|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,435 Year: 3,692/9,624 Month: 563/974 Week: 176/276 Day: 16/34 Hour: 2/7 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Morality Decreasing With Time? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
Well, I've got to say, that your post didn't really explain anything or support your position at all.
Did any of Rob's posts? Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
U can call me Cookie Member (Idle past 4975 days) Posts: 228 From: jo'burg, RSA Joined: |
It is not that we do not wish to see...
It is that you have not given us anything to look at. Something you admit. Not that it really matters, though. You and Anglagard have commented on the subjective nature of morality. If that is the case then neither of you can present a convincing argument, that is not subjective in nature. "The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5870 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
So; is that supposed to mean that the reason for the decline is something we fail to percieve? How does that work? Partly I think, yes! I think it is something in the spirit of the culture. It's something we can perceive, but is not recognized because our priorities have shifted from one of regular introspection, to one of extrovertedness. And that is not to suggest that ancient cultures were always more reflective than we, but there was an immediacy to their existence. Ours is a life of comfort which is an evolution of 'goodness' in some ways, but also shields us from the realities of life, and rather than regular warfare, we instead forsake our displeasure with our neighbor and instead opt for the immmediate peaceful existence. But htese inner intentions build and build. The pressure of our differences builds steam and enevitably pops. So we see, that even in our so-called state of modern enlightenment, we still at some point rush to the base and carry out our true intentions. Science has given us so much. But has it saved us? Even Aldous Huxley confessed that ..."what science may have actually done, is give us improved means to achieving our damnable ends." Ultimately, I don't think we are any better off than the ancients, but we have sophisticated means by which to 'cover' our nakedness. Let me share a snippet of an argument made on the subject that I read recently while trying to muster an answer to Anglagards question. It's a bit lengthy compared to the average post in total, but I hope I am making the point.
"There goes our federal prosecutor," he said, "a fine man whom I met under very tragic circumstances." As he labored through the details in recounting their first contact, I knew this was not just another crisis in a minister's routine, but an ineradicable scar on his pastoral heart. Source: Oops, something lost He told me of a young couple he had married some years ago, who had represented to him every ideal worth emulating. They were the mascot of excellence held up before the youth of the church. Both were in preparation for the practice of medicine, and were on sizable scholarships of merit. As he had driven away after performing their wedding ceremony, he had rehearsed in his own mind what a grand occasion it had been, and that in all his years of ministry he had not seen a more radiant couple. He thrilled at the prospect of all that lay ahead of them. But then like a shattered dream, only a few months into the marriage there was a dreadful awakening. In the pre-dawn hours of a wintry night the pastor was aroused by the telephone, and a voice out of control which begged him to come to their apartment. The caller, the young man of such promise, kept stuttering the words, "I think I have killed her! I think I have killed her!" The minister hastily dressed and rushed over to their home, only to find the young woman lying lifeless in her bed, and the young husband emotionally ravaged, sobbing inconsolably at her side. What had happened? What had led to this pitiful state of affairs? After a long time of prying and pleading, the story unfolded. Some weeks earlier this young woman had discovered that she was pregnant. With years of study still ahead, neither of them had wanted to start a family. This sudden turn of events spelled chaos into all their plans, and drove them desperately in search of a solution. Every option was considered. Finally, one statement escaped from the young woman's lips that she had never dreamed she would utter. "This is completely devastating," she said. "There is no other way but to abort this child if our careers are to survive." The very suggestion precipitated a deep rift between them. They were both known on their campus for their outspoken conviction on the sanctity of the child's life in the womb, and that that life, they fervently believed, had a right all its own. Now, beyond their control contingencies had invaded their absolutes, and "fate" had threatened their autonomy. Conviction was in conflict with ambition, and a private decision was being made that they hoped would never be betrayed in public. Husband and wife were uncompromisingly on the opposite ends of this dilemma as he pled with her to reconsider. That is when her final solution was proposed. "Then let us do this at home," she said. "You bring all the equipment we need to the apartment, and no one need ever know." As a young medical student, he felt this could be accomplished, and so meticulous plans were nervously laid for that fateful night. Not yet fully trained in the administration of an anesthetic, he stumbled through the procedure and unwittingly gave her a much larger dose than he should have. His greatest fear became a ghastly deed, and he lost her. In the panicking moments that followed, with trembling hands and a cry of desperation he reached for the telephone and uttered those remorse-ridden words, "Pastor, please hurry and come to our apartment. I think I have killed her." HEARTWARMING OPTIONS...BONE-CHILLING POSSIBILITIESAnyone who has experienced the immediate or even delayed consequences of a tragic act or event, knows the horror of such a feeling, from which no amount of human ingenuity can bring about an undoing. The most agonizing effect of such irreversibility is the very humbling fact that it was human finitude that brought about the consequence in the first place. It is not my intention to drag this experience into a particular debate on a single moral issue in order to prove one