Morality

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I'm tired of this "the 50s were awesome" crap.

I do understand. I was born in 1947

Most adult men I knew in the 1950's were suffering from PTSD as a result of 6 years of wars and tended towards the extremely-difficult-to live-with.(especially my dad,who could be real dead cunt)

I finally developed the ability to form abstract thoughts at about age 12. (1959) Before then, I thought the 50's' were just dandy.What happened? I developed a Catholic conscience overnight,that's what fucking happened,I was so pissed off.-----No more shoplifting,chucking rocks at the Protestant kids,swearing at the Italians or belting my little sister. It had dawned on me that those things were wrong IN THEMSELVES,not just because I would get into trouble if I got caught. ( which was almost never).


Things didn't pick up until 1963 when I turned 16 and began earning some money of my own. I loved the 60's,except for getting called up in 1968.Oh. On second thought, I guess the 1960's weren't all that bloody wonderful either.(hated the army).

Nostalgia isn't what it used to be. But then it never was.(anon) hen,it never was

[ElDinero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDstN8nWtJE

[TeslaTrooper]

I guess I am persisting with it because im going off what I see and hear with my senses. Unless my senses are flawed then It is one of the primary things a person can go off. Again back to morality rather than genocide, wars or persecution. If I take my group of friends for example. They will be out taking drugs, banging girls right left and center, drinking too much, possibly having a punch up, and have no sense of family or community at all. To me most of their behaviour I would class as immoral.

Now if I take my brief encounter with the church people I met whilst one of my friends was involved with them, they did not engage in any of the above acts. They were waiting for marriage before sex. Their lives were heavily around the family unit, and around their christian community. When my friend was trying to rope me into it, the snapshot I got was something wholesome and even something I would like to join (if it were not for the religion aspect).

Your senses ARE flawed, and your perspective unbelievably skewed. You're basically an ultra-conservative. You belong right in with the super-Christians. You've shown how shallow your perception of what morality is with this post, and in the same breath given us all a dazzling insight into your priorities. You're not bothered about persecution, harassment and violence (not large scale violence, anyway. Your idiot mates getting in scraps outside a nightclub, maybe) despite the fact that these are inherently moral issues. No, what you want to see a stop to is sex, drugs and rock and roll, the REAL bane of society. The only real question is why you are 'friends' with people that you think are taking us down a moral sewer?

So now you've shown your colours, how about backing them up by answering me this: On what basis do you say that personal drug use including drinking and pre-marital sex are immoral acts?

Someone who can overlook genocide and centuries of cultural bullying because religious people don't fuck before they get married seems to me to need to reassess their perspective.

On wouldnt neccessarily suggest that those acts are immoral in themselves, I myself drink and have sex out of marriage with my girlfriend. I would not like to see a ban on "society" or freedom of choice. Its something I believe very strongly in. Even if we are to make the wrong choices, it is our right to do so. I think that was the issue again I was getting at. How can people make the right choices, without that structure or boundary in place. And again what can be determined as "right". One persons right is anothers wrong.

With regards to those so called friends, the point I was getting at is they would not regard what they are doing as immoral. They regard it as fun. Infact most people that hit the town centers every weekend would feel the same way. Even when they are face down in the gutter vomiting and pissing in their pants.


I feel you are being overly critical of me without truly knowing were Iam coming from, and infact misinterpreting what Iam saying. Perhaps Iam not getting my words out properly or not explaining properly. I think you understand partially better from your comment in my introduction thread.

At no point I feel have I overlooked all the bad things done in the name of religion. Such as genocides, wars, massacres, bullying, degredation of women etc etc. But It was not relevent to the context I was referring too. Any abhorrant acts in the name of religon are always wrong. But let us not forget that wars and massacres etc are also waged on other accounts such as greed, pride, land, lust, pride etc.

These issues are relevant, but I was referring to morality in the context of u.k society. I wasn't particularly referring to massacres in bosnia or somalia, or the witch hunts of salem.

