Morality in modern society

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
16,548
I think you are incorrect in a few assumptions about church, morality and marriage.

The concept of marriage was only introduced to the christian church 1000 years after the death of Christ.

Different religions have different approaches to the same thing... some of which include child and forced marriage.

I strongly disagree with the idea that things were somehow more moral before.
Pretty sure that the Bible contains numerous references to marriage, "joined together in the eyes of God" etc etc.

Sure, no forced or child marriages is definitely a step forward.

There are two problems that I have. The first is that we don't like people to have a moral stance at all. If you have a conservative moral stance, this is now seen as a bad thing.

The second is that we have lost that moral guiding light. In some cases, yes it was too strict. If two people are in a loving relationship and have sex, that's fine. The problem is that these days things are trending in the other direction. Now everyone is encouraged to sleep around as much as possible, casual sex is directly encouraged. Long term, I believe this damages people to pair bond with partners.

The best environment for raising children is a two parent household. All of the stats we have seen show that having two loving parents leads to the best outcomes for children. Yet, that is exactly what society is trending away from - we are moving far away from nuclear families.

But to even say that children should live with both parents and not just a single mother is now seen as patriarchal and outdated. You get attacked for saying it. So, the children suffer, but you can't say anything because it would be too old fashioned to say so.
 

Zophos

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2017
Messages
978
There are two problems that I have. The first is that we don't like people to have a moral stance at all. If you have a conservative moral stance, this is now seen as a bad thing.

The second is that we have lost that moral guiding light. In some cases, yes it was too strict. If two people are in a loving relationship and have sex, that's fine. The problem is that these days things are trending in the other direction. Now everyone is encouraged to sleep around as much as possible, casual sex is directly encouraged. Long term, I believe this damages people to pair bond with partners.
Ok, so you have an issue with not having freedom to take a moral stance, and have an issue with society losing their moral guiding light.

So, please elaborate on where, in your opinion, does morals come from?

For me, morals are derived from the consequences (or potential consequences) of actions. I sleep around, and I might contract a disease or have unwanted children. Thus, morally, I try to avoid having more than 1 sexual partner at a time. Is it morally wrong to not be married to said partner? To me, no.
 

PhreakBoy

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
6,652
Thread title is misleading - should be something like "Sleeping around in modern society". Morality does not only cover promiscuity and this has been your only focus thus far.

This thread would have been more interesting if you covered general lack of morality. Not respecting life and the ease with which murder has become an "everyday occurrence". The ease with which fraud / theft is committed and argued away and how the man on the street doesn't guard against committing these "sins" anymore (procurement fraud has escalated in my mind and is is no longer reserved to big amounts, it has become an almost acceptable practice to buy a pen for R2 and sell it to the company you work for at R3 as they were willing to pay R4 - but isn't your job to save the company the full R2?) The issues people in the Sates are starting to have with Fedex packages being stolen. Stuff that weren't issues because people had the morals to leave other peoples things alone, but in modern society is slipping.

<snip>

But the reverse of this is that you are now not allowed to have a moral position.

<snip>
This rang true - you're seen as the sucker if you're the one that tries to "do the right thing."
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
16,548
Ok, so you have an issue with not having freedom to take a moral stance, and have an issue with society losing their moral guiding light.

So, please elaborate on where, in your opinion, does morals come from?

For me, morals are derived from the consequences (or potential consequences) of actions. I sleep around, and I might contract a disease or have unwanted children. Thus, morally, I try to avoid having more than 1 sexual partner at a time. Is it morally wrong to not be married to said partner? To me, no.
If morality only concerns the immediate consequences for your physical body, then they aren't morals. By that definition, the only reason I don't steal (as an atheist) is because I don't want to get caught. Which is not true. There are cases where I could steal and get away with it, and I don't.

Here is another example. In World War II, when German pilots in the Luftwaffe shot down Allied fighters, they would drive to where they had been shot down. Why? Because they didn't want these pilots killed by the locals, who were virulently anti-Allied forces (as you can expect). They would capture them and hand them over as P.O.Ws to save their lives, as opposed to letting them get torn to pieces by an angry mobs.

Another example - German pilots were often threatened by their superiors that if they shot an Allied pilot when he was parachuting from his stricken fighter, that they would themselves be shot.

Now why would German pilots behave this way? Why would they be happy to shoot Allied aircraft to pieces but not want to unnecessarily kill Allied pilots? Remember those same pilots, if they escaped, would get right back in an aircraft and attack again.