viewpoint or the other. I only share it because in this nightmare of an event, every individual and societal struggle that we as a civilization now face seems crystallized, and the powers of our institutions seem powerless to find a unifying solution. For here, "religious beliefs" collided at cross-purposes with career goals. Here, Church and State met with equal dismay and sorrow. Here, private solutions sought escape from public castigation. Here, technology goaded a mind into a high-risk decision. Here, expediency compromised wisdom. And here, human sovereignty was left crushed by its own hands. In short, the confrontation between religious belief and a preferred lifestyle left a bloody trail. This demonstrates in extraordinary terms that the moral options we face are more confounding as technology, education, and cultural shifts have become powerful factors in decision-making. At the same time, we are all aware that the maladies we will increasingly face are not going to be restricted to the controversial matters of abortion or sexuality; nor are they going to be in the uncharted terrain of genetic engineering or euthanasia; nor, for that matter, in the vastness of global issues such as violence, ethnic cleansing, or AIDS. Inexorably, our search for more and more is carried on with unprecedented entailments and costs, as new tools and opportunities for which the moral sense seems unprepared become available. These are undoubtedly monumental concerns, and are life-altering in their scope. But as divisive as they are, these issues are only the "above ground" manifestations, and result from a deep foundational shift in our culture whose proud boast is self-determination, and whose legitimizing license provides the very basis for our decision-making. If that foundation (which continues to shift under many strains) settles unevenly, then the once stable infrastructure standing upon it will be imperiled, and a total collapse is only a matter of time. Edited by scottness, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5870 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Hope you din't read my response before the edit, as I made a huge copy and paste error. It has been corrected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 185 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
scottness writes: And that is not to suggest that ancient cultures were always more reflective than we, but there was an immediacy to their existence. I really think that you will find that the reverse is true. The immediate trials and tribulations of life in eras before ours (and in countries with less labour saving technologies) would have allowed for far less time to be spent on interospection than we are used to in (well I'm in the UK) the Western World. With our ability to take more time as leisure time we have more 'time' to devote to interospective thoughts. The very fact that the question of decaying morals is a question for us implies we have that 'free time' to ponder such questions. I would contend that people working day after day just to survive (as was the case for the majority in a pre 21st century technology society) spend most of their time thinking 'survival thoughts'. In the UK I don't have to think 'survival thoughts' past making sure I do my job in such a way so as not to get fired. With more time on my hands I can devote it to pass times and hobbies that would appear 'indulgent' or 'decadent' or even 'immoral' to my conservative Victorian ancestors. Just because morals now are different to morals from the past does not mean they are decaying. That is unless you assume that 'good morals' are fixed as good at some point in time and deviation from that point is, well devient.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 185 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
The story you posted shows me one thing and one thing only. If the couple did not have a religious objection to going to a professional, the entire snafu would not have occured.
It's not question of morals in this case. It's a religions ability to force the couple to take a high risk option that caused the above tragedy. A very sad story that would not have occured if they had no anxieties leaned from their church. I mean for gods sake, why did they not call a doctor before the minister?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5870 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
The immediate trials and tribulations of life in eras before ours (and in countries with less labour saving technologies) would have allowed for far less time to be spent on interospection than we are used to in (well I'm in the UK) the Western World. With our ability to take more time as leisure time we have more 'time' to devote to interospective thoughts. The very fact that the question of decaying morals is a question for us implies we have that 'free time' to ponder such questions. I would contend that people working day after day just to survive (as was the case for the majority in a pre 21st century technology society) spend most of their time thinking 'survival thoughts'. Yes you're correct, I do find that this opposite is also true. And obvious too. That's why we seee Biblical stories of prophets warning the people a common theme. I suppose I would have to redo my original comment that Anglagard questioned with scrutiny. I even recall when writing it, that it was the most suseptable to critique out of the entire post. This has less to do overall with a constant decay of morals from best to worst, than an undulation or swing of the pendulum. In fact, while discussing morality in my travels, I have often commented on the utter depravity of ancient cultures or cities such as Sodom. They make San Fransisco look like a country club. But go to Bankok and see what hell you can find. My contention is that it is faith in the absolute that has restrained man's moral choices, and given him the capacity (as weak as it may appear) to become more than just an animal. Never to that unblemished level that too many seek to project. We are in a period of decline. We commend ourselves with civil advances, to cover the shame of 'everybody does it' actions from the casino to the backroom deal. So let me moderate my original statement... We are at the present time, becoming less moral than we were just decades ago. Elvis was once thought to be suggestive, and now Marilyn Manson falls into that same catagory.
