Moral Degradation

rigormortis

Is it just me or has the moral degradation in todays society reached the rock bottom. Based on the reaction of people to every day events, I can only assume this to be the case.

What is the cause of this and are people incapable living according to their own morals rather than those of society at large?

LaVidaLoca

And what society are you talking about?

If it's Irish society, I think we've become a lot more moral in the past 15 odd years.

It used to be perfectly acceptable for priests to rape children in this country, and prefectly ok to cover it up once discovered, and nobody said anything about it, because the Church was supposedly "holy".

It used to be perfectly OK to want to kill people from a different religious community to yours up North.

Women were considered of lesser worth than men.

If you discovered your son was a homosexual, it was perfectly acceptable and moral to never speak to him again.

It used to be considered moral to tell people not to wear condoms, becuase it says so in a book written 2000 years ago, as interpreted by men who are not allowed to have adult sexual relationships.

I think we're far batter off than you think.

Morlar

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

It used to be perfectly acceptable for priests to rape children in this country, and prefectly ok to cover it up ........

Do you ever actually think about the things you write ? Thats just absolute hysterical unreal drivel. Re the OP - I would have to agree with you that the consumeristic /tabloid/ sheep mentality is increasing rapidly however its far from having reached rock bottom. imo.

LaVidaLoca

Its Catholicism that refers to its followers as a "flock", so I'd watch it with the sheep metaphors if I were you.

I think it's simply hypocrisy to suggest that there has been a moral degradation. If anything society has gotten more moral. It;'s simply that in the past , when there was bad stuff going on , people weren't allowed to talk about it, by social convention.

Morlar

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Its Catholicism that refers to its followers as a "flock", so I'd watch it with the sheep metaphors if I were you.

I will use any metaphor I choose to - thanks.


Do you honestly think (as you said) :

Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca View Post
It used to be perfectly acceptable for priests to rape children in this country, and prefectly ok to cover it up

I mean do you stand by that ? You think it was perfectly acceptable ?

Maybe you could try being literal with the things you say rather than exaggerating and regurgitating anti church lefty propaganda.

davej

Is it just me or has the moral degradation in todays society reached the rock bottom.

I don't think you can ever claim that moral degradation is at rock bottom. It's all pretty relative.

In a society of saints there would still be sinners.
Imagine you were living in a monastery: doing "crazy" things like not saying your prayers at the correct time or speaking out of turn would be considered shocking. Many of the other monks would be full of indignation and might opine that "it never used to be like this in the old days".

Similarly a society that farmed babies so that they could be sacrificed to the Gods (perhaps by eating them) might consider a person who tried to rescue the babies as some sort of wacky baby hugging pyscho. Progressive people might suggest we should move from battery babies to free range.
Would you consider a person who advocated farming babies using free range methods as being immoral ?

What is the cause of this and are people incapable living according to their own morals rather than those of society at large?

Your sense of morality is largely shaped by the society in which you live. After a time, many people's sense of inner moral law becomes largely fixed / static. However society is not static. It is constantly evolving and has to deal with new situations and variables.

davej

LaVidaLoca

But it was done none the less. You know that huge swathes of Irish society refused to even entertain the idea that priests could have done such things. It took decades to get to the point where we could even allow ourselves to admit that such things happened, never mind start doing the things neccessary to heal them.

Im simply pointing out the disconnect between our supposed "moral disintegration" (which is largely sexual liberalisation), and the way we used to behave in the past, which was far more troubling and damaging to the human spirit than a couple of girls wearing short skirts on a Saturday night.

rigormortis

davej wrote: »

Your sense of morality is largely shaped by the society in which you live. After a time, many people's sense of inner moral law becomes largely fixed / static. However society is not static. It is constantly evolving and has to deal with new situations and variables.

I fully agree. However we have to look at the factors influencing change and the reason behind such efforts.
I was not referring to the murder of people or other such significant events, rather the motivations, attitudes and treatment of people on a daily basis. No doubt the consumer mentality has taken over, with the young in particular. The sexualisation of the children would be another example. People seem to have no boundaries that they are unwilling to cross, and are forever following the example of others. A herd mentality abounds.

