Morality in modern society

Scary_Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
1,411
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!
Please if you are going to attack these "intellectuals" can we not talk about mushrooms (morels) and morals.

Huh I would argue that you don't need religion to have morals, as a matter of fact if you don't have religion you have better morals would be my argument. Not sure anyone has argued that you don't need morals and if someone is going to argue that good luck to them.

Going off about Zuma is hilarious because South Africa is a giant mess and just about every state department is broken. What moral argument are you talking about he needs to be in jail for breaking the law not for being immoral, being immoral is a result of him breaking the law.

Your whole argument is a mess, maybe you should reconsider it.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,977
What would be immoral, shunning those people or letting them live their lives the way they want to?
In my view, they would be committing no immorality to other man so I have no reason to question them. As long as they stick through with their commitment.

But there is a consideration... Divorce never used to be allowed way back when. The concept of marriage was a safety net (community endorsement/trust) that mitigated the risk of couples easily parting ways, negatively affecting their children and raising the issue of responsibility/burden. So without marriage one is in an easier position to run away legally speaking, which could be argued as unfavorable from the community perspective. This is why I think the community used to bare witness to the marriage - they would all be aware of the couple's commitment and endorse it accordingly.

But now with divorce being allowed, the population being so sky high and families being so separated/detached that we've lost track of one another - the act of marriage has just become purely symbolic and nothing more.

Some Christian values made sense IMO, if I think about them.

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.
I can agree. If one is not of appropriate age, stability, development and state of mind they surely are in no place to take that risk. Even 18 could be too young but it's difficult to exact the issue across the board.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,471
Please if you are going to attack these "intellectuals" can we not talk about mushrooms (morels) and morals.

Huh I would argue that you don't need religion to have morals, as a matter of fact if you don't have religion you have better morals would be my argument. Not sure anyone has argued that you don't need morals and if someone is going to argue that good luck to them.

Going off about Zuma is hilarious because South Africa is a giant mess and just about every state department is broken. What moral argument are you talking about he needs to be in jail for breaking the law not for being immoral, being immoral is a result of him breaking the law.

Your whole argument is a mess, maybe you should reconsider it.
If someone does something that is not illegal (and therefore legal), does it mean that it is therefore not immoral (and therefore moral)?
Being immoral is not "the result of" breaking the law.
Its the other way round.
Breaking the law is "the result of" being immoral.
 

C4Cat

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
9,471
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.
Differing situations. A man being promiscuous is far more problematic than a woman being promiscuous. Society should be shaming promiscuous men, rather than women. Currently, a man who sleeps around a lot is celebrated by society as being alpha male and all that crap, while a woman doing the same is shamed as a slut. This is completely backwards and should be the other way around.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,471
Differing situations. A man being promiscuous is far more problematic than a woman being promiscuous. Society should be shaming promiscuous men, rather than women. Currently, a man who sleeps around a lot is celebrated by society as being alpha male and all that crap, while a woman doing the same is shamed as a slut. This is completely backwards and should be the other way around.
What do you mean by "should be the other way round"?
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
16,546
Differing situations. A man being promiscuous is far more problematic than a woman being promiscuous. Society should be shaming promiscuous men, rather than women. Currently, a man who sleeps around a lot is celebrated by society as being alpha male and all that crap, while a woman doing the same is shamed as a slut. This is completely backwards and should be the other way around.
Is it though? Women sleeping around often results in paternity fraud, something more widespread than we would like to know.

But anyway, regardless of any offspring that may result, I believe that excessive casual sex is equally damaging to both men and women.

I also don't think it should be the other way around - we should not shame men for being promiscuous while celebrating promiscuous women. We should have the guts to say, sleeping around is not good for you, even if you don't catch STDs or get pregnant/make someone pregnant.
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
16,546
Oh goodness. sigh.

Is a man treated like disposable garbage when he sleeps around a lot like women often are?
No, but these days neither are women. As I've taken pains to point out, to say that women should not sleep around is now considered slut shaming. Women should be "free to embrace their sexuality". So, neither sex is shamed for sleeping around.

Neither of these is remotely true.
Please come to London and tell people that you have conservative values. Or, God forbid, tell them you voted Tory. You will be shunned.

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.
It is. Everything is pro alternative families these days. Marriage and the two parent home is rapidly becoming an outdated norm. Apparently you don't know liberal culture as well as you think you do. A feminist friend told me that she would never get married because marriage is a tool of the patriarchy. Yes I have feminist friends, thanks for asking. Her view is not unusual at all, especially when our culture is not allowed to say that the best outcome for kids is a two parent stable home. If you read the BBC and the Guardian, both fairly liberal news outlets, you will see that their stance is any form of parenting is fine, none is worse than any other (except for abusive homes obviously).


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.
I can see that my point went right over your head, so I'll try to make it simpler.

The point is not that immigrants are evil people who are going to take your job and kill you.

The point is cultural shifts. If two cultures intermingle, how do you arrive at a common set of moral values?

