Morality Decreasing With Time?

Then you invariably support absolutes because relativity means that something can be understood in a specific context. Slavery is a prime example. Is it right to beat people into submission and to hold them against their will. I certainly believe so. However, is that what slavery really means? Has our morals about slavery changed, for better or worse, or has our perception of what slavery changed? That's a question that can only be answered in a relative manner. Again, its not the act of slavery that makes it right or wrong, because the term "slavery" is ambiguous. I mean, we are slaves to Christ according to Scripture (the Good Master) who sets us free from true bondage, sin (the Bad Master). The moral isn't about slavery, its about the application that makes either moral or immoral. Does that make sense? I understand your logic, but what I don't understand is how our opinion on the matter, a very small body of participants, is somehow going to prove the point that morality is either increasing or decreasing. Elucidating is not irrelevant. If I asked if the tree in your yard was immoral or moral and required that you answer that in a yes or no format, is that really fair to do? Can a tree be moral or immoral? Can you really answer that with a simple yes or no? Well, that's not what it means. You aren't using the term correctly. Relative morality means that if extenuating circumstances exist, it will change how we view morality. Absolute morality means that irrespective of our opinions, various times throughout history, or circumstances will not effect if something is moral or immoral. I can't know if morality is increasing or decreasing with any empirical certainty. I can make inferences based on what I see from society, but I can't know that and neither can you. My answers to the question was not me speaking on behalf of the entire human race. I was answering for myself and no other. I believe that moral absolutes exist simply for the fact that would have to. We couldn't know anything about morals without some sort of guiding principle to begin with. Its just like God. I can't prove the existence of God, but I can make certain compelling arguments that support the inference of such a Being. Its the same with morality. I can't prove that moral absolute exist. What I can do is show the absurdity of life without them.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Well, if the list of questions you have provided is indicitive of YOUR moral standard, morality is only increasing in the US of A, and I amoung others have the right to feel otherwise based on OUR standards.Back to that OP. Scottness felt that morals were in decline based on HIS standards. Anglagard said it was subjective. Case closed. That may be, but if there is no Absolute standard, then we have no business judging at all, do we? What are moral rights? Do I have 'em? Is it simply the right to do whatever the heck I want? I certainly can't do that, so please tell me again what is the difference between a rich man who gets away with murder back in the ancient regime and a rich man who gets away with it today?Aside from the fact that the Divine Right of Kings was corrupted in the same way that ALL powerful positions can be abused, can you tell me where it someone says that kings and princes were allowed to murder? St Thomas Aquinas spoke for the overthrow of corrupt kings back in the 1300's.Think about this; some drugs are illegal, most are controlled. Our laws became more strict when our knowledge of the ill effects of drugs became more understood. Did we get more moral? Nah. I think we have just as many drug users as we did before the laws, and just as many people who think that the laws apply to everyone except them. Because of course, they don't have a 'problem' and the laws are all about money anyway.

Of course we do and that too has been covered in this thread. The right is based on consensus of the culture and era.As to the rest of your post it is either answered by what I just said or it refers to Laws which have NOTHING to do with morals. That too has been covered in this thread.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Way back... WAY BACK!...... Tell it Goodbyyyyyy!!!!!!!

Whatever, nemesis_juggernaut.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

How can we (with our Modern subjective view) claim to be any better than past societies who lived equally as morrally (within their subjective view)?You can't call that an improvement, unless you are looking at the whole history with an absolute standard and comparing us to them by that standard. And you are! As NJ brilliantly pointed out, you're using an absolute standard to measure relative things. And your response to him was 'Whatever!'That's not very respectful based on an absolute standard.Actions are relative, the intent and the justice is not. People do good things all the time for the wrong reasoning. (I'd love to give an example... but nah!)Some of us have been trying to make the case that morality is decreasing from an absolute point of view that is found within the heart, not in the possibly duplicitous actions.I believe we've made that case.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

---

If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows ” the only food that any possible universe ever can grow ” then we must starve eternally. (Lewis- The Problem of Pain)

That makes no sense. The right to judge is based on the concensus? But where did we collectively get the right to judge? If a culture and an era can judge itself, why do we get involved in forcing our judgements on other cultures?The rest of my post has only to do with examples of morality that YOU brought up, except for drugs, and I guess if the consensus of our culture and era has decided that drugs are immoral, then you are not in that group. If the consensus has not decided that drugs are immoral, well, then, why the laws? And how could I determine what the REAL concensus is? Is it immoral to break a law that is decided by consensus? Is there any such thing as the Divine Rights of the Concensus? Or do I get away scott-free because MY conscience isn't bothering me?

