The Decling (Or Not) Of Modern Culture

[Nekowolf]

Okay, I think the title should give enough of a clue. To start off, I'll respond to what Ivan said in the Virginity topic.

Nekowolf, for me culture is everything what is moral and everything with useful purpose. In that time, culture was incredible because of theater, moral, art, there was difference between children's and adult's things etc. But now moral is falling. If my daughter lost her virginity at age e.g. 13 and yet all know about it, she will be in punishment until 21 year.

You know what else was common back then? Women were subservient and inferior. Woman were mere "things." Sexism was rampant. Whites were superior above all others. Blacks had no rights. Gays had no rights. You could beat children without repercussion, because that was just fine. Workers had very little rights, and almost no safety laws. Children were used as laborers of dangerous exposed machinery.

Yeah, that's...so moral. And that's just in, like, 1920's-1950's range.

The idea that morality is failing in the modern ages is bunk. It's ridiculous, and unfounded. What time period are you basing it on? Because I can almost guarantee I can find a hell lot more wrong the further you go back. The 1800s? Arranged marriages of young girls around ages 12, 13. And I don't think I need to go into what their husbands expected (hint: making babies, and housework).

The idea that morality is falling is propaganda perpetuated by those who cannot stand the acceptance of those they themselves are intolerant of, or by those who cannot stand to see their former power waning. Acceptance of gays? It's immoral! Atheists? Immoral! ABORTIONS!? IMMORAL! LIBERALS! IMMORAL! Etc.

[fakepeeps7]

Our society is (more or less) always progressing. It only looks like it's going backwards when you look at it through the "Golden Age" lens... which is a myth, anyway.

While I think I'd like to live in a world that's not so noisy, crowded, and polluted, I'm very glad I live in a place where, as a woman, I'm not confined by a strict set of rules that tell me how to dress, what jobs I'm allowed to have, whether I can own property, and whom I can marry (I'm in Canada, so I could even marry a woman, if I were so inclined).

Some people may see those things as going backwards, but I'm sure glad we've made at least that much progress. People in other countries have it a lot worse than we do...

[Oaktree]

The idea that morality is falling is propaganda perpetuated by those who cannot stand the acceptance of those they themselves are intolerant of, or by those who cannot stand to see their former power waning. Acceptance of gays? It's immoral! Atheists? Immoral! ABORTIONS!? IMMORAL! LIBERALS! IMMORAL! Etc.

I would be careful about how you reject these things, because you come rather close to the concept of there being no such thing as morality. I'm not trying to cause a side debate, but I think that abortion is immoral. I don't argue it from a religious stance, however. I certainly agree with the main point that you are asserting, though, that our moral failings were greater in the past than they are now. That simply doesn't mean that I think we have gone forward on every issue.

[Nekowolf]

Okay, I'll apologize for that. I didn't mean it in that way; I was just pulling random thoughts.

[fakepeeps7]

I would be careful about how you reject these things, because you come rather close to the concept of there being no such thing as morality. I'm not trying to cause a side debate, but I think that abortion is immoral.

I think that's a whole other debate. Abortion is a tricky one because, while most people would agree that it's morally wrong to kill a human being, there is debate about what constitutes a human being. Personally, I don't think a potential human being (i.e., a fertilized egg or early fetus) is necessarily a human. What happens when we master cloning technologies? Will we even be allowed to clip our toenails, or will we be "killing" potential kiddies because we're throwing viable DNA into the garbage can?

As for morality, there are no absolutes. Morality changes with the times, just like everything else. Look at what used to be acceptable! Men were allowed to beat their wives and their children, humans traded each other as commodities, and we even sacrificed each other to the gods on occasion. I'm sure all those people thought they were justified, or even moral. That doesn't make it so, however.

I think the closest we're ever going to come to an absolute morality is with empathy. Even then, some people don't care how others treat them, so they're not necessarily going to play nice.

[Oaktree]

As for morality, there are no absolutes. Morality changes with the times, just like everything else. Look at what used to be acceptable! Men were allowed to beat their wives and their children, humans traded each other as commodities, and we even sacrificed each other to the gods on occasion. I'm sure all those people thought they were justified, or even moral. That doesn't make it so, however.

I think the closest we're ever going to come to an absolute morality is with empathy. Even then, some people don't care how others treat them, so they're not necessarily going to play nice.

Just because our social moral values change, does not mean that morality itself changes. It is quite possible that there is absolute morality, but that we were wrong about a lot of things throughout our history. Try to make a good argument for systematically holding down one race or gender in favor of another. You can't make a good argument, and any argument you try to make will quickly be blown out of the water by objective facts and rational arguments.

I think the reason why we aren't perfectly moral is because perfect morality would require perfect knowledge. The moral failings of the past were often based in misunderstandings, lack of knowledge of nature, or intentional ignorance. Black slavery was supported by an argument that blacks are inferior, or even not human. We know that blacks are the same as every other race, and that race is merely a social construct, so there is no logical argument in favor of black slavery.

[fakepeeps7]

Just because our social moral values change, does not mean that morality itself changes. It is quite possible that there is absolute morality, but that we were wrong about a lot of things throughout our history.

That's the problem. Even if there is an absolute morality, we have no way of determining what that is.

Try to make a good argument for systematically holding down one race or gender in favor of another. You can't make a good argument, and any argument you try to make will quickly be blown out of the water by objective facts and rational arguments.

You can't make a good argument now, but people certainly thought their arguments were good in the past. (They fought a whole war over it in the U.S. in the 1860s. People don't usually go to that much trouble if they don't think they have the moral high ground.) Slavery was justified using scripture. So was wife-beating. People could point to the Bible and say, "See? I'm moral. I'm doing what God wants me to do!"