So, if you think of morals only in terms of consequences, it would be a good thing for a German pilot to just leave an Allied pilot to get torn to shreds by an angry mob. One less enemy pilot to worry about. Why save his life?
 

Scary_Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
1,412
to me those are uninteresting issues, what about pieces of paper that we must use as "money"

in your view, is theft or extortion immoral?
They may be uninteresting to you but that is what this thread is about so if you are so uninterested then why are you in this thread?

I would love for the monetary system to fall but in order for that to happen there would have to be a massive shift in technology and the dismantling of governments and churches. We are many 100/1000/10000's years away from this and will probably be on a different planet before something like this happens or extinct.

Immoral on extortion but on theft if it is for a greed its immoral. Then there is the grey area "what if that person were to die if he didn't steal" and I would 100% put a persons life over a loaf of bread. This is why we have courts and a case like this should be individually looked at like we do it court.

You can't take the 2 priests to court for being regressive but you can nail them on social media and force a response to there backwards thinking until morality is enforced in the church.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,979
I'm pretty much in the other ballpark

Why is having sex before marriage with someone you love bad?
Why should there be in consequence for having sex before marriage?
Why should I be punished with eternal damnation for having sex before marriage?
Why should the Church or anyone have a say in who I sleep with?

Imagine not being able to live your life the way you wanted because you were bald, being bald meant you cant get married in church, you were so sick of putting on fake hair to fit in that you had to come out and you only liked sleeping with other bald people. All because an immoral book has shunned bald people for the last 2000 years.

Society starts to adapt and allows bald people into society, realizing how immoral they have been for the last 2000 years but then two "people" from the Church decide to bring back their barbaric thinking and immoral rubbish.

Would you be pissed as a bald person because I would be. All this because you were born a certain way.

How is this moral decay its finally accepting what is right/moral.
This is only my theory...

Premarital sex was likely shunned and shamed because, well, it would obviously result in baring children without stability and responsibility. In addition, marriage would also symbolize a couple's commitment to one another and potentially a future family. Without marriage, there's no certainty of responsibility in baring the resulting children and it is essentially immoral to make it someone else's uninvited burden through force or ignorance.

So it seems fairly logical to me why sex before marriage would be seen as immoral.

Now that we have contraceptives and divorce though, one could argue society has changed and things are different. But I still feel, while marriage may not be necessary, IF you're not able to bare the potential consequences it is ignorant and thus immoral to take the risk. And we're not even on the topic of proliferating STD's yet :p

Hell, who would've thought I could make that argument despite religion :D
 

RedViking

Nord of the South
Joined
Feb 23, 2012
Messages
25,071
Churches trying to please the masses.

It's freedom of speech. You can say what your want. No need to apologise.
 

Zophos

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2017
Messages
978
If morality only concerns the immediate consequences for your physical body, then they aren't morals. By that definition, the only reason I don't steal (as an atheist) is because I don't want to get caught. Which is not true. There are cases where I could steal and get away with it, and I don't.

Here is another example. In World War II, when German pilots in the Luftwaffe shot down Allied fighters, they would drive to where they had been shot down. Why? Because they didn't want these pilots killed by the locals, who were virulently anti-Allied forces (as you can expect). They would capture them and hand them over as P.O.Ws to save their lives, as opposed to letting them get torn to pieces by an angry mobs.

Another example - German pilots were often threatened by their superiors that if they shot an Allied pilot when he was parachuting from his stricken fighter, that they would themselves be shot.
It is funny that you bring up the Germans during WW2 in a moral debate....

Are you familiar with the term Befehlsnotstand. There were severe consequences to disobeying an order for Germans during WW2

Also, modern society have rules with, consequences for breaking them (to your point of stealing). Now I am not saying the rules are all fair, but since we are debating morals and not rules, that might be a topic for another Friday

So, please elaborate on where, in your opinion, does morals come from?
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
16,548
It is funny that you bring up the Germans during WW2 in a moral debate....

Are you familiar with the term Befehlsnotstand. There were severe consequences to disobeying an order for Germans during WW2

Also, modern society have rules with, consequences for breaking them (to your point of stealing). Now I am not saying the rules are all fair, but since we are debating morals and not rules, that might be a topic for another Friday

So, please elaborate on where, in your opinion, does morals come from?
From society and for society.

This wasn't a problem before multiculturalism, or mass immigration. For the most part, societies were much more homogenous than they are now. People were much more likely to agree on moral issues than disagree. This was true even in places like America, where a lot of people from different cultural backgrounds settled and mingled together. They were still white and Christian I suppose.