---

I'm tired of this "the 50s were awesome" crap...

In the 50s:

-Rampant racism: the first interracial kiss on TV wasn't until 1968 !! (on Star Trek ).
-Women rights were essentially not present.
-Gay rights were essentially not present. They were not even allowed to serve in the military.
-Protection of minorities was essentially not present.
-Children's rights were essentially not present, which is why many of the pedophilia scandals date from that time.
-Discrimination was socially acceptable.
-The Cold War: witch hunts, fear of nuclear holocaust, suspicion between neighbors...

Do you consider those things better than what we have today ? Is getting drunk and having sex really bad compared to open racism and hatred of anyone different ?

But at the same time there are still issues we are dealing with today, that would suggest we have not moved on that far ahead.

-We are now in a new cold war of sorts
-Racism is still very present, intra ethnic racism is rampant
-Childrens rights may have not been present, but if we now see some of the results of that, we have kids not afraid of the law kicking peoples heads in to death. Not afraid of the police because "they know their rights"
- As we saw on the news, child sex convictions are going up. Surely that suggests kids are still being abused today as then?
-Discrimination although not socially acceptable, still exists, and has merely turned into "institutional discrimination"


I would not know about how life was in the 50s as I was not there. But surely this nostalgia comes from somewere. Were is the belief that things are getting worse coming from? Where there is smoke there is fire, and there is usually some truth to it, even if just a hint.

[ElDinero]

On wouldnt neccessarily suggest that those acts are immoral in themselves, I myself drink and have sex out of marriage with my girlfriend. I would not like to see a ban on "society" or freedom of choice. Its something I believe very strongly in. Even if we are to make the wrong choices, it is our right to do so. With regards to those so called friends, the point I was getting at is they would not regard what they are doing as immoral. They regard it as fun. Infact most people that hit the town centers every weekend would feel the same way. Even when they are face down in the gutter vomiting and pissing in their pants.

I feel you are being overly critical of me without truly knowing were Iam coming from, and infact misinterpreting what Iam saying. Perhaps Iam not getting my words out properly or not explaining properly.

Maybe you aren't. Not my problem. You've said some really, REALLY baseless things in this thread, and I am responding to them. Example: YOU said you regard most of your friends' behaviour as immoral, citing examples of drug use and pre-marital sex. That is a ridiculous and borderline offensive thing to say, so I've challenged it. Now you say they aren't immoral acts? And then two sentences later, say 'they would not regard what they are doing as immoral'. So my question again is: Why should they? What is immoral about what they are doing (being violent is obviously not the same thing)?

If I'm being critical it's because you are doing stuff like the above. With regards your point to Rwandrall, I have already explained this. No, there is no basis for saying things were 'better' or 'more moral'. If you had been alive in that time, you would have found people from the 1890s saying how much worse things were. And the same in the 1890s from people who lived in the 1830s. Do you really think that things have been getting continuously worse for hundreds of years, or do you think that it's just people's tendencies to cling to things they know and like? To use a more contemporary example of this, ever notice how people always think music is getting worse than when they were a kid? Same thing.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Were is the belief that things are getting worse coming from?

Simple fear of the unknown and projection.

Where there is smoke there is fire, and there is usually some truth to it, even if just a hint.

Yeah?
80% of reported rapes is bogus IRL! So lots of hoopla smoke but not even a spark IRL.

[TeslaTrooper]

On wouldnt neccessarily suggest that those acts are immoral in themselves, I myself drink and have sex out of marriage with my girlfriend. I would not like to see a ban on "society" or freedom of choice. Its something I believe very strongly in. Even if we are to make the wrong choices, it is our right to do so. With regards to those so called friends, the point I was getting at is they would not regard what they are doing as immoral. They regard it as fun. Infact most people that hit the town centers every weekend would feel the same way. Even when they are face down in the gutter vomiting and pissing in their pants.

I feel you are being overly critical of me without truly knowing were Iam coming from, and infact misinterpreting what Iam saying. Perhaps Iam not getting my words out properly or not explaining properly.