I think the reason why we aren't perfectly moral is because perfect morality would require perfect knowledge. The moral failings of the past were often based in misunderstandings, lack of knowledge of nature, or intentional ignorance. Black slavery was supported by an argument that blacks are inferior, or even not human. We know that blacks are the same as every other race, and that race is merely a social construct, so there is no logical argument in favor of black slavery.

Again, hindsight is 20/20. It's easy for us to look back and say that our ancestors were wrong and acting immorally. But we might not be that much better. We don't know everything. As you say, we don't have perfect knowledge. Who knows what commonplace, acceptable, and "moral" actions we might look back on in 100 years and be appalled by? Denying two loving people the right to get married? Glorifying hyper-fertile celebrimoms even as our resource pool shrinks and the earth's population grows? Eating meat? Who knows how our morals are going to change as we go forward?

[Undercovers_Agent]

It is declining and there is a certain word for it, well maybe three... Greed and Arrogence. To many people are trying to get greedy to be better then the other guy instead of helping him, promoting things like "Gangsta is good" and saying that this will improve your lifestyle really takes a hit, comparing life now to back when I was a kid in the 80s and 90s there is one helluva difference, in the 90s there wereno real cell phones for kids as the networking cost a small fortune (The brick... $3 per minute) and connectivity basic, we spent time on battledotnet playing Starcraft, if we were on the computer at all, most of the time you hung out at something called an arcade (A dying art form sadly) and I still enjoy going to arcades. One of my favorite new games is this police shooter where you actually move and duck, quite an intense work out man. But I digress. Back then you actually listened to your mom and dad, you may not have liked it but they were the law, but things done changed man. I have responded with EMS and PD 18 times in the last 4 weeks to fights in a suburban middle school, full of rich kids. It's insane and we're running ourselves into the ground from a lack of total care and thinking we are better. It needs to be more about helping each other then helping ourselves.

[Mistermook]

Right, greed and arrogance are modern concepts.

Alexander the Great was a modest wallflower obviously content with what he had.

(Excuse me, my eyes are rolling so much I'm getting dizzy.)

[Undercovers_Agent]

Exactly :king:
They're just a lot more prevalent. (Yes I got the joke)

[Oaktree]

That's the problem. Even if there is an absolute morality, we have no way of determining what that is.

I know that there are certain aspects of morality that we don't know about and possibly that we can't know about. It doesn't mean that there aren't certain things that we do know.

You can't make a good argument now, but people certainly thought their arguments were good in the past. (They fought a whole war over it in the U.S. in the 1860s. People don't usually go to that much trouble if they don't think they have the moral high ground.) Slavery was justified using scripture. So was wife-beating. People could point to the Bible and say, "See? I'm moral. I'm doing what God wants me to do!"

Just because they thought they were good arguments in the past, doesn't mean that they actually were good arguments. Human perception is often flawed and, as I pointed out, we have had a lot of moral failings due to lack of knowledge or intentional ignorance. Not knowing that something is wrong doesn't make it right. That's why you teach a child that stealing is wrong when they steal. They don't know it is wrong until you tell them, but it is still wrong. Further, the Bible is not an objective source of morality. It is not based in logic, but in authority, which does not provide a universal argument.

Again, hindsight is 20/20. It's easy for us to look back and say that our ancestors were wrong and acting immorally. But we might not be that much better. We don't know everything. As you say, we don't have perfect knowledge. Who knows what commonplace, acceptable, and "moral" actions we might look back on in 100 years and be appalled by? Denying two loving people the right to get married? Glorifying hyper-fertile celebrimoms even as our resource pool shrinks and the earth's population grows? Eating meat? Who knows how our morals are going to change as we go forward?

We might not be much better in many regards. I accept that possibility. I think that, at least in certain cases, our greater knowledge and open-mindedness has brought us to correct moral conclusions that we did not come to in the past, but we still have a ways to go.

I realize that I am making out every person in human history as a morally flawed person, but I think that this is a realistic view. Can you really claim to have never done even the smallest wrong thing in your life? Everyone will break the rules from time to time, but what matters is that you intend to do what is right and you do what is right to a much greater degree than you do things wrong. There is some lenience to be given to those who don't know that they are doing wrong. You don't imprison a two-year-old for theft because they don't know any better, but lenience does not equate to approval. You cannot say that it was right for that two-year-old to steal because it wasn't right.

It is declining and there is a certain word for it, well maybe three... Greed and Arrogence. To many people are trying to get greedy to be better then the other guy instead of helping him, promoting things like "Gangsta is good" and saying that this will improve your lifestyle really takes a hit, comparing life now to back when I was a kid in the 80s and 90s there is one helluva difference, in the 90s there wereno real cell phones for kids as the networking cost a small fortune (The brick... $3 per minute) and connectivity basic, we spent time on battledotnet playing Starcraft, if we were on the computer at all, most of the time you hung out at something called an arcade (A dying art form sadly) and I still enjoy going to arcades. One of my favorite new games is this police shooter where you actually move and duck, quite an intense work out man. But I digress. Back then you actually listened to your mom and dad, you may not have liked it but they were the law, but things done changed man. I have responded with EMS and PD 18 times in the last 4 weeks to fights in a suburban middle school, full of rich kids. It's insane and we're running ourselves into the ground from a lack of total care and thinking we are better. It needs to be more about helping each other then helping ourselves.