If we as a culture decide by concensus that telling a lie is moral, are we then moral when we tell a lie?Or are we then lying to ourselves as we waste away into ethical postmodern skeletons?That is where the decline is... not so much in terms of civility and actions, but in terms of accepting it as truth. Truth and morality are inseperable are they not?That's the point I was trying to make. Perhpas if I had enunciated it clearer in the beginning, we could have avoided alot of this rancor.I think jar and many others will try to say that truth and morality are totally different topics and concepts. We'll have to agree to disagree.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

---

If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows ” the only food that any possible universe ever can grow ” then we must starve eternally. (Lewis- The Problem of Pain)

Well, that's a toughie. People usually consider lying bad, but they just can't figure out why. So let's use another analogy?There is no absolute morality. It is all relative and changes with time. So just say chocolate is popular and vanilla is immoral. One year vanilla takes off and becomes the new standard by consensus, and you are one of the few who still likes chocolate. Wouldn't it seem to you that morality had decreased? Would you be right? Would you have to become a vanilla lover also, and would it be moral for others to force you to do that?If we can't judge the flavours based on SOME standard, well, I guess we really don't have any way to show if morality is increasing OR decreasing. Having a law go into effect that sanctions the tastes of a certain part of the population doesn't prove anything.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

How about using the subjective view to argue that according to any utilitarian standard the following are immoral as per the PNT:slavery
genocide
cannibalism
restriction of freedoms based upon gender, race, creed, religion, national origin, etc.
curable disease
starvation
human sacrificePlease feel free to argue in favor of any of the above. You are hardly in a postion to criticize anyone concerning "possibly duplicitous actions" Rob.

We can based on our current moral standards. Real simple. Bullshitski. I am simply asking about our moral standard today. I have also said that in the future it is likely others will look at us and say that we are immoral based on their standard at the time.Please stop misrepresenting what I say. Justice, like Law is yet another topic. Please stop moving the goal posts. Yes, some of you have asserted that. But you have NEVER presented an example of that Moral Absolute that stands up to examination.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

By 'curable disease' I think you mean it is immoral not to cure them if there is the possibility?If we are coming to the close here, I will say that your examples above all fall into the category 'love thy neighbor' and within that opinion/discription of the absolute, are more or less subjective.Cannibalism is ok if you are in a position of dire necessity, i would think.Discrimination would be very easy to live with if it served a greater purpose. If a deadly virus affecting women was found in a certain area, not allowing women in that area would be just fine, even though it restricted them.And as to duplicity, well, its subjective too. How many heroes do we create who are based on the thrill of anonymity? Superman, Spiderman, the Scarlet Pimpernel, Zoro. If the cause is good, we don't mind. The question is, is EvC worthy?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

We get the right by Being a community, a culture. Great question. Ask those who advocate such practices. Law, Justice and Morality are NOT the same thing. We are not discussing either Law or Justice in this thread but rather Morality and whether or not morality is decreasing over time.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So we can tell that morality has increased because we like what we are doing more than we like what people used to do?

I think it is obvious that no one has shown that morality, subjective as it may be, is decreasing with time. Instead, my contention that morality is actually increasing with time appears to hold when one considers some general concensus definitons of morality during the overall history of the entire earth.What concerns me is the apparent desire that morality is or should be decreasing on the part of some supposed Christians, so that they can force the modern world to fit their interpretation of the Bible. Let us pray that these proponents of modern immorality do not act upon their desires.I believe this exercise shows the tremendous lengths a few here will go to force history to conform to their belief system regardless of any semblence to reality. IMO, such behavior may resemble a form of mental disorder.But that woud be the subject of a new thread for a new year.Happy New Year