Now ethnic change is much more rapid, and with it, cultures and thus morals change faster. Its almost impossible to find morals that fit everyone, so morals have had to become much looser.

Now, the rules that govern behaviour are mostly legal. Most of the rules around what you can and cannot do are societies laws, enforced by police and courts of law. The only things still considered morals are those that everyone agrees on.

Not everyone agrees that it is a good idea for a man to hold a door open for a woman, for instance - some women find that insulting. Just as a trivial example.

To say nothing of things like sexuality, romance and marriage. Those are now ruled more by law than anything else.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,377
Morality is just practical reason. Well that is the case for Aristotle and followers of his metaphysics combined with the view that humans have the intellectual capacity towards reasoning what is good for a flourishing society
Being dirty gets you killed? :unsure: Cleanliness... next to Godliness.
Permanent man and woman unions tend to be massively beneficial for children and a healthy society? :unsure: Divorce and cause harm to children and you will be ostracized from society.
Cheat or kill...? :unsure: MMM, not really practical for a flourishing society.

The problem in modern society is that people abandoned practical reason in favour of their passions. They have become slaves to their passions and believers of the superstitious fairytale that they are purposeless matter in motion.
 

Sargeant

Active Member
Joined
May 7, 2015
Messages
60
The reason why society (and those "intellectuals" on this forum rail morality - and yes, even religion) is that morality implies consequence to your actions.

As a counter argument, these "clever" people argue you don't need morels if you have the necessary laws.

Ridiculously, it is these self same bright sparks that make the biggest noise about the likes of Zuma not being in jail yet. But, here's the thing - the law has not actually found Zuma guilty of anything yet! Sure, the PP and the whole arms investigation found evidence that suggests he did illegal thing but, he is still walking free under the law! So these self-same people who want to disregard morels are using a moral argument to push for his arrest.

Hypocrisy and two-facedness at it utter best!
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
42,205
Ancalagon said:
I am however concerned by the moral decay in society...
This seems to imply you think it's getting worse? Is that correct?

1) How do you define moral decay in a society?
2) How do you measure it?

Ancalagon said:
There needs to be a standard by which we say some behaviour is better than others and not all behaviours are equal, even when they aren't illegal.
There is, though. It's called moral philosophy.

Ancalagon said:
You can suggest to a man that he not sleep around and get away with it, but if you suggest to a woman that she not sleep around you are slut shaming and being regressive.
Is a man treated like disposable garbage when he sleeps around a lot like women often are?

There are two problems that I have. The first is that we don't like people to have a moral stance at all. If you have a conservative moral stance, this is now seen as a bad thing.
Neither of these is remotely true.

Ancalagon said:
The problem is that these days things are trending in the other direction. Now everyone is encouraged to sleep around as much as possible, casual sex is directly encouraged.
Is this the case, though?

Doesn't seem to be. At least in the US.

Respondents from the current era did not report more sexual partners since age 18; more partners during the past year; or more frequent sex than respondents from the earlier era. If anything, they had sex slightly less often than the earlier cohort
They seem to be having much less sex overall than before.

American adults, on average, are having sex about nine fewer times per year in the 2010s compared to adults in the late 1990s, according to a team of scholars led by the psychologist Jean Twenge. That’s a 14 percent decline in sexual frequency. Likewise, the share of adults who reported having sex “not at all” in the past year rose from 18 percent in the late 1990s to 22 percent from 2014 to 2016, according to our analysis of the General Social Survey.

Similar trends are apparent among younger men and women. In the early 2000s, about 73 percent of adults between the ages of 18 and 30 had sex at least twice a month. That fell to 66 percent in the period from 2014 to 2016, according to our analysis of the GSS.

Other 18- to 30-year-olds aren’t doing it at all. From 2002 to 2004, 12 percent of them reported having no sex in the preceding year. A decade later, during the two years from 2014 to 2016, that number rose to 18 percent.
Longitudinal studies of this are quite tricky, due to the nature of the question at hand unfortunately.

Ancalagon said:
The best environment for raising children is a two parent household. All of the stats we have seen show that having two loving parents leads to the best outcomes for children. Yet, that is exactly what society is trending away from - we are moving far away from nuclear families.

But to even say that children should live with both parents and not just a single mother is now seen as patriarchal and outdated. You get attacked for saying it. So, the children suffer, but you can't say anything because it would be too old fashioned to say so.
I don't think this is in any way accurate, either. It's highly disingenuous to suggest saying innocuous truisms like "stable, two parent households are good for children" is somehow an outlandish view that's dunked on.