I think that the U.S., or at least parts of it, is going through a phase. There are many parents teaching their children that you are special, you are always right, and that all that matters is that you get your way. While there is some merit to some level of self-centeredness, this is an extreme that can't continue for very long because it reduces the viability and productivity of our society. When all of your workers think that they are entitled to a paycheck even if they don't do their jobs properly, productivity crashes.

I think that some of the things that you mention aren't morally bad. There is no moral quality to technology in and of itself. Children having cell phones is not a bad thing. It may seem very strange, but it actually does some good. Primarily, it increases safety because a parent can call to check on a child even if the child is not near a land line. There are also some cell phones equipped with tracking, so a missing child could be tracked by his/her cell phone.

There are still children that listen to their parents. I was born in '90 and I was a very disciplined child (not in the sense of my parents having disciplined me, but in the sense of voluntarily doing what my parents told me most of the time). The children who don't listen to their parents are, in most cases, children of parents who don't know how to parent properly. Part of the trend I spoke of earlier is that many parents are too lenient with their children, thinking that extreme tolerance is better for the child. This is wrong, and I think that the societal view of this will be corrected in the next couple of decades because this feeds into the aforementioned societal destabilizing factor.

I think that we should (voluntarily) help each other, but that it is also important to help oneself. If you secure comfortable living conditions for yourself first, you have more to give to those in need. On the other hand, if you give all of your wealth to others, you cannot sustain yourself to continue giving wealth to others. The same goes for time. You need to devote some of your time to yourself because you have needs that need to be fulfilled in order to sustain yourself. This is one of many cases in which I agree with Aristotle: virtue is in moderation.

[WCF]

I really dislike the idea that "morality" or "culture" is declining. It doesn't decline, it simply changes. Things were not better back in the "good ol' days," just different.

There are universal morals, such as don't steal, don't kill, don't rape, and then there are more ambiguous ones, such as attitudes towards homosexuality or nudity. The first set hasn't seemed to change and the second ones are more or less just the preferences of that society. If morals are changing, then it is likely because that society deemed it to be that way. In my opinion, it seems to be just a backwards and misguided phenomenon to long for the old days.

[Undercovers_Agent]

I think that the U.S., or at least parts of it, is going through a phase. There are many parents teaching their children that you are special, you are always right, and that all that matters is that you get your way. While there is some merit to some level of self-centeredness, this is an extreme that can't continue for very long because it reduces the viability and productivity of our society. When all of your workers think that they are entitled to a paycheck even if they don't do their jobs properly, productivity crashes.

I think that some of the things that you mention aren't morally bad. There is no moral quality to technology in and of itself. Children having cell phones is not a bad thing. It may seem very strange, but it actually does some good. Primarily, it increases safety because a parent can call to check on a child even if the child is not near a land line. There are also some cell phones equipped with tracking, so a missing child could be tracked by his/her cell phone.


I like your points, but in regards to tech, I'm ranting about those kids who constantly sit on their asses in front of their computer and piss away their grades etc. and cellphones that are uber better everything can do, not let's make phone calls phones. But how many young kids now will have their lives ruined or even die due to this before it gets over. Anyone hear on that guy who beat up that girl named Jose?

[Oaktree]

I really dislike the idea that "morality" or "culture" is declining. It doesn't decline, it simply changes. Things were not better back in the "good ol' days," just different.

There are universal morals, such as don't steal, don't kill, don't rape, and then there are more ambiguous ones, such as attitudes towards homosexuality or nudity. The first set hasn't seemed to change and the second ones are more or less just the preferences of that society. If morals are changing, then it is likely because that society deemed it to be that way. In my opinion, it seems to be just a backwards and misguided phenomenon to long for the old days.

Why is homosexuality of variable morality? It may be that it is something that is slightly harder to make an argument about, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a correct moral stance to it. Our inability to argue coherently about it could simply be one of the moral failings that we face in our current society. In which case, it may be hard to see the correct stance now, but in the future, it may be quite clear. I personally would argue that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, but it isn't a viewpoint that is supported by the entire culture I live in, so it is still something that we need to work on.

I like your points, but in regards to tech, I'm ranting about those kids who constantly sit on their asses in front of their computer and piss away their grades etc. and cellphones that are uber better everything can do, not let's make phone calls phones. But how many young kids now will have their lives ruined or even die due to this before it gets over. Anyone hear on that guy who beat up that girl named Jose?

There is a problem when people let leisure of any kind get in the way of the other necessities of life. I doubt that this is a phenomenon unique to modern society, however. There were plenty of people in days of old who didn't fulfill the expectations placed on them and there were plenty of people who thought that they should be able to get by in life without lifting a finger. I think it is part of the human condition that we long for leisure, even at the expense of necessities and even if we don't know what to do with ourselves once we have nothing but leisure.

I don't know what you are referring to when you talk about kids dying or someone named Jose. Can you elaborate?

[Undercovers_Agent]

I had an email from my cousin William, something from his civics class about this guy who beat up a girl in a different school. She texted her to get his girlfriend to the phone and the the girl (Jose) didn't like the relationship and she made a comment about his brother who killed himsel, he didn't like that so he stormed out o school, rode three miles to the middle school and went after a girl, it wasn't the right girl and the girl that he was trying to reach pointed out the right one, and the dude kicked her ass to the point that she had to be put in a medically induced coma to prevent further damages. And kids dying... gang shootings look up school murders and it'll put some hair on you ass man.

A good way to put society...

60 years ago (1950s) a prisoner would use a file to break out of prison, now a prisoner would use a file to kill someone.

[Oaktree]

I had an email from my cousin William, something from his civics class about this guy who beat up a girl in a different school. She texted her to get his girlfriend to the phone and the the girl (Jose) didn't like the relationship and she made a comment about his brother who killed himsel, he didn't like that so he stormed out o school, rode three miles to the middle school and went after a girl, it wasn't the right girl and the girl that he was trying to reach pointed out the right one, and the dude kicked her ass to the point that she had to be put in a medically induced coma to prevent further damages.

