Morality Decreasing With Time?

Am I reading this correctly? Am I finding a teensy-weensy chink in your armour and is the Golden Rule now not relative to its other part?What about its OTHER part? 'Love the Lord thy God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole mind'? I do think that loving our neighbor was meant to be relative to how we loved God. In a culture where we have so many different relgions we simply can not reach a concensus on how to love God, or even if there is one, so we must come to a point where there is a confliction between what different people's gods require. Scottness may think morality is declining, and it is to him, because people are not loving his God with their whole hearts, souls, and minds, and following his God's rules. Most of us are taking the second part of the commandment 'love thy neighbor' as law, even when it contradicts, 'love thy God'.

There are certainly other commandments about keeping the sabbath etc., but upon question, Jesus said loving thy neighbor was the most important. I guess this is where we agree to agree, and for me,case closed.It has been an insightful thread, for me. I get the funny feeling that it is old hat for you, and I mean that as a compliment.

First of all, does your list only apply to the United States?If so, then please define why in your opinion the morals of the USA are going through this increase, while those of other countires may be status quo.Please explain also, how, if there are no absolutes, we may be sure that these examples do indeed symbolize improvement, and not just a relative set of ideals that US citizens happen to have been programmed into seeking.Most people consider slavery immoral. We can't hold a person against their will or buy and sell each other. But we've still got child labour, taking jobs overseas, paying immigrants next to nothing off the record to avoid taxation, firing employees to avoid paying the unemployment due to a person who is laid off, and countless other unfair employment practices. We still have buying and selling of prostitutes and children, and I think we probably feel just the same way about that as people felt about enslavery of Africans. Most of us don't like it, but we won't fix it, and we sure don't want to sit on the bus next to a prostitute.Interracial marriage is not immoral of itself. The morality of it is relative to the situation. Just like bearing children it is a right; it is not always the best choice. Just thank God we don't forbid it anymore since we are so busy putting limits on how many children someone can have.Murder by princes? Has it ever been moral, from Herod, to Henry? Haven't we just changed the faces of the princes?We have the right to a fair trial. Whether or not we get one depends on the moral standards of the lawyers and judges; same as it ever was.If having a government imposed by force includes having a king, I'd like one of them. In the meantime, 'force' is in the eye of the beholder.I'll let you have the other three. Just don't spend too much time dwelling on modern torture practices.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

Well, then I guess the Fundementalist community gets the right to judge the gay community.I still have no clear idea of what you mean by Law and Justice when it comes to drugs.