Morals change and evolve (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

Good morals are VERY SUBJECTIVE. Good morals 100 years ago included thinking that white people were better than anything else.

Morals change and evolve.

A topic worth discussing. It's clear that times have changed, yet it is also clear that a backlash of sorts is emerging... What do you all think?

Edit: That'll do.

 

[townie]

morals are tricky....because they can be personal, but also held by the majority of people. r societies morals getting too "loose" (for lack of a better term)?, i dont think thats a possibility,because if society accepts them, then they stand....but which is where individuality comes into it...some people might view "societies" morals as wrong....

my head hurts

but yes, morals changes, like everything else
(Did i just make any sense?)

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Generally, I know what you mean about this 'backlash.'

Western social norms have become a lot looser over the past 50 years, yet recently there has been (in some groups) a real swing to conservative morals, largely fuelled by religion.

The thing is, both sides bother me a lot. The religious right, pushing things like no sex before marriage, banning abortions, banning gay marriage, etc infuriates me to no end. Yet at the same time there is something darker that has been happening on the other end of the spectrum - a growing tendancy towards extreme sexual liberalism, especially in the younger.

I'm afraid that the 'moderates' will be crushed by one majority or the other. If the only way to avoid one extreme is to jump to the other, something is wrong.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

As for this morals change and evolve business, that's pretty controversial. I think it needs a bit of clearing up though, because if by "morals" it is meant "accepted social values," then of course they change. But if it is meant by morals, morality in general (ie. what is good and bad), then that's a big argument.

 

[miaomiao]

I think that peoples moral views towards women are going backwards or perhaps haven't changed very much. That is, alot of guys I know are either very condescending, manipulative or disrespectful in their treatment of women and alot of girls I know allow this treatment; even welcome it. It's not really anything to do with careers or women in the workplace (even though women face problems here too) but general societal morals and values in every day interaction.

 

[katie_tully]

I think we're going backwards. Where as before there was a definate set of moral guidelines that people went by, today there appears to be a blurring of the lines. People are now spending too much time pointing the finger, dictating what is right and what is wrong.
Instead of a moral code being a sort of social ettiquette, people are using morals to justify their opinions.
I guess an example is the abortion debate, or to some extent homosexuals wanting to get married. People use "morals" to justify their for or against argument, therefore I think nobody even really understands what morals are anymore.

Morals also were tied firmly with religion, and after the period of Enlightenment, when people started to disregard religion they started to disregard alot of the morals that went hand in hand. Today though, you've got fundamentalists, then there's people who are religious but have relaxed morals, and then there are those who arent religious at all and have a very lax attitude.

 

[Phanatical]

I know lots of non-religious people, both Atheist and Agnostic who have extremely well-defined moral and ethical values.

 

[Stan..]

How long is a piece of string?

Whats the difference between a ethic and a moral?

 

[katie_tully]

"a fractal piece of string would be infinitely long"

 

[miaomiao]

To me, morals are pretty simple. They're just what's decent. Do unto others... that stuff. Religious 'morals' and values are often indecent and I wouldn't call them moral at all.

 

[Comrade nathan]

I think morals are linked to the economic system of a country and the maintream culture.

As technology changes so do morals evolutionary untill a movement comes along then they are revolutionary.

 

[SashatheMan]

the less morals the better the tv shows become

 

[Generator]

As for this morals change and evolve business, that's pretty controversial. I think it needs a bit of clearing up though, because if by "morals" it is meant "accepted social values," then of course they change. But if it is meant by morals, morality in general (ie. what is good and bad), then that's a big argument.

That's what I was thinking (the underlined section), and my scrapped example was going to briefly discuss the 'flagpole values' being pushed through by the federal Government.

Is there a general consensus as to what is what in this general field (morals, ethics, values, etc), moonlight?

 

[Raiks]

To me, morals are pretty simple. They're just what's decent. Do unto others... that stuff. Religious 'morals' and values are often indecent and I wouldn't call them moral at all.

Do unto others what you should expect those to do unto yourself. Now of the 9 years of Anglican schooling, I remember that as one of a number of reoccuring messages preached from above during morning chapel. So I don't think the morals of society and religion differ, I think it is more the interpretation of them that is different and evolves.

Morals, ethics and social expectations ebb and flow, as shown throughout history and evolve, from the embracing of the naked being during the times of the renaissance, to the strict modesty of the late 1800's and early 1900's... It will always continue to flow back and forth between extremes, although very rarely will it ever reach those outer limits. It's like politics, you interchange between times of the left and the right in power. It's the idea that moral boundaries are pushed when strict and when those boundaries are pushed too far, a backlash occurs and conservative ideals are reinstalled, and then the cycle continues again.

 

[Iron]

I wouldnt be so eagre to question the integrity of those that lived before us. The simple doctrine of treating people equally and with compassion etc. should be a timeless moral.

 

[Raiks]

It's not the law that is the problem, but how the law is interpreted which is the problem.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Is there a general consensus as to what is what in this general field (morals, ethics, values, etc), moonlight?

In philosophy there most certainly isn't... the two mainstream moral theories (utilitarianism and deontology) take hold of very large groups of supporters and are for the most part perceived as being very much at odds (though I have looked at reconciling the two, which proved more a matter of semantic shifting than progress). There are many, many moral theories from the ridiculous Divine Command Theory, to the intriguing Emotional Subjectivism, to the dangerous and lazy Social Relativism path.

I think most people, not considering these when they make moral judgments, generally are making the choice to follow the Utilitarian urge (maximise the greatest good for the greatest number) or the deontological urge (certain rules of behaviour can be objectively formed and one must never break them).

Do unto others what you should expect those to do unto yourself. Now of the 9 years of Anglican schooling, I remember that as one of a number of reoccuring messages preached from above during morning chapel. So I don't think the morals of society and religion differ, I think it is more the interpretation of them that is different and evolves.

Indeed that is the golden rule, a very simplified version of Kant's categorical imperative. For purely practical, everyday purposes, I think that classic idea is a great guideline to hold in one's head.

The Law was originally written to be preserve morality and fairness, yet has it decayed into being so mechanical and lack common sense that now instead of focusing on whether morals have been preserved there is an emphasise on only the written law, taking advantage of holes and forgetting why it was written in the first place. This didnt make much sense, but ill just hit the 'submit reply' button anyway. :/

You will find that that is a common misconception particular to the layperson. It stems from a view of the law as a black box system. You see the inputs and the outputs, but you do not see (or understand) the highly complex reasoning behind the decisions.

It's not the law that is the problem, but how the law is interpreted which is the problem.

It cannot be one or the other, if any are to blame - both are very important. However, I do not think either one is a "problem."

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The law has never been fair in all cases, the law evolves, while at the moment some people are getting unfair compensation payouts it will force organisations and such to improve workplace safety and what-not, if it is found that these laws are going a bit out of whack it is the governments job to review this.

 

[katie_tully]

Things are very... very... unstable.

I'm quite scared.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

lol katie, almost every generation has thought that society is very unstable and on the verge of collapse, i think the truth is there are changes, and people are afraid of change..
Social structure isn't collapsing, it's just changing.