I don't think that this sort of thing is the result of technology. Technology was indirectly involved, but interpersonal problems exist even in the absence of modern technology.

And kids dying... gang shootings look up school murders and it'll put some hair on you ass man.

A good way to put society...

60 years ago (1950s) a prisoner would use a file to break out of prison, now a prisoner would use a file to kill someone.

I think that the gang problems that we do have are mainly due to the parenting problems I was talking about before. Gangs are for cowardly, selfish people, so when some parents raise their kids to be cowardly and selfish, it will cause problems.

Are you sure that prison violence is that much worse now than it was 60 years ago? There are more prisoners in our prisons, but I'm not aware of the relative numbers of prison crimes rising. Hollywood will portray things as being really terrible, but that doesn't mean it's true. I'll have to look for a study. On a further note: from what I have heard, our violent crime rate is actually lower now that it has been in a few decades. I suppose this is something else I should look into statistical information on, though, as it would intuitively seem to contradict the fact that our prisons are more crowded now.


EDIT: I found a chart that shows that the homicide rate has decreased here: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/hmrt.cfm

For the other point, this chart shows that our prison population has increased somewhat alarmingly: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/US_incarceration_timeline-clean.svg

The two seem somewhat irreconcilable, but my guess is that there are more drug- and assault-based crimes now, among other less violent crimes.

[Undercovers_Agent]

Are you sure that prison violence is that much worse now than it was 60 years ago? There are more prisoners in our prisons, but I'm not aware of the relative numbers of prison crimes rising. Hollywood will portray things as being really terrible, but that doesn't mean it's true. I'll have to look for a study. On a further note: from what I have heard, our violent crime rate is actually lower now that it has been in a few decades. I suppose this is something else I should look into statistical information on, though, as it would intuitively seem to contradict the fact that our prisons are more crowded now.

That was more of a metaphore on how things change. By the way did I mention I'm 27, married, and goth, and I've managed to lead a good life? I think it also has to do more with the person, I'm a really shy when I'm face to face with someone.

[Oaktree]

That was more of a metaphore on how things change. By the way did I mention I'm 27, married, and goth, and I've managed to lead a good life? I think it also has to do more with the person, I'm a really shy when I'm face to face with someone.

I'm not trying to say that everyone now is irresponsible and self-centered. That would probably be opposed to my assertion that our society is better overall now than it was in the past. :P I'm just pointing out that there is a greater societal acceptance of irresponsibility. I know plenty of people who lead good lives now, even with the problems we face.

[fragglerocks]

I don't even know who ever decided what we, as a society, should deem moral or not. I always thought that was something along the lines of human nature and something we learned as individuals. Sort of a self-discovery process, and choosing from what we know to be right and wrong.

[Nekowolf]

Actually, I'd say morality is defined more as group rather than individually.

[Oaktree]

I think a lot of our morality has a basis in biology. It is better for the survival of the species for us not to kill each other at random, and disallowing acts like stealing, fighting, rape, etc. makes it easier for us to get along as social creatures. I think that there is also a purely logical basis for morality, but that morality developed before logic did, so it is a moot point until you have to argue philosophy with someone. :D

[fragglerocks]

Actually, it is defined as both pertaining to groups and individuals, if you look up a standard definition. I agree that both definitions are true.

A huge topic of morality is murder. But in some parts of the Middle East, there are suicide bombers, who believe the moral thing to do is a suicide bombing...and not only that but it earns them some prime real estate in the afterlife. The way I was raised, and through the people I've met and the influences I've had, I have come to conclude that murder is wrong (unless I am defending my child). But if I were raised in the Middle East, might my morals be different? That is the point, I believe, where it is my choice as an individual to hold my own choice in right from wrong despite my surroundings.

[ivan17]

Nice topic Nekowolf. I didn't have access to the site yesterday, so it's hard to reply to all posts.
I like Oaktree's posts. :)
Well... I am not expert about Victorian America, but I know much about Europe in that time. Each era has disadvantages. But I think that it wasn't so bad as you said Nekowolf. Women were given more rights. And everything was depending about status. They had some rules, but nowadays there's almost no rules. I think that in our era, in Europe, man is still head of house. And women are more lazier that before 100 years. We are living like Sims with cheats. Women love to shopping and do nothing and stay at home and I don't see the problem.
In my opinion, abortion is murder. Humans first need to think about consequences and then do the things.

[Nekowolf]

Okay, wow. Keep it clear, we are discussing American/European culture and such. Because then you get into Africa, the Middle East, the East, and it's different there.

First of all, you're saying woman had MORE rights back then? Yeah, okay, they may have had some rights, depending on how far back you go. But nowhere near what they have today.

Nowadays, they can own property, they can vote, they can work for equal pay (it is illegal to discriminate here) and are not confined to households, they can choose whether or not to have children, they can choose to stay unmarried, they can now gain further education, they are now legally equal to men, rape is a very serious crime, abuse is a crime. Some of these abilities were much more limited back then, if they even had the option at all.

That is a fact. That is not for dispute, that is a historical fact. To say otherwise is quite simply bullshit. I demand you provide evidence of this, that women had more rights back then.

Not only that, but quite frankly, you come of as a bit sexist as well. Here in the US, women work just as hard as men do. They are no lazier than we men. And I seriously doubt it is confined simply to the US.