Maybe you aren't. Not my problem. You've said some really, REALLY baseless things in this thread, and I am responding to them. Example: YOU said you regard most of your friends' behaviour as immoral, citing examples of drug use and pre-marital sex. That is a ridiculous and borderline offensive thing to say, so I've challenged it. Now you say they aren't immoral acts? And then two sentences later, say 'they would not regard what they are doing as immoral'. So my question again is: Why should they? What is immoral about what they are doing (being violent is obviously not the same thing)?

If I'm being critical it's because you are doing stuff like the above. With regards your point to Rwandrall, I have already explained this. No, there is no basis for saying things were 'better' or 'more moral'. If you had been alive in that time, you would have found people from the 1890s saying how much worse things were. And the same in the 1890s from people who lived in the 1830s. Do you really think that things have been getting continuously worse for hundreds of years, or do you think that it's just people's tendencies to cling to things they know and like? To use a more contemporary example of this, ever notice how people always think music is getting worse than when they were a kid? Same thing.

Perhaps it is the way in which these things, such as pre marital sex, drug use, alcohol use etc are being used. The acts in themselves are not neccessarily immoral its but the misuse can be. I take for example alcohol. Someone sat round a bbq having a drink with friends and family I would not consider immoral. Someone getting absaloutely off there face, peeing in their pants and then throwing up all over someones car, perhaps then waking everbody up on the street, or even destroying some property would be immoral. But again those people engaging in those acts would not consider what they are doing immoral, but merely part and parcel of a "saturday night".

Same with the whole premarital sex thing. I do it and most of the u.k population of my generation has done it I imagine. Again the act it iself I would not class as immoral, but when you start banging everyone in sight, I personally would class it as immoral. Again another person would regard it as personal choice, and someone more extreme than myself would class premarital sex as immoral. Again one of the problems with the lack of moral boundaries, and structure.

I can see the truth in what you are saying regarding perception of things getting worse. However I still feel there must be a reason for this perception. A comprimising idea could be its the type of immoral acts that are changing or perhaps a change in society itself.

For example someone cited open racism or open homophobia as acceptable in the 50s or 60s. That would obviously be regarded as immoral by todays standards. Whereas something such as say, getting drunk and sitting in a bin, which by the standards of the 50s and 60s would be considered highly immoral, would in todays standards be perhaps seen as a bit of foolishness. This would suggest some immoral acts have become more prevalent whilst others have got better. This could be why there is disagreement on whether things are better or worse.

[ElDinero]

Or, it could be the fact that the things you are describing are not immoral, and you have still failed to explain why they are. You're the one making excuses for yourself here, putting up boundaries at arbitrary points to conveniently coincide with how YOU use alcohol and sex.

So tell me why it's more moral to have sex with your girlfriend than with multiple people? I live a pretty hedonistic lifestyle, I like to get drunk on the weekends and I have slept with a lot of women and intend to sleep with many more. Why? Because it's fun and enjoyable, and I like doing it. So why don't you tell me what exactly it is about my actions that is immoral? I'm not harming anyone else.

The only time I really think actions become immoral is when they affect the well being of somebody else and cause them pain. That's why homophobia is immoral, and racism, but not pre-marital sex. That's why you can drink yourself into a stupor every day for all I care, but your example (which moved the goalposts, by the way) of vomiting on someone's car and yelling at the top of your lungs walking down the street is wrong. If your fuckhead mates can't control themselves when under the influence, they are liable to be arrested for their actions. It has nothing to do with the act of drinking.

I have provided you with countless examples of why the nostalgia for the 50s is bullshit, as have other people. If you're going to just stick your head in the sand and say 'I still think there's something to it' then fine. Then in your opinion, things have been getting steadily worse FOREVER, the first ever society was the best one. Also, music ain't what it used to be, sportsmen used to have more honour, and they don't make films like that any more. It's absolutely idiotic, of course, but you stick with it despite the mountain of reason against it. Nice job.