LaVidaLoca

I am also in two minds about the pace of which the Irish have become empty consumers - like sort of Ersatz Americans, constantly needing new stuff, constantly worried about their looks and their status etc.

However I do see this as what sociologists call a "luxury problem", i.e. if a society goes from 3rd world, to First World as say, Korea did: You go from a society in which hunger and preventable diseases are a problem, to one in which obesity and alienation are a problem. Which would you prefer?

Obviously the second option is preferable.

In Ireland, we have developed economically, and have developed intellectually too: Most of us no longer take a blind bit of notice of what the Church tells us on moral issues, which is understandable: For most of their history they were giving bad and/or hypocritical moral advice. We now get our morals from thinking for ourselves, and looking at the world around us. Of course some of the Church's teachings were good: Those about loving your neighbour etc. But they did place way too much importance on sexual immorality. I , for one, have always been far more concerned about people who hurt other human beings, than on people who sleep with people they shoudlnt, or perform certain "unnatural practices"(sic).

And what do we find? Well we find that people's moral behaviour has changed certainly: But what aspects have changed? Largely those to do with sexuality. We are still pretty good to each other for the most part, and in many ways have become better - the Troubles are a shadow of their former self for example, gays no longer have to live closeted lives, women are free to work and to control their own reproductive systems.

Sure, this means that there is "immoral" (in the old sense) sexual behaviour around. But I dont see why this is that worrying, except as an insult to good taste! (If I see one more tarted up Dublin "Burrd" covered in Fake Tan Slap, I think Ill retch)

We are in the process of changing from a morality based on certain 1st century hang-ups about sexual behaviour, to one based on more modern principles. Of course there's a few bumps, but it's mostly for the better IMO.

Joe1919

AUTHOR:
Socrates (469-399 B.C.)

QUOTATION:
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

ATTRIBUTION:
Attributed to SOCRATES by Plato, according to William L. Patty and Louise S. Johnson, Personality and Adjustment, p. 277 (1953).

LaVidaLoca

Ive been looking for that quote.

Cheers.

brianthebard

I think it has more to do with the rise of the media and its importance to us rather than a degradation of morals. For instance people took drugs ten, twenty or thirty years ago but there wasn't as much outcry about it then. Now that we have a constant media voice willing to push the doom and gloom stories we hear about every little drug related infraction. One persons voice is given the weight of hundreds, whether it accurately represents a majority or not.

Joe1919

"are people incapable living according to their own morals rather than those of society at large?"

You are asking (rigormortis) one of the classical moral philosophical questions here. I don't intend to answer as it as its long and complicated but I do suggest you Google "Ethical Relativism" if you want some answers. From what I gather, Anthropologists and post-modernists tend to come down on the side of cultural based ethical relativism (i.e. morals is about fitting in with society) whereas traditional philosophers tend to take the other side (moral realism) but not always.
Personally, I tend to take the middle position. We can have our own moral principles but at the end of the day, morality is often about being just and getting on with others, and we can never totally ignore societies values and what other people expect of us. But this does not stop us having our own views and trying to, in our own way trying to improve society.

nyarlothothep

I think in terms of morality in Ireland, the UK and western Europe, we've improved, insofar that women have more rights, gays aren't as persecuted, colonial adventures involving killing lot of tutu warriors armed with kiwi fruits aren't as acceptable. Just take the marches against the Iraq war in 2003 in Ireland and the UK for example. Millions demonstrated against an ill advised war which has caused more harm than good on the basis that (a) the rationales for the war were farcical (b) the cost of human life it would incur would be significant (c) the real reasons why the war was instigated in the first place were economically and politically self serving. Moreover in the middle ages you had all forms of sick torture devices, death like poverty and executions for everyone! Nowadays these things are less prevalent in Europe.

But I agree with you in the sense that in Ireland there has been a rise in consumer culture. I'd be skeptical as to whether this culture is the product of the majority or whether its just heavily talked about by the media and shouted about by a small but very vocal minority trying to cover up their insecurities.