I already provide some of what we have now that was not back then. Women have more rights now, minorities have more rights, children have more rights, homosexuals have more rights, laborers have more rights, the handicapped have more rights. The religiously diverse have more rights.

I repeat, I call bullshit on this idea that our morality is declining, that culture is declining. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous idea with sand for ground.

And I will not get into the abortion issue here. That is for another topic.

[Oaktree]

Actually, it is defined as both pertaining to groups and individuals, if you look up a standard definition. I agree that both definitions are true.

A huge topic of morality is murder. But in some parts of the Middle East, there are suicide bombers, who believe the moral thing to do is a suicide bombing...and not only that but it earns them some prime real estate in the afterlife. The way I was raised, and through the people I've met and the influences I've had, I have come to conclude that murder is wrong (unless I am defending my child). But if I were raised in the Middle East, might my morals be different? That is the point, I believe, where it is my choice as an individual to hold my own choice in right from wrong despite my surroundings.

I think that everyone should individually evaluate their social training in morals. Even western civilization is capable of being wrong at times, so accepting everything without question is generally a bad idea. This doesn't mean that social morals should be thrown out, however, as most of them are generally right. Basically, I think that it is best to know the reasoning behind why they're right and have arguments against the practices that are wrong.


I like Oaktree's posts. :)
Well... I am not expert about Victorian America, but I know much about Europe in that time. Each era has disadvantages. But I think that it wasn't so bad as you said Nekowolf. Women were given more rights. And everything was depending about status. They had some rules, but nowadays there's almost no rules. I think that in our era, in Europe, man is still head of house. And women are more lazier that before 100 years. We are living like Sims with cheats. Women love to shopping and do nothing and stay at home and I don't see the problem.


First: thanks. :)

Next: I think you have an overly romanticized view of Victorian times. Women did not have many rights in the Victorian era; they were expected to marry for status and they were considered the property of their fathers or brothers. They did not own anything unless all of the other men in their family had died, and even then, they were expected to marry to give that property to their husbands.

I don't really know much about Europe, but in America, there are actually more women in the workforce than men. It is also very common for both the man and the woman in a marriage to work to support the family. There are always some individuals who are lazy and leech money off of their partners, but this is uncommon and it goes for both genders.

[el_flel]

I think that ivan17 is so obsessed with that particular era is because women were seen as 'inferior' to men, and that is clearly how he thinks, despite the fact that it's complete rubbish!

Society is not declining IMO. Society is always changing and evolving. Yes there are negative aspects to modern society, but there were also equally negative aspects in the past.

I am personally extremely glad that I live in today's society.

[ivan17]

I love that era, and of course that I will defend it. As I said, I don't know much about America in that era, but in Europe was something different. E.g. in villages, there was always harmony despite poverty. We had a big influence of Austria, so in cities, it was different that in America (according to your theories).
Look at this building:

http://www.destinacije.com/Slike/Hrvatska/GradevineiObjekti/Zaduzbina_Dr_Franje_Gottschalka_i_Njegovih_Gospodja_Karoline_i_Marije.jpg

Translated sing on building:

Endowment Dr. Francis Gottschalk and His Mrs Caroline and Mary

It was orphanage for children. :) :) :)

[Nekowolf]

And child abuse. And women abuse. And hardly any labor laws. Child labor. Prostitution. Racism against blacks and Irish.

I can go on. This. Is. Fact. And yes, I'm talking about Europe. Your fantasies of history will not suffice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_era

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Victorian_era

http://www.hiddenlives.org.uk/articles/poverty.html

http://home.pacbell.net/tonyprey/burning/vicera.htm

[kattenijin]

Actually, in the US at least, as far as single mothers giving birth, the peak was back in 1957 with 10% of women. Currently it is 4%. So the supposed "promiscuity" factor obviously isn't there. However, media and communications are 4000% more prevalent, so you can hear about each individual instance much sooner and more often; and in greater detail.

We are also doing much better in terms of food. It used to take 41% of average household income to provide food for the table. Now it only takes 9%.

Same with healthcare. Take the flu for example. In 1918 as many as 75 million died in the flu pandemic. Even with H1N1, bird flu, regular flu, etc. there are only around 36,000 deaths world wide due to the flu. In 1918 75 million was 4% of the world's population. 36,000 today is less than 1/2 of 1% of the world's population.

As for the orphanage picture, what is your point exactly? It is interesting to note that in the Balkan area, there are still orphanages supporting a sizeable child population, whereas in the US a foster-care system more like a "traditional" family is prefered. Which system is more "in decline" do you think?

I could list further examples, but I'm sure it would be quite a waste of my "breath" to do so. Your supposed "Golden Age" seems pretty much bunk to me.

[Oaktree]

ivan17: Many people have wrong perceptions of the past. Many people will romanticize it and think that things were just wonderful back in the "good old days." If you study history and pay attention to the way things really were, you see that there have been war, disease, intolerance, and ignorance all throughout human history. Those things still exist today, but I am of the opinion that they are less rampant than they were in the past. We have deterrents in the forms of moral stances, treaties, and (however unfortunately) WMD's that generally prevent us from going headfirst into massive, bloody wars. We have better sanitation and medical technology now than we ever have had before. We have more open and accepting societies, including rights for women and minorities, religious and political freedom, and a focus on individual rights (something that was absent from our governments and societies for much of human history). We have public education and libraries that provide the opportunity for enlightenment to anyone who is willing to take it. Most of these things were absent during the "good old days".

[ivan17]

...yeah, I know all about:
And child abuse. And women abuse. And hardly any labor laws. Child labor. Prostitution. Racism against blacks and Irish.
But when we say Victorian Era, it is only name of era in UK and sometimes it is used for USA. We can't limit whole world on literature about England.

