Morality Decreasing With Time?

In the thread Message 275 Scottness asserts the following: I keep seeing this assertion in various threads but completely disagree with this casual and unsubstantiated observation. While morality is quite subjective and difficult to define, I would like to point out that by any measurable quality one may call moral that we are growing more, not less, moral over time.For example, women, which last I saw made up roughly 50% of the population had no rights 1000 years ago in virtually all parts of the world, and the vast majority of men, unless they happened to be high ranking among royal or religious circles likewise had few if any rights. Today in industrialized nations, women and men are accorded some inalienable rights. While there are still some nations that hold women are the property of their fathers or husbands, I would venture to say that 1000 years ago that was true of all major nations on the planet. As a specific example, women in China are no longer expected to bind their feet and in India are no longer expected to immolate themselves upon the funeral pyre of their husbands.For another example, slavery is illegal in nearly every nation today which was not the case 1000 years ago. Even just 200 years ago slavery was accorded to large numbers of people based upon place of origin, be it the Americas or Africa. Estimates of deaths due solely to Cross-Atlantic transportation in the African slave trade vary from 20 to 100 million.Entertainment in the modern world may be vacuous, but it rarely results in the death of the participants. This can hardly be said of the Roman Colisseum or in the case of the Aztec ritual sacrifice.Science, however despised it may be by some members of this forum, has saved billions from starvation and disease just in the last century. This would not have been possible under past monopolies of power exercised by the team of castle and church.Even warfare and genocide, while consuming vast numbers of people under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, is less a threat overall today than in the past if one takes into account the percentage of the world’s population, rather than the raw number of people actually killed. For those unfamiliar with history, this is particularly true in the case of the Thirty Year War between Protestants and Catholics which is believed to have reduced the population of Germany in half, or in the depredations of Atila, Gengis Khan, or of colonialism. In the case of the latter, the Congo saw its population halved under the stewardship of Belgium’s Leopold II, and the Americas saw the reduction of the indigenous population by war and disease to less than 10% its former number.So at least under the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” as a measure, it is difficult for me to see how the world is becoming less moral. For anyone who disagrees, please provide actual historical evidence of this purported decline of morality.Not sure where this should go? Social issues?

By this do you mean that a disrespectul and defiant attitude toward authority figures such as King and Pope as expressed in the modern age starting with the Enlightenment and the American Revolution? Does this disrespect trump the decrease in death by preventable disease, starvation, slavery, lack of basic human rights for women and minorities, and indeed even warfare as a percentage of the population in your moral universe?The burning desire to be micromanaged by an authority figure, real or imagined, may be your highest moral good but I hardly think it is an opinion shared by any free-thinking individuals. It may even conflict with others of similar persuasion when they disagree with the identity of the authority figure to be unquestioningly followed.And we know what happens when there is disagreement among authoritarians over the authority figure to be followed -- warfare, disease, starvation, loss of basic human rights, subjugation of women and minorities, etc.Since I do not adhere to any dogma that requires me to hate myself, I do not hate others for the crime of being different. What did Jesus say concerning this attitude?According to my moral code, morality is increasing, not decreasing with time.Have been very busy with family matters, will return next year. If this thread craters by then, still have a few related PNTs up my sleeve.

In providing examples concerning the supposed modern downfall of morality: Interesting, I guess Atilla the Hun was just a little rambunctious when he and his followers actually managed to cause a decrease in the world population through pillage and disease. Read any Dickens lately? Also, during the fundie paradise known as the Dark Ages, one could not travel without heavy escort due to theft (if lucky). Read any Tacitus or Suetonius lately? Those Greeks and Romans sure had a lot of children performing what many would today call "unnatural acts." Read that Dickens yet? Compared to who? Do you actually argue that Clinton and Bush are worse than Caligula and Nero? Did you know that in the 120 years after Marcus Aurelius, Rome had 67 emperors -- 4 died a natural death. Drugs actually have to be made illegal before they become a crime. As to morality, people have used drugs since the dawn of civilization. Read any Sinclair Lewis lately? Do you know where the term 'robber baron' comes from? You have to actually have corporations, as opposed to the mob in whatever form, in order to have corporate crime. Corporations are a modern phenomenon. Of course these are modern. Anyone salted the earth lately?I could go on and on, just name your time and place and I could easily counterargue these assertions. Unfortunately, won't be back until after this thread craters. Do you think it is moral? Also, before one denigrates non-Christian cultures, please feel free to name any states that permit slavery other than the half-dozen Arab nations that still do.Concerning death by stoning, Buzsaw: Wow! how about peeling off their skin like the Aztecs, would that be a good deterrent? Death by a thousand cuts? Buried alive? Not seen lately as policy.Most modern industrialized nations do not even have capital punishment. The question is about increase and decrease of morality through time. My argument concerning war deaths as a total percentage of world population still stands. Here is a start. Like I said, anyplace, any significant time period, name your poison. You may actually be able to discover a place where what is commonly known as morality has decreased (hint-North Korea). However, my argument stands when taken over all recorded time and over the entire surface of the globe.Also, why no word about starvation and disease? human rights? women's rights? minority rights? Lack of cannibalism and human sacrifice?Stacking the deck?I'll be back. Edited by anglagard, : bit o' clarity

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.

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