It isn't the only factor driving changes in moral values, but it is a big one, and it has been going on for hundreds of years, as waves of immigrants landed in the USA, from which a lot of Western culture originates.

Its interesting how, as soon as I mention immigration, you assume that I am demonising them or it. I'm not. I am simply saying, as population groups become less homogenous, moral values must change, and they must inevitably change to the lowest common denominator.

Is a liberal vegan feminist Atheist going to be happy living in Saudi Arabia? They'd probably struggle, wouldn't you agree? But a lone liberal in Saudi Arabia is not enough to drive moral value shifts.
 

Scary_Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
1,411
If someone does something that is not illegal (and therefore legal), does it mean that it is therefore not immoral (and therefore moral)?
I was just talking about Zuma's case and him putting an entire country at risk to benefit himself by breaking the law makes him immoral, if he hadn't we wouldn't know if he was moral or not. Correct?

Being immoral is not "the result of" breaking the law.
Its the other way round.
Breaking the law is "the result of" being immoral.
I'm not arguing what is immoral or not I'm saying to the guy Zuma should go to jail for breaking the law. He is making it a moral argument.

On your points though if you had two choices die from starvation or steal bread to live and to survive and you stole the bread. Are you now immoral?
Now the next day you win the lotto and repay the stolen bread 10 times over and dedicate your life to fighting poverty. Are you now moral?

Being immoral can be the result of breaking the law by observing a person like Zuma or how would we know Zuma was immoral but it isn't always the case.
Breaking the law isn't always immoral it can be due to life or death or other circumstances.

Edit:
Extra thought breaking the law may lead you to be moral.

There is very little black and white when it comes to morals.
 
Last edited:

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
16,546
You can do things that are moral but illegal, or things that are immoral but legal.

Examples:
Not wearing your seatbelt is usually not seen as immoral, but it is illegal.
Also, depending on your moral stance, you might say that eating magic mushrooms is perfectly moral, but it isn't currently legal.

A 45 year old man can have sex with a 16 year old girl. Perfectly legal but most people would consider it immoral. Its actually only illegal if he pays her for sex or is in a position of power over her, like being her teacher.
 

C4Cat

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
9,471
Is it though? Women sleeping around often results in paternity fraud, something more widespread than we would like to know.

But anyway, regardless of any offspring that may result, I believe that excessive casual sex is equally damaging to both men and women.

I also don't think it should be the other way around - we should not shame men for being promiscuous while celebrating promiscuous women. We should have the guts to say, sleeping around is not good for you, even if you don't catch STDs or get pregnant/make someone pregnant.
Either way, whether you celebrate free love or not, it is far more problematic for a man to be promiscuous, and society should frown on it more that it does. It's not really as problematic for woman, though they need to be safe obviously. A simple DNA test can determine paternity.
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
16,546
Either way, whether you celebrate free love or not, it is far more problematic for a man to be promiscuous, and society should frown on it more that it does. It's not really as problematic for woman, though they need to be safe obviously. A simple DNA test can determine paternity.
I don't know why you are so keen to take agency and decision making responsibility away from women. Are they children or they are fully fledged adults endowed with sophisticated reasoning abilities including complex decision making?

Because, if we believe that women are capable of complex decision making (and I don't know about you, but I do), then they can select one of numerous contraception methods available to them. They can insist that a man uses a condom, and remember non consensual removal of a condom is sexual assault - ask Julian Assange about that. If they do not insist upon a condom and they do not use another form of birth control, they can opt for an abortion in most Western countries if they like.

If they decide to do none of those things, then yes the woman will become pregnant, assuming that she does not miscarry.

Always remember that it takes two people to make a baby - you need promiscuous men and women both making bad decisions for that to happen.

The problem with paternity fraud is that you have to ask for one. Most men don't, and only find out 20 years later. Also, some countries like France want to make it illegal for men to request that the mothers of their children prove that they are the fathers.
 

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
7,528
Luke 12:51
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division

The whole point of Christianity was to save sinners from sin.... what would be the point of appeasing sin instead of fighting it? This just highlights the corruption of modern churches.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,471
Luke 12:51
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division

The whole point of Christianity was to save sinners from sin.... what would be the point of appeasing sin instead of fighting it? This just highlights the corruption of modern churches.
Yeah - its about money, and ultimately about power (control over others).
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,471
Either way, whether you celebrate free love or not, it is far more problematic for a man to be promiscuous, and society should frown on it more that it does. It's not really as problematic for woman, though they need to be safe obviously. A simple DNA test can determine paternity.
What do you mean by "problematic"?
 

Scary_Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
1,411
Luke 12:51
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division

The whole point of Christianity was to save sinners from sin.... what would be the point of appeasing sin instead of fighting it? This just highlights the corruption of modern churches.
Wasn't much better back in the day slavery, no womens rights, witch hunts, beheadings etc etc. I'd say they have made some kind of progress.
 