I will analyze Nekowolf's theses.

1. Child abuse. I think that this problem is still present in our world. Is there anyone who never got a beating on the buttocks? Humans have too many freedom nowadays and I think that this problem will just raise.

2. Women abuse. I think that this is also problem in modern world. I think that even in gay family there's fight and argue.

3. Hardly any labor laws; Child labor. In 19th century was great growth of population. Why? Well, people were afraid of extinction of family tree because there was many deadly diseases through history. So I was normal that 1 of 10 childrens experience adulthood. But disease have decreased and unemployment was big and people were poor. So they were happy if they had anything for eat.

4. Prostitution. Well it is the oldest human profession. It is still legal e.g. in Amsterdam. And it is still "popular" in modern world. Promiscuity is also popular in modern world, so I really don't know why such persons don't try to make their hobby into money...

5. Well racism. I think that is still present in modern world. Racism against black race is reduced and that's good. It seems to me that now is trend against white race. My brother (white) want's to be black (no kidding)... and believe me or not, he is declarative Catholic, that means that he is atheist. He don't believe in God. And British vs Irish. It's national hate, not racism.

:) Oaktree, well for 100 years, people will think that our era was terrible (all wars, global warming). But for us, it's great. So it's hard to talk about every era.

[Nekowolf]

And you are entirely missing the freaking point. Yes, this stuff happens in the modern world. But for the purpose of this topic, we are talking specifically about European (or the UK, to be even more specific)/American culture, as that is what the Victorian era applies to.

The point is not that it happens. But that it happens LESS. Which it may well, in part due to modern laws and ethics, which generally does NOT make it okay, UNLIKE back then when it WAS OKAY.

As for your "counter" on the child labor and lack of labor laws; what you just said has NOTHING to with it. Nothing. That was not a counter; it was a straw man.

The fact is, children were work horses, and the adults had no rights in the work place, living in incredibly dangerous, unsanitary conditions, and when something did happen, oh well, too bad for them. And that's if they lived. Because horrible maiming and death was not so uncommon in the work place.

Prostitution was a notorious problem in the Victorian era, even more-so then now. And you better god damn believe that many of them were children. Because the Victorians loved it. They loved fucking little virgin girls.

And lastly, as I keep saying, racism was not as severe back then. Then you bring up "racism against whites." Yeah, great, you know what that is? The whining of a waning majority. But as for Irish, yeah, it's not technically "racism" but it makes it no different. Just like how racism is no different from antisemitism.

As for your response to Oaktree, so what? And they'll still look back even earlier and say "Wow! Back then was EVEN WORSE!" Just like how we can look back to the Middle Ages and say how much worse it was than the Victorian era.

[ivan17]

19th century was turning point. Century of reborn of modern society. Today is Labour Day and first is celebrated in second half of 19th century. 1870's I think.

BUT, I am, as you said, one boy, so I really don't know what kind of answer are you expecting from me. :bunny:

For me world before WWI was top of culture and art, life was interesting.

But now, there's no different changes. There are rights, but old problems are still here. We are just pretending like they are no longer part of our society.

[Nekowolf]

Well if you're going to get into an argument like this, I would expect a historically accurate answer. The study of history is not privileged to but a small few.

And anyhow, sure, I'll grant "culture and art" if you define culture as The Arts. And life may be "interesting," but it was good only for those small few who had considerable wealth. To those down below, it was living hell. It was even worse than what we have now; at least now we have sanitation and laws that safeguard them while at work.

Plenty has changed. It's changed by getting better. Better is change.

For example, go read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. I dare you to say that we have not progressed. And that's just one example.

[kattenijin]

But now, there's no different changes. There are rights, but old problems are still here. We are just pretending like they are no longer part of our society.

But that's not what you were saying before. You acertained that things were better before WWI, and now they are worse. I don't see where we are pretending problems don't exist, we are just saying that things are better. It takes time, energy and often money to fix social issues. If you were told that all the social issues would be fixed tommorow, but it would cause your cost of living to tripple due to taxes, and that you would need to work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week to survive; I'd bet you'd say no. Everybody wan's things "fixed", but nobody wants to pay to fix it. TANSTAAFL!

(There ain't no such thing as a free lunch)

[grumpy_otter]

I take the evolutionary perspective of morality. That which is good for the health of our society is moral, and that what is bad for our society is immoral.

Defining what is good for society is the kicker. But here are some of mine:

It is immoral to place your own self-interest over the interests of others
It is immoral to judge people cruelly and with ignorance
It is immoral to claim your religion is the only correct one

It is moral to seek pleasure and happiness, if your desires do not harm others
It is moral to decide when and how you should bear children (this is the abortion one--if you don't want children, it is not going to be good for society for you to have them, therefore abortion is moral)

Oh, that's just a few--I am sure I could pontificate for hours.

[fakepeeps7]

ivan17's problem seems to be that he's using definitions that he makes up himself. It's pretty hard to debate with someone who's making up their own definitions of child labour, child abuse, women's rights, or even the whole freakin' Victorian era.

We have made a ton of progress in the last 100 years. Parents don't lose half of their babies before their fifth birthdays. Labour laws protect our workers (and prevent children from being exploited). Growing acceptance and tolerance means that a person is considered a legitimate human being, worthy of rights and inheritance, whether their parents are married or not.

Is our society perfect? Of course not. But it's a heck of a lot better, fairer, safer, and more tolerant than it was in the supposed "Golden Age".