Consumer culture is insidious though and while Im not against the idea of trade I am against the prioritizing of profit margins over human/social interests, where the latter are more important. I am against manufactured needs where none existed in the first place, this is just a form of psychological enslavement to a system that promotes profit in order to maintain an ideological and social hegemony. Im also against the unaccountability of corporations with regards to the flouting of laws and conventions because such unaccountability is good for business. Above all Im against the unquestioning adherence to capitalism and the free market. Everything should be questioned constantly. Imo these are systems that are man made and not natural and are links in an evolutionary path towards better systems of economic and social organization, though Im not predicting a Marxist paradise around the corner. The future is up to the people.

gbh

Are we more or less moral now I think is the key. And as a society, ie, our laws, the way we act as a country in terms of foreign affairs and relationships with other countries, are we more moral.

To be honest, we might be better in some ways, although Ireland has never by itself being that immoral, ie we've never invaded anyone, although at the same time Irish people fought in colonial armies in Africa, India and America, so we can't claim to be perfect regarding that.

To answer the original proposition, I don't think Ireland has ever been particularly moral. In the supposedly holy and moral years of the early years of the state, we turned our backs on the Holocaust, De Velera commiserated the German ambassador on the death of Hitler, there was all kinds of things going on in institutions, we were a fairly insular country who didn't much mind what went on good or bad in the rest of the world. Today, we are still largely an insular country, inward looking, not really caring what goes on abroad, we might throw money to charities to lesson our conscience, but we dont ask what the source of the problem is. So the answer is we weren't that moral in the past and we aren't that moral now.

nyarlothothep

I think individuals are moral on average. When faced with obvious moral situations they would know and feel what the right thing to do is. I think its the institutions that people are co-opted into which are immoral/monsterous. An interesting film on this is The Corporation. It proposes the theory that Multi Nationals behave in much the same way as psychopaths and backs this up with evidence. So while people in a multinational are not psychopaths themselves, various conditions and the profit incentive for the institution results in them working in tandem for it to behave in an immoral way. This reflects back on them as participants. But they are not immoral. The shifting collective will of society strikes me as being similar.

IamBeowulf

Rock bottom isn't as far away as we'd like to think. Consider the rapidly escalating levels of violence counrty-wide. I'm 24, and I remember when shootings were thankfully few and far between (except for the war-torn North). Now it's an everyday occurrence treated with brief tut-tuts and we get on with our business.

Also as a society we've become alot more self-centred and obsessed with materialism.

Iolarwood

I came on a interesting thought on morality posited by an Australian philosopher called Peter Singer - especially appropriate for societies which have become more affluent:

The Shallow Pond scenario. You see a small child drowning in a shallow pond. You could wade out and save the child’s life, but doing so would ruin your €200 suit. Since you don’t want to ruin your suit, you walk on, and the child dies.

The Envelope scenario. You get a letter from UNICEF in the mail, telling you that a donation of €200 will save a dozen innocent third-world children. Without even considering donating, you throw the envelope away.

In one of his best known essays, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" Singer argues that the injustice of some people living in abundance while others starve is morally indefensible. He proposes that anyone able to help the poor should donate part of their income to aid poverty relief and similar efforts. Singer reasons that, when one is already living comfortably, a further purchase to increase comfort will lack the same moral importance as saving another person's life.

pauldiv

rigormortis wrote: »

Is it just me or has the moral degradation in todays society reached the rock bottom. Based on the reaction of people to every day events, I can only assume this to be the case.

What is the cause of this and are people incapable living according to their own morals rather than those of society at large?

Good Question RigorMortis

No it's not just you because I often ask myself the same types questions -
Why can we have comfortable lives here in Ireland when kids in Africa are getting butchered by soldiers?
Why do the Irish people allow American bombers to stop at Shannon airport?
and so on.
They are uncomfortable topics when you start to think about them.
The world has always been cruel but it is also kind - it depends on how you look at things.
Morality is a personal choice and if you are comfortable with the way you live then thats all that matters. Just do your little bit and don't worry.
You are not responsible for other peoples reactions to the events we hear about daily. You can't change this.
Go for a stroll and smell the roses.