One more time: THE REASON FOR THE PERCEPTION IS PEOPLES' NOSTALGIA FOR THINGS THEY REMEMBER. What could be simpler than that?

[ThomM]

Hi everyone, first post and not sure which topic area to put this in, or forum etiquette, its not really a question but something for discussion, but here it goes.

Its basically a concept I have been grappling with for a while. For those of us who aren't religious or live in secular societies, it would appear that their is a significant correlation with the decline in morality, and the decline in religion.

Again - a person looking at a situation often makes a conclusion without looking at the facts.

IT is not the secular community that is having the morality problem - it is the religious community. For instance - look at crime rates. UN statistics show that crime is HIGHEST where theism is highest - and crime rates are lowest where most people do not believe in spooks.

In the USA - murder is most likely (AS a percentage of the population) to be committed by Fundamental christians - and LEAST likely to be committed by secularists. THE same is true for abortion, suicide, and divorce as well. For example - the US states with the highest number of fundamental christians - largely the bible belt states - are also the ones with the highest murder rates as well. Hard to believe - but Louisiana - the state with the highest number of fundamental christians has a murder rate of about 11.8 per 100,000 people - which New York's rate is about 4,

Secularists are more likely to be of higher education and higher intelligence that theists are. People of higher education have always been least likely to commit crime. WHen you remove them from the religious population - in large numbers - you are seeing the results from what is left in the religious population.

[Violet]

Morality is subjective. I believe genocide, consumption of humans, slavery, and eating tacos to be quite moral.

Morality is not on a decline at all: people's understanding of the subject is expanding rapidly

---

Abortion, murder, and suicide are moral to me too. Lying, 'stealing', and ganking are moral.

Vandalism, rape, and mindless brutality are not moral. Sabotage, nudity in public, and any reasoned brutality are completely moral.

[Diamond-Deist]

Hi everyone, first post and not sure which topic area to put this in, or forum etiquette, its not really a question but something for discussion, but here it goes.

Its basically a concept I have been grappling with for a while. For those of us who aren't religious or live in secular societies, it would appear that their is a significant correlation with the decline in morality, and the decline in religion. In the past In my country, Christianity provided a "moral guideline" if you will for how we should live our lives. And through the fear of hell, or living in religious society or whatever, it kept people in line/ under control through these guidlines. It would appear that as people have lost faith, their moral standards have declined dramatically, many adopting a mentality of "why". That is to say, "why is it wrong" "why shouldn't I behave like this" "why should you tell me whats right and wrong". Which from an atheistic/agnostic viewpoint, it is very difficult to tell them otherwise, as if there is no God and if religion is a farce, then who is to say that the way they are living/behaving is wrong?

At the same time the whole concept of morality and right and wrong comes from religion/religious teachings. So apart from religion, there isn't really any other "guidelines" for us to go off. Even religion itself or even christianity seems to have deviated somewhat from the bible in order to keep its following in modern society. What some sects consider immoral, others would consider to be okay in the modern world.

So I guess what im getting at can we have morality within modern secular society? Or is religion the only real way to keep us all in line? And from an atheist viewpoint, can anything really be considered as immoral? Even if we see man made laws, most of it seems to derive from religion, do not kill, do not steal etc. Also perhaps highlights the concept that religion itself was a basic understanding of man in old times, of law an order. And that a system had to be in place to keep us all in order. otherwise we would be running riot "doing as we please."

Apologies if this is a little bit all over the place, but would appreciate some thoughts.... thank you.

You raise some very good points which I have considered before myself.

Is it possible though that the states or countries reliance on teaching morals through religion is the problem?

Once that religion is ignored or removed you have now taken away the crutch society relied on, religion was not always used, in early European society the Celtic and Germanic tribes lived with no such moral guide lines, neither did a lot of other societies.

I think if we reinvested in people parenting and laws of men for our morality we could take responsibility ourselves instead of relying on the bible/Koran.

In reality it all comes down to one thing ..... influence.