[fragglerocks]

Many of the studies I've come across that analyze the decline of moral values are on very anti-liberal sites that spout out religious values and the Bible. Does anyone have any links to some useful, legit studies? (yes this thread has got me on a Google run)

Also I have noticed that no one argues the decline on a large scale. Most of the studies involve the decline only over the past 20 years. Which is interesting. Would you say that the media has a lot to do with it?

[jooxis]

That which is good for the health of our society is moral, and that what is bad for our society is immoral.

I don't really know about this definition. It would be benificial for society to euthanize everyone in a psychiatric hospital who require life-long treatment, but I certainly don't think that it's a moral thing to do... right?

By the way, more on topic - just because the art, music and architecture of a certain period seem more appealing to you, does not mean that living as an average person during that era was also great. Ivan, I'm sure you wouldn't like to have lived in the 19th century. If we had a time machine, that is. You'd be begging to come back ;)

[grumpy_otter]

I don't really know about this definition. It would be benificial for society to euthanize everyone in a psychiatric hospital who require life-long treatment, but I certainly don't think that it's a moral thing to do... right?


See, here's where we get into the "defining" part. I would argue that the overall detriment to society of an action like that would be greater than the overall benefit. The only people who would do something like that are Nazi-ish, and they are NOT a benefit to a society.

(And in fact, we have that exact example in history to show that it did NOT benefit society)

[Oaktree]

I take the evolutionary perspective of morality. That which is good for the health of our society is moral, and that what is bad for our society is immoral.

Defining what is good for society is the kicker. But here are some of mine:

It is immoral to place your own self-interest over the interests of others
It is immoral to judge people cruelly and with ignorance
It is immoral to claim your religion is the only correct one

It is moral to seek pleasure and happiness, if your desires do not harm others
It is moral to decide when and how you should bear children (this is the abortion one--if you don't want children, it is not going to be good for society for you to have them, therefore abortion is moral)

Oh, that's just a few--I am sure I could pontificate for hours.

I agree with the premise, but not the specifics. You look at what is best for society in a large-scale perspective, but I think it is much healthier to look at the good of society from an individual perspective. After all, you can't have a group without individuals. I think the relatively new focus on the individual in our society is part of what makes it better than it was in the past.

I think that there are plenty of instances in which it is more moral to place your own self-interest first. To bring up the most common argument against utilitarianism (which is what you seem to be espousing): you have five patients dying, each from a different type of organ failure. You have one perfectly healthy patient. Is it moral to take the organs of the healthy patient and give them to the dying patients (presupposing that the organs won't be rejected)? I would say no, and I think that most people would agree with me. I have even had the question posed as naming the five patients as various famous scientists, musicians, and other people who have made great contributions, while the one is a so-called "nobody." I still say no, because that is encroaching on the rights of the one.

I do think that if an individual weighs the options and chooses to sacrifice for the good of a group, that is within their rights. This should not be forced on them, however, and not every instance of self-sacrifice is the correct thing to do.

As to the religion one, I don't think that it is immoral to merely claim that one's religion is the only correct one, so long as this does not lead to violence, hiring prejudice, etc. against other religions. It makes sense that one would think that the religion one follows is the only correct one, but one must act with tolerance toward other religions. This is not impossible, so I don't think there is anything morally wrong with it. I will say, however, that one following a religion of any sort should take reality into consideration before dogma.

Abortion: It is good for the individual (the developing child) to disallow abortion. Once the pregnancy occurs, the individuals involved have to take responsibility for their actions. If you want to decide when and how to have children, you should be responsible about your actions prior to creating one. Education and birth control are sufficient for controlling the population as long as people act responsibly (which is absolutely necessary to act morally).

[Undercovers_Agent]

I think that we're also adding to the fire here, look at you guys, I'll admit I'm part of it, but what do we wish to acomplish here, state that the other is wrong and we're right? Food for thought.

@Oaktree, I like how you're always able to back up your facts dude.

[grumpy_otter]

I agree with the premise, but not the specifics. You look at what is best for society in a large-scale perspective, but I think it is much healthier to look at the good of society from an individual perspective. After all, you can't have a group without individuals. I think the relatively new focus on the individual in our society is part of what makes it better than it was in the past.

I think that there are plenty of instances in which it is more moral to place your own self-interest first. To bring up the most common argument against utilitarianism (which is what you seem to be espousing): you have five patients dying, each from a different type of organ failure. You have one perfectly healthy patient. Is it moral to take the organs of the healthy patient and give them to the dying patients (presupposing that the organs won't be rejected)? I would say no, and I think that most people would agree with me. I have even had the question posed as naming the five patients as various famous scientists, musicians, and other people who have made great contributions, while the one is a so-called "nobody." I still say no, because that is encroaching on the rights of the one.

I do think that if an individual weighs the options and chooses to sacrifice for the good of a group, that is within their rights. This should not be forced on them, however, and not every instance of self-sacrifice is the correct thing to do.

As to the religion one, I don't think that it is immoral to merely claim that one's religion is the only correct one, so long as this does not lead to violence, hiring prejudice, etc. against other religions. It makes sense that one would think that the religion one follows is the only correct one, but one must act with tolerance toward other religions. This is not impossible, so I don't think there is anything morally wrong with it. I will say, however, that one following a religion of any sort should take reality into consideration before dogma.

Abortion: It is good for the individual (the developing child) to disallow abortion. Once the pregnancy occurs, the individuals involved have to take responsibility for their actions. If you want to decide when and how to have children, you should be responsible about your actions prior to creating one. Education and birth control are sufficient for controlling the population as long as people act responsibly (which is absolutely necessary to act morally).

I think I am more fascist than utilitarian--in a way. But that word has such a bad connotation I am hesitant to claim it.