C4Cat

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
9,471
I don't know why you are so keen to take agency and decision making responsibility away from women.
I'm not, you just made that up

Always remember that it takes two people to make a baby - you need promiscuous men and women both making bad decisions for that to happen.
Sure. But if a woman sleeps with a different man every day for a year she can have, at most, one child in that year. If she's lucky, one of those men may assist her in raising that child. If she doesn't want children she can take full responsibility for using protection and know she won't get pregnant.

If a man sleeps with a different woman every day for a year, he can potentially father 365 children. He may be able to support one or two of those children, the rest will grow up fatherless. Condoms don't always work, many of the 365 women may not insist on it and may not be using contraception themselves, it's out of his control.

This is simply why it is it is far more problematic for a man to be promiscuous. The consequences are much more far reaching and effect many more lives.
 
Last edited:

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
42,187
Ancalagon said:
Please come to London and tell people that you have conservative values. Or, God forbid, tell them you voted Tory. You will be shunned.
So the 1m people that voted Tory in the 2016 mayoral election don't count as Londoners? They don't have conservative values and don't interact with anyone?

Seems to be based more on feels than anything real.

Ancalagon said:
It is. Everything is pro alternative families these days. Marriage and the two parent home is rapidly becoming an outdated norm. Apparently you don't know liberal culture as well as you think you do. A feminist friend told me that she would never get married because marriage is a tool of the patriarchy. Yes I have feminist friends, thanks for asking. Her view is not unusual at all, especially when our culture is not allowed to say that the best outcome for kids is a two parent stable home. If you read the BBC and the Guardian, both fairly liberal news outlets, you will see that their stance is any form of parenting is fine, none is worse than any other (except for abusive homes obviously).
Or maybe you're making sweeping claims and not backing them up...?

Ancalagon said:
I can see that my point went right over your head, so I'll try to make it simpler.

The point is not that immigrants are evil people who are going to take your job and kill you.

The point is cultural shifts. If two cultures intermingle, how do you arrive at a common set of moral values?

It isn't the only factor driving changes in moral values, but it is a big one, and it has been going on for hundreds of years, as waves of immigrants landed in the USA, from which a lot of Western culture originates.

Its interesting how, as soon as I mention immigration, you assume that I am demonising them or it. I'm not. I am simply saying, as population groups become less homogenous, moral values must change, and they must inevitably change to the lowest common denominator.

Is a liberal vegan feminist Atheist going to be happy living in Saudi Arabia? They'd probably struggle, wouldn't you agree? But a lone liberal in Saudi Arabia is not enough to drive moral value shifts.
You're just re-stating your previous a-historical stuff, though. The US's entire history has been one of immigrant influx and cultural change.

And you tied your complaint about moral decay to immigration - how else is that to be interpreted?

I also asked how you define and measure this "moral decay", as it's pretty central to your thesis. In reality, crime has been falling despite so-called "mass immigration".
 

Moto Guzzi

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Messages
836
Please if you are going to attack these "intellectuals" can we not talk about mushrooms (morels) and morals.

Huh I would argue that you don't need religion to have morals, as a matter of fact if you don't have religion you have better morals would be my argument. Not sure anyone has argued that you don't need morals and if someone is going to argue that good luck to them.

Going off about Zuma is hilarious because South Africa is a giant mess and just about every state department is broken. What moral argument are you talking about he needs to be in jail for breaking the law not for being immoral, being immoral is a result of him breaking the law.

Your whole argument is a mess, maybe you should reconsider it.
Morality is a subform of inner control, meaning you are behaving between known suggestive and understandable parameters all by yourself from within(GroupPressure as well if you wish) and if not abused by leaders should lead to a steady sustainable, fair to most, growth of a nation or goupings to the benifit of all, or you need a policeman for each soul.
Nothing is perfect, so if a small percentage do not conform, the society as a whole can usually absorb that.
-If morality is willfully done away with over time, it basicly will lead to the fall of societies simply because they would not be able to afford that over many years in many ways on many levels.
I believe morality is not about a few very well behaved individuals that is naturally always well behaved, its about most that needs a push from within to stay on track.

My guess is morality started to weaken around the late 1960's, probably with liberalism, smoking on a larger scale seen as the must to do trend, families broken up. Now today one can see to how much filth literally and figuratively it has led, and the world has reach a tipping point on many levels between Good and Evil, and the world in general is struggling as a result. It's not about normal liberalism, but rather extreme liberalism trying to set new trends in the world that is not sustainable for most in the long run.

Now with 7 Billion plus individual complex minds, it seems like the good days are gone where a young person can forsee his future over his expected lifetime. Welcome to our new fastfood life. Nature is still there and will run its course which may bring severe corrections you like it or not.

I have a feeling the correction from mankind itself will come from your children's children waking up, so thats still a few years on, and who know what that will come to.


.
 
Last edited:

C4Cat

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
9,471
My guess is morality started to weaken around the late 1960's, probably with liberalism, smoking on a larger scale seen as the must to do trend, families broken up.
:rolleyes: you mean after 2 World wars that killed millions, left millions orphaned or without fathers; after fascism and nazism. After colonialism and genocides and slavery, that's when morality started to weaken? I think you have an over romantic view of the past.
 
Top