Gurgle

rigormortis wrote: »

Is it just me or has the moral degradation in todays society reached the rock bottom. Based on the reaction of people to every day events, I can only assume this to be the case.

What is the cause of this and are people incapable living according to their own morals rather than those of society at large?

Its not just you, lots of people think that way but I don't agree.

For a start, I think its completely immoral to impose your morals on somebody else.:p

I believe morality of society can be measured by 2 conditions

1. You can do what you like so long as you don't in the process harm (physically or mentally) anybody else or their posessions.

2. You can feel safe, if somebody does harm to you (or your posessions) you can reasonably expect to see reparation / punishment for that harm.

I believe that we are closer to those ideals than ever before in history.

johnnyskeleton

rigormortis wrote: »

No doubt the consumer mentality has taken over, with the young in particular.

I don't think there is anything immoral about being a consumer, but that notwithstanding, I don't think that we have a greater consumer mentality now than we ever did. You might like to look back at Irish society and say when we were poor we cared about higher things, but that's rubbish in my view. When we had less consumer spending, it wasn't for a lack of wanting to spend, it was due to not having money. Now we have money so we spend it, but that's not to say there has been a change of attitude. People have always wanted things - Ireland traditionally has one of the highest property owning : renting ratio in Europe.

I also think that it's only people who are not satisfied with consumer products that make this argument - there is nothing particularly moral about not buying new shoes or whatever. Moreover, it's very hard to be moral or a deep thinker if you're hungry, ragged and without a home or the comforts thereof.

By contrast, I think that if you can gain something legitimately you will not try to get it illegitimately, so therefore the consumer attitude is morally superior to the alternative.

rigormortis wrote: »

The sexualisation of the children would be another example. People seem to have no boundaries that they are unwilling to cross, and are forever following the example of others. A herd mentality abounds.

I don't think you can ever legitimately impose sexual morality on anyone. You can chastise a teenager for being sexually active, and you can leave your wife for cheating on you, but you can't force other people to see it as wrong. You especially cannot impose morality today when somepeople believe in having lots of sex, others only within wedlock etc.

To be honest, all this talk about moral decay (and you're not the only person to talk about it) usually falls into one of a few categories:

1) religious fanatics - trying to scare people into obedience;
2) newspapers - trying to scare people into buying them;
3) people who feel guilty about themselves - and transfer this guilt onto society so that they feel less culpable for doing what they perceive as wrong; and
4) people who want to affect superiority to their fellow man, or who want to look down on them.

johnnyskeleton

Iolarwood wrote: »

I came on a interesting thought on morality posited by an Australian philosopher called Peter Singer - especially appropriate for societies which have become more affluent:

The Shallow Pond scenario. You see a small child drowning in a shallow pond. You could wade out and save the child’s life, but doing so would ruin your €200 suit. Since you don’t want to ruin your suit, you walk on, and the child dies.

The Envelope scenario. You get a letter from UNICEF in the mail, telling you that a donation of €200 will save a dozen innocent third-world children. Without even considering donating, you throw the envelope away.

In one of his best known essays, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" Singer argues that the injustice of some people living in abundance while others starve is morally indefensible. He proposes that anyone able to help the poor should donate part of their income to aid poverty relief and similar efforts. Singer reasons that, when one is already living comfortably, a further purchase to increase comfort will lack the same moral importance as saving another person's life.

A point well made, except that no-one would not help the child in the pond because they would destroy their shoes, but lots of people will ignore the letters from UNICEF etc. I think the thing of it is that humans are emotional creatures with a defined sense of the world. We cannot fathom millions of people dying every day, but we can quite clearly see when someone near to us is in trouble. So while I cannot morally justify the logical contradiction of saving the child in the pond but not giving money to unicef, I think the humanity of the situation is clear.