I think we mostly agree in general regarding what is good for society--except in relation to abortion. and I should start right out by saying I do not think a fetus has any "life" or "value" until it can survive as more than a parasite.

No matter how "responsible" one is, accidents happen. Taking the right of choosing whether or not to give birth from a woman is one of the easy indicators of a society that is oppressive.

Whether or not you personally agree that abortion is moral, for a society it is an imperative right.

Morality is in some part the greatest good for the greatest number--but from my perspective, that very often values individual rights above the whole.

You caught me on the religion one--just a personal peeve.

[Oaktree]

I think we mostly agree in general regarding what is good for society--except in relation to abortion. and I should start right out by saying I do not think a fetus has any "life" or "value" until it can survive as more than a parasite.

No matter how "responsible" one is, accidents happen. Taking the right of choosing whether or not to give birth from a woman is one of the easy indicators of a society that is oppressive.

Whether or not you personally agree that abortion is moral, for a society it is an imperative right.


I hesitate to go farther into this because it is off-topic, but I do want to address this.

On the first point, I doubt that we will agree. We seem to have different assumptions about what constitutes life, so that particular point will remain a stalemate.

On the second point, calling it a mark of an oppressive society is an opinion. Many people think that any sort of enforced morality is oppressive. Isn't telling someone that they can't steal, in a sense, "oppressive"? It is controlling their behavior. It is a necessary manner in which to control behavior, however. Whereas many people see abortion and similar moral issues as a choice, I see any immoral action as being no choice at all. One cannot choose to murder; it is not an available option. I can make a philosophical argument based in Kant's ethical theory here, but I doubt that many people here would really care. Suffice it to say, certain behavior is restricted because it is simply not acceptable behavior. There is nothing oppressive about this.

On the third point, again, I disagree. If the population as a whole were sufficiently educated and birth control/contraceptives were easily accessible to all, there would be no need for abortion. It may seem like lala land, but I think that it is possible if we get our heads out of our asses and fix the education system. There are too many places where Christian fundamentalism holds power and the school systems are prevented from teaching children basic biology and sex ed. I think that this is quite damaging to our future and it is one of the ways in which we are still so backwards.

[ivan17]

That which is good for the health of our society is moral, and that what is bad for our society is immoral.

I agree.
Everyone has own conception of what is moral and immoral.

Immoral (for me):
Abortion, prostitution, promiscuity, sick sexual orientations, everything animal in humans, etc.

What if we have good lives? Nice houses, families, friends...
We can't know what kind of life has person who is every day looking for food in garbage...
That's how you are looking at my perfect world.

jooxis, way to go girl! I hope that God will give me chance to only look at that times. :)

[fakepeeps7]

Whereas many people see abortion and similar moral issues as a choice, I see any immoral action as being no choice at all. One cannot choose to murder; it is not an available option.

I don't understand what you mean. Of course you can choose to murder! How is any action (whether you deem it moral or immoral) not a choice? Every action we take is a choice... isn't it?

If the population as a whole were sufficiently educated and birth control/contraceptives were easily accessible to all, there would be no need for abortion.

I have to disagree. Contraceptives are not 100% effective. Only abstinence is. And we already know that teaching kids not to do it doesn't work! :lol:

[ivan17]

Before few years, on TV was one emission about one woman. She aborted x times and she put dead children in pots with flowers. Is that moral for you???

[jooxis]

Ivan, that sounds rather sick- but in no way is it a valid argument against abortion. As you may know, many women who have had abortions do not keep dead children in flower pots nor is there a connection between the two.

[ivan17]

Yeah, I know. Anyway, abortion is murder. If we can legalise abortion, we can legalise murder. That means, if somebody doesn't like baby, he can kill it. If I don't like some person, I can kill it too, because I don't want it on this world...

[Nekowolf]

Alright, can we get off abortion now? This is supposed to be about culture, not abortion.

[grumpy_otter]

Alright, can we get off abortion now? This is supposed to be about culture, not abortion.

Well, you mentioned it in the OP, so I thought it was fine to discuss it as an aspect of culture, but I started a new thread anyway.

[101ita]

I agree. Many people think of the past with rose tinted glasses (that sort of rhymes XD). It wasn't better before, you just didn't hear so much about the bad things because there was so little media and people hid things. In a way, it is good that today issues are shown, because otherwise we wouldn't be aware of them (even though sometimes I think the media is a bit too sensationalist). We have progressed a LOT!

[Neucleus]

I agree. Many people think of the past with rose tinted glasses (that sort of rhymes XD). It wasn't better before, you just didn't hear so much about the bad things because there was so little media and people hid things. In a way, it is good that today issues are shown, because otherwise we wouldn't be aware of them (even though sometimes I think the media is a bit too sensationalist). We have progressed a LOT!
Eh, to say it's because of a lack of media exposure is incorrect, at least on the large part. Throughout history, older generations have always said their past was better than their now, even when their past were pretty bad times comparatively. It's really more a natural human reaction to things that we are and are not familiar with, in addition to our (equally natural) wish to see things get better over time, when in reality they're about the same as they've always been.

[fakepeeps7]

It's really more a natural human reaction to things that we are and are not familiar with, in addition to our (equally natural) wish to see things get better over time, when in reality they're about the same as they've always been.

I disagree. Things are better now.

I was struck by this yesterday while doing some genealogy research. I was looking for a particular elderly woman on one of the censuses. I found her in a workhouse. That's what they did to the poor and the old: shoved 'em into a workhouse. As if they had to pay off their "debt" to society for simply existing. That's what it seems like, anyway.

At least today we have things like welfare and social security. Making a nearly incapacitated granny work for her supper seems downright cruel.