Morality Decreasing With Time?

Our ability to kill each other in ever increasing numbers, increased sexual freedom and increased religious freedom (i.e.the right to be Godless) are the main areas that those who proclaim the decline of morality are usually referring to.The first is an unfortuante side effect of the same technological advancement that (as you state) has benefitted billions.The other two are either dramatic (and indeed necessary) improvements in the way we interract with each other on a global scale or are the beginnings of the end of civilisation. Depending on your point of view.It often seems to me that those who are most eager to impose their morality on others in the areas of sexual and religious freedom are the same people who are most keen to dismiss "thou shalt not kill" by supporting mass killing through wars and capital punishment.

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.

Again you are talking in vagaries.Love, justice, mercy etc. can hardly be absolutes when their very meaning is wholly contextually dependant.Can you give a specific example where any of these things are absolutes in practical terms??Whether or not there are absolute truths in any physical sense is comletely irrelevant to any question of morality.It may or may not be a physical truth that A killed B but the moral question of "was A wrong to kill B" resides seperate to this fact, absolute or not.
Lets not confuse the existence of truth with the existence of absolute morality.I can see many instances in the bible where in my opinion God acts immorally. Where, in your opinion, do I get that sense of morality from as it is evidently cannot be from God or the bible??Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

By presupposing that absolutes in one area equates to absolutes in all areas is just silly. There are no absolutes morally but that does not mean there are no absolute anything.Does the fact you claim that morals are absolute mean, for example, that you claim that all human emotions are absolutes?You have totally failed to give a specific example of an abolute moral despite attempting to use the unpleasantly emotive example of the rape of ones daughter. No one is suggesting the scenario as you spell it out. It is a straw dog.So once again I ask - Take "Thou shalt not kill". Is that an absolute or are there circumstances in which you would consider killing justified?
Are you against all war?
Are you against all capital punishment?
If not how do you equate this with moral absolutism where either killing is wrong or it is right with no shades of grey inbetween?

The mere fact that you do not like the consequences (as you see them) of non absolute morality does not necessarily mean that morality must therefore contain absolutes.
It may just mean that the majority of people do not subscribe to the same moral code that you consider to be absolute.Will you at least agree that?I would fundamentally disagree with you as regards the consequences of non absolute morality anyway.My own view is that there are areas of common morality to all humanity and that these are based on our common evolutionary ancestry and ability to empathise. The specifics are dictated by culture and individuality but that far from means we are all going to go off and kill and rape each other. Quite the opposite. All human cultures should in my view be able to come up with a core of laws based on this common morality. The evidence suggests that, even with the notable exceptions, the majority of people are quite willing to treat each other with respect and dignity.I still have not had an answer from any biblical moral absolutist as to how I can find many of Gods actions in the bible highly immoral. Where did I get this sense of morality from if it is evidently not from God or the bible?

Why should the possibility or otherwise of absolutes in one area necessarily mean that there are absolutes in another?If there are absolute values for physical constants does that mean that consciousness is absolute? Does it mean human emotions are absolute? Does it mean that colours are absolutes?I fail to see how the constancy of the speed of light would lead to absolute morality or the non-constancy lead to non-absolute morality.The two have nothing to do with each other.

Both. Are you suggesting the two are mutually exclusive?If I had a full scientific explanation for the brain and it's internal workings as related to emotion, cognition and morality I would be writing my nobel prize winning thesis rather than writing posts here.
Research in evolutionary psychology suggests that all human cultures have some broad moral concepts in common. The same (and other psychological) research also suggests that the ability to empathise is key to such concepts and that individuals who have lost elements of this ability through brain damage or other abnormalities seriously struggle to function in society.
I can try and dig out these general sourcesif interested. I never claimed that it was genetic!! Take a new born child from one culture and place them in another and it would be the general morality of the second that the child would most likely display. The only genetic component might potentially be predisposition to aggression and other such similar individual propensities which would have applied regardless of the culture the subject finds themselves in.
The cultural attitudes and means of "inheritance" are arguably memetic but that is another conversation altogether. Well it would suggest that God is immoral in terms of his own absolute moral code!! If you agree that God is indeed immoral then yes, I also agree, it could come from God.