then you wouldn't be in your situation. Does that make sense? I'm not saying it's right to use your morals when it's convenient for you but it happens.
I know I'm not fact-based and philosophical but am I getting my point across
gqueen79 5 years ago
One thing about morality, at least from what I've learned in religion class (Catholic school), is that moral values aren't set in stone. You have to look at the situation from a subjective and objective standpoint before you make your moral decision.
thethiefess 5 years ago
One example of this is that objectively speaking, giving someone a gift is a good moral action. But then subjectively, if they're giving that gift to bribe the person, than that is morally wrong. So morals always depend on the situation, which only adds to their complexity.
thethiefess 5 years ago
Finally a simple question: Lies, propaganda, taking from the poor and tax cuts to the rich, fail in security, false accusations, double standarts, breaking own laws, revenge, murder, superstition, cutting off science budget, no admiting, no excuses.
Morality is NOT teaching childrens about heaven and hell, that is child abuse, thoose 2 get mixed up too often in religion because religion is based on unexplainable natural fears.
olllj 5 years ago
so yea, i went ahead and posted my own video on morals and sin. seems like it's good content for this discussion
=)
fattychunks 5 years ago
Cool. I'll check it out.
Castaa 5 years ago
Worsening: The golden rule of morality from the new testament is: "do as you would be done by" and I think that applys to all societies because the golden rule is not a new moral teaching, it's more like a reminder.
Brian5063 5 years ago
"do as you would be done by" has the problem of being egoistic and double standart, it only works within small groups of very similar interests and is not universal or global. I may like a boxing match with you, you may not. You may like to make us both listen to Britney Spears music, I may not!
Still a pretty self evident rule untill you notice and accept differences between individual interests.
olllj 5 years ago
This question almost has no wrong answer, because all moral philosophies use logical axioms such as "Someone dying is undesirable" or "People have a right to property." It is not correct to say any such statements are objectively true. With no correct defenition of morality, there exists a theoretical moral philosophy that is being infinitly more respected and one that is being infinitely less respected.
Jeremymia 5 years ago
Fun fact: Violence has been declining the past ten years (in America). It's okay people. The world's not falling apart.
Don't be blindsided by the media and a bunch of preachers yelling fire and brimestone.
TheAbsurdTruth 5 years ago
I've already said a lot on this, but I have to say that for one it's hard to know how "moral" people were back in history. How do we know? From myths, clay pots and hearsay?
TheAbsurdTruth 5 years ago
Where's your proof. You better site ever event that occurred in the last ten years, because the typical sources your site are regularly falsified. And the falsification stories have been standardly reported on the news.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
The Bell Curve talks about how every generation is losing about 2 IQ points and also how IQ is strongly correlated to standard measures of morality such as children within wedlock and gainful employment. So those statistics indicate a declining of morality due to new breeding patterns among people in the first world.
Bedevere13 5 years ago
Losing 2 IQ points? Stupidest thing I've ever heard. For one, IQ is relative and not at all accurate, and it only measures a few factes of the human brain. Bah I don't care anymore actually. You guys can all believe we're going to hell in a handbasket. Meanwhile I'm going back to my air-conditioned home to play with my little cousin, and I won't have to worry about any pesky Vikings invading and raping the neighborhood.
TheAbsurdTruth 5 years ago
Another incompetent comment. "IQ is relative," relative to what?
"and not at all accurate" -- if its not at all accurate then we could be losing 2 IQ points.
Nobody said we're going to hell in a handbasket.
We can do better.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
IQ tests are highly innacurate because they aren't adapted to cultural, environmental or social differences. That is to say IQ tests are not adapted to different types of "inteligences". For example, just because you can't read or write doesn't mean you aren't intelligent. Also IQ tests basis itself on only one definition of inteligence therefore excluding all other possibilities of what could be considered a basis for inteligence.
megazort 5 years ago
That's the claim of some sociologists. However I was address the claims of TheAbsurdTruth, not what you commented on.
pointsoforigin 5 years ago
Question, this doesn't have anything to do with the discussion, but I'm having difficulty uploading my video. It's under the 10 minute length, but how long does it usually take to upload? I think I did something wrong.
thethiefess 5 years ago
Is YouTube telling you they are processing the video? That can take an hour or more sometimes.
Castaa 5 years ago
Yea, they are. Okay, I guess I just have to be patient. Thanks!
thethiefess 5 years ago
If you didn't do it already, you'll then need to link your video response to this video.
Castaa 5 years ago
Yea, I did that. I know why it isn't working. I just checked, and my video is 340.6 MB. How do I make the file smaller? It isn't a long video.
thethiefess 5 years ago
That's the problem 100 MB is the limit. Assuming you are running Windows (not a Mac), download a program called 'SUPER' by eRightsoft. Drag the file into that and set the 'output container' to be the (Windows Media Video) .WMV. This will covert it down to an acceptable size. Set the converstion settings to be 30 frames per second and a bitrate of over 1000 kbps.
Castaa 5 years ago
Hehe, assume I have a Mac.
thethiefess 5 years ago
Try importing the video into iMovie then exporting it as a quicktime file.
Castaa 5 years ago
Going back to the Greeks, morality is simply "right action". This is an easy definition, but the problem is in choosing a standard by which to judge actions as right or wrong. Aristotle talked about Eudemonia, or "the good life" where all actions are judged to be moral or not if they led to a good life on earth. Christians talk about what will or will not please God and get them into heaven. You can't say if morality is getting better or worse without defining what standard you are looking at.
Bedevere13 5 years ago
What's why I asked for the person's defintion first in attempt to clarify the arguments. Thanks for the background info.
Castaa 5 years ago
I tried to write more, but it only allows 500 chars which is nothing! =)
Being atheist I look towards a successful life on earth as my standard for morality. I think that growing atheism could be a good sign for improving morality but unfortunately I don't see people replacing the old morality of religion which is better than nothing in many ways, which worries me. Hedonism and moral relativism which seem to be on the rise and filling the vacuum are not improvements in my opinion.
Bedevere13 5 years ago
I'm sorry for starting that argument. I eventually got of it and bailed. So sorry. Yes, everyone, it was my fault :(
By the way, who does the song for this video? I don't think I've seen the answer.
TheAbsurdTruth 5 years ago
The intro or exit song?
Castaa 5 years ago
Intro.
TheAbsurdTruth 5 years ago
XTC - Dear God
The video is somewhere up on YouTube.
Castaa 5 years ago
XTC? I've heard them. Hm.
TheAbsurdTruth 5 years ago
They were a pretty popular band in the 80's and early 90's, IIRC.
Castaa 5 years ago
Yeah, actually I heard Skylarkking a couple times, but not too attentively. I guess that's why it sounded familiar ... heh. "Dear God" was their most famous song.
TheAbsurdTruth 5 years ago
First to comment? Perhaps. Anyhow, just thought I'd give you a heads up: I'm making a video response! I just discovered my computer camera can also record, rather than just take pictures, so I'm excited.
thethiefess 5 years ago
Awesome, can't wait to see it. Those cameras tend to work pretty well. They now make $100 digital video cameras now that record near TV quality video. I saw one for sale in a Target newspaper insert last weekend.
Castaa 5 years ago