Morality

[TeslaTrooper]

You ARE going around in circles. If you're going to say there's a decline in morality, then you need to quantify it before we can have a discussion.

In the not so distant past, it was perfectly acceptable to kill another man in a duel over "honor". Nowadays we frown on that. Murder rates are down. Whether or not drug use is up or down is entirely dependent on which news channel you're watching.

As for wholesomeness - please go back and watch movies from the 50's or 60's with a new eye. Mad Men is a pretty excellent portrayal of the reality of that "wholesomeness." Just watching "Bell Book and Candle" the other day reminded me of the rampant drinking going on. And while it was never implicitly said, sex was quite pervasive throughout the movie. The 50's were uptight, but they were NOT the way they were portrayed in the Leave It to Beaver series. The KKK existed. People were still greedy. People still had sex outside of marriage or before it. It was no worse or better than the uptight period before it - the Victorians, who basically refined the art of pornography and allowed child prostitution to run amuck.

Please explain exactly what you think society has lost in the last 60 years before making such a generalization.

Well once again I think it is debatable. If we were to go on figures in terms of population, then and now, for 100% sure I feel those figures you talk about such as drugs, crime etc would be up. But again I feel those are legal issues not immoral issues. Of course those things still happened in those times too, but to me it feels like it is more widespread at the moment. Whether that is because their is less oppression or things are more open now, is also debatable. It still is impossible to quantify. For example how can you quantify how many people act in a "lewd and uncouth" manner? It is subjective as to what "lewd or uncouth" may be, and it is not illegal, so you cannot quantify it.

Perhaps it is the openness which makes it seem like it is happening more now than then. Perhaps what we saw in public back then was a facade, to what was really happening behind closed doors. Perhaps that is what I have a problem with. In that what is socially acceptable now, was not socially acceptable then. Once that boundary of "acceptability" has been breached, I beleive it opens the floodgates for immorality to prosper (depending on your interpretation of immorality).

An analogy For example, here in the u.k there has been a big debate on "legal drugs." More people have been experimenting with legal drugs, because they are legal. those people would not use illegal drugs for the very fact that they are illegal. Similarly, if boundaries on morality were strictly in place it may stop people from engaging in immoral acts, because that boundary was there i.e religion. Once the boundary has been removed, it allows immorality to be engaged in.

---

Have you tried honestly asking yourself, whether you think you would be a worser person if you did not have a religious set of laws on morality to abide to? Bearing in mind as you said how much they differ in certain cases.

That might be a bad question to ask on my part as you'll probably answer yes lol. But the point i'm getting at as I said in my previous post is that through empathetic reasoning you can decide what is right or wrong to do without a God to give you a very brief and specific lesson on morality.

Is there any evidence to suggest as a species that we were more "immoral" centuries before abrahamic religions took there grip on countries? I don't think so, as there were religions before them who would have in my opinion advocated equally distastful teachings and laws.


Kind Regards,

Citereh

Well I honestly think I would be a worse person if it were not for religious teachings. As a young boy we were taught religion and "right and wrong" in school. These foundations are present in us even in adulthood.

Of course there is no evidence to suggest that as a species we were more immoral before abrahamic religions took hold in the world. Mostly due to the fact that the concept of morality had not yet been devised. So to go up to another human, bash them on the head and kill them, steal their food and wife, would I guess be acceptable. I guess survival was the rule of law, not what is moral or immoral. As we see when law and order breaks down, people act immorally. For example the U.K riots recently.

I feel that even atheists who act decently, are going on the religious precedent set before them.

.......my heads spinning and I have to go offline, will hopefully pick all this up tommorow. Thank you for replies peeps.