That is unless you assume that 'good morals' are fixed as good at some point in time and deviation from that point is, well devient. I think it is even more profound than that. Time has nothing to do with the equation. Good is good irrespective of time. And that is one reason why it can be said that mankind is the same as it has always been. Is it just me?... or am I still failing to ice this cake? I welcome the naysayers and hecklers, but I also welcome anyone who would like to step in and finsh my thoughts or connect the dots in defense of my position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5870 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
The story you posted shows me one thing and one thing only. If the couple did not have a religious objection to going to a professional, the entire snafu would not have occured. It's not question of morals in this case. It's a religions ability to force the couple to take a high risk option that caused the above tragedy. A very sad story that would not have occured if they had no anxieties leaned from their church. I mean for gods sake, why did they not call a doctor before the minister? I am befuddled as to how you could interpret that story that way, but I am not suprised that you did. I just don't understand how some of you can miss it? You completely dismiss the notion of responsibility... It's not as though they did not have a choice! Your basically saying.... 'the Devil made them do it!' Did the option of sacrificing the career even occur to you? It's a choice made by many on a daily basis. It goes to the heart of the matter and what our priorities are. We're more interested in being exalted within the parameters of our culture and 'suceeding', than we are in doing the right thing. That is not the fault of conditions. It is the fault of a heart that chooses illusion over reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I think it is even more profound than that. Time has nothing to do with the equation. Good is good irrespective of time. And that is one reason why it can be said that mankind is the same as it has always been.
The trouble with this sort of moral absolutism is that it is easy to make such genaral sweeping statements as the above but very difficult to back them up with specific absolutist examples. What is universally good? What is a specific example of something that is universally bad? Take the "Thou shalt not kill" example - Ask a dozen people some very specific questions about morality and killing and you will very probably get a dozen completely different answers ranging from absolute pacifism to gun toting, capital punishment and warmongering rednecks with the vast majority of people occupying shades inbetween. All will have slightly different views and all will believe themselves to be equally morally founded. Other than a general moral belief that killing in some circumstances is bad there is very little absolutist about it. My own view is that human intelligence has endowed us with the unique ability, amongst animals, to empathise and that this combined with out evolutionary need to survive in tribal communities has resulted in some generally consistent humanwide points of morality the specifics of which vary quite widely between communities and even individuals. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: This is false. Morality not only changes over time, but it changes from place to place, depending on the local culture. Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5870 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
The trouble with this sort of moral absolutism is that it is easy to make such genaral sweeping statements as the above but very difficult to back them up with specific absolutist examples. What is universally good? What is a specific example of something that is universally bad? You've really nailed it here straggler. Look at jar's thread about David and Bethsheba, it is the perfet example of what is absolute in terms of right and wrong. And that's why it's in the Bible. David does something that is wrong... has sex. But having sex isn't always wrong. that is your point right? Bethsheba is likely considering her's and her son's future ahead of her husband just as is David. It is a purely selfish act. It is also a purely premeditated and logical step in terms of survival of the fittest. So you see? Morality is not so much the Law. The law cannot make us moral. It is applying the law properly in accordance with total truth! As someone once said, it is much easier to live by rules than in the spirit of truth. We like to show how we did this and did that, but really we have done nothing. In the confines of any given culture (or religion) you may appear to be a wonderful person in your overall actions as opposed to person B, but in terms of internal honesty and total truth, you have only conforned to a less than real notion and invention, made up of exterior signs. What is really going on on the inside?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5870 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
This is false. Morality not only changes over time, but it changes from place to place, depending on the local culture. So did David and Bethsheba do anything wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
I think one area where morality has improved is the example of international aid.
In ancient times countries seldom struck up a freindly alliance, any alliance was normally more of a suzerain/suzerainty. But today, although there obviously are countries fighting each other, we shouldn't forget the huge aid efforts of many nations to help the less fortunate. It's different times of course, and ancient nations were more preoccupied with feeding and sheltering themselves than to spare much of a thought for others. Nowadays many people donate large amounts of time and money to helping other nations. Atheists do it out of the kindness of their hearts, while Christian do it for a reward at the end. Maybe if everyone was an atheist there would be no immorality? Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
You still didn't answer the question. Why didn't they call a doctor or 911 before the minister?
George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
scottness writes:
I think you are missing a very big theme about the story. David does something that is wrong... has sex. But having sex isn't always wrong. that is your point right? George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024