From society and for society.

This wasn't a problem before multiculturalism, or mass immigration. For the most part, societies were much more homogenous than they are now. People were much more likely to agree on moral issues than disagree. This was true even in places like America, where a lot of people from different cultural backgrounds settled and mingled together. They were still white and Christian I suppose.

Now ethnic change is much more rapid, and with it, cultures and thus morals change faster. Its almost impossible to find morals that fit everyone, so morals have had to become much looser.

Now, the rules that govern behaviour are mostly legal. Most of the rules around what you can and cannot do are societies laws, enforced by police and courts of law. The only things still considered morals are those that everyone agrees on.

Not everyone agrees that it is a good idea for a man to hold a door open for a woman, for instance - some women find that insulting. Just as a trivial example.

To say nothing of things like sexuality, romance and marriage. Those are now ruled more by law than anything else.
This is some a-historical, xenophobic nonsense right here. You can't just blame whatever problem you think exists on immigrants.

The most immediate metric one could look at to gauge 'moral decay' would be crime rates, and it's plunged in the US overall and in cities specifically where immigration surged.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,471
Ancalagon said:
I am however concerned by the moral decay in society...
This seems to imply you think it's getting worse? Is that correct?
You don't know the meaning of the word "decay"?

Ancalagon said:
There needs to be a standard by which we say some behaviour is better than others and not all behaviours are equal, even when they aren't illegal.
There is, though. It's called moral philosophy.
Please explain how moral philosophy is a standard?

Ancalagon said:
You can suggest to a man that he not sleep around and get away with it, but if you suggest to a woman that she not sleep around you are slut shaming and being regressive.
Is a man treated like disposable garbage when he sleeps around a lot like women often are?
And your point is?

Ancalagon said:
There are two problems that I have. The first is that we don't like people to have a moral stance at all. If you have a conservative moral stance, this is now seen as a bad thing.
Neither of these is remotely true.
On the contrary - it is very much true.

Ancalagon said:
The problem is that these days things are trending in the other direction. Now everyone is encouraged to sleep around as much as possible, casual sex is directly encouraged.
Is this the case, though?
Yes - it is the case.

Ancalagon said:
The best environment for raising children is a two parent household. All of the stats we have seen show that having two loving parents leads to the best outcomes for children. Yet, that is exactly what society is trending away from - we are moving far away from nuclear families.

But to even say that children should live with both parents and not just a single mother is now seen as patriarchal and outdated. You get attacked for saying it. So, the children suffer, but you can't say anything because it would be too old fashioned to say so.
I don't think this is in any way accurate, either. It's highly disingenuous to suggest saying innocuous truisms like "stable, two parent households are good for children" is somehow an outlandish view that's dunked on.
On the contrary - the observation is very much accurate.

Ancalagon said:
... its almost impossible to find morals that fit everyone, so morals have had to become much looser....
...the most immediate metric one could look at to gauge 'moral decay' would be crime rates...
You arguing that morals/morality is defined by the law?
The law only defines that what be legal/illegal, and not that what be right/wrong.
Infidelity is for example not illegal (and therefore by definition legal), but it is very much wrong.
 

Scary_Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
1,412
This is only my theory...

Premarital sex was likely shunned and shamed because, well, it would obviously result in baring children without stability and responsibility. In addition, marriage would also symbolize a couple's commitment to one another and potentially a future family. Without marriage, there's no certainty of responsibility in baring the resulting children and it is essentially immoral to make it someone else's uninvited burden through force or ignorance.

So it seems fairly logical to me why sex before marriage would be seen as immoral.

Now that we have contraceptives and divorce though, one could argue society has changed and things are different. But I still feel, while marriage may not be necessary, IF you're not able to bare the potential consequences it is ignorant and thus immoral to take the risk. And we're not even on the topic of proliferating STD's yet :p

Hell, who would've thought I could make that argument despite religion :D
Yeah I can see your point which is probably where these immoral morals came from.

That is the extreme one side of the argument on the other hand someone in their thirties who is financially stable, lives together with their SO for 8 years, has never had an oopsie, love and care for one another but their crime is not wanting to be married because they are Atheist.

What would be immoral, shunning those people or letting them live their lives the way they want to?

We also have laws for under age sex and although I beleive it to be to lenient I'm not the expert on this matter.
 
Top