ZEB, you’ve yet to address this issue of just how you’re measuring over all'' morality. I think we've all conceded, if nothing else for the sake of argument, that there is more petty violent crime, drug use, and sexual promiscuity today than 50-60 years ago (or 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, or back to the pilgrims!). Given that, there is still a question of whether or not we are over all’’ less moral. I have argued that we are not, since despite there being more petty violent crime, drug use and sexual promiscuity there is far less institutional and private human rights violations (to paint with one phrase a broad spectrum of issues that I’ve mentioned in more detail above.)
Now it’s up to you to respond and explain to me why despite our advances in human rights and social justice an increase in petty violent crime, drug use and sexual promiscuity still makes us less moral. You’ve posted facts, but you’ve refused to deal with the issue of measuring ``over all’’ morality or explaining how you’re claim that we are less moral today follows from the facts you’ve posted.
LOL, who cares what you think. You have one task…refute my list of facts or SHAAADUP![/quote]
Provide an argument that your claim that we are less moral follows from your list of facts or SHAAADUP! What I’m questioning isn’t your list of facts, it’s your inference. I’m also questioning your conclusion, but I have my own list of facts for that one.
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
ZEB, you’ve yet to address this issue of just how you’re measuring over all'' morality. I think we've all conceded, if nothing else for the sake of argument, that there is more petty violent crime, drug use, and sexual promiscuity today than 50-60 years ago (or 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, or back to the pilgrims!). Given that, there is still a question of whether or not we are over all’’ less moral. I have argued that we are not, since despite there being more petty violent crime, drug use and sexual promiscuity there is far less institutional and private human rights violations (to paint with one phrase a broad spectrum of issues that I’ve mentioned in more detail above.) Now it’s up to you to respond and explain to me why despite our advances in human rights and social justice an increase in petty violent crime, drug use and sexual promiscuity still makes us less moral. You’ve posted facts, but you’ve refused to deal with the issue of measuring ``over all’’ morality or explaining how you’re claim that we are less moral today follows from the facts you’ve posted. [/quote]
And you’ve not addressed my list of facts. They have to do with crime, family, pregnancy, drugs, alcohol, etc. Many of the things that make up a societies moral values. I am talking about America the land I love. I hope your next post does one of two things: refutes all the facts that I posted, or agrees with me because you cannot refute them. Now get busy. As you look up each one you will get progressively depressed because I am CORRECT!
Question: Which is morally worse, a society with a high level of sexual promiscuity, or a society that systematically and institutionally represses the basic human rights a whole group of people?
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
ZEB, you’ve yet to address this issue of just how you’re measuring over all'' morality. I think we've all conceded, if nothing else for the sake of argument, that there is more petty violent crime, drug use, and sexual promiscuity today than 50-60 years ago (or 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, or back to the pilgrims!). Given that, there is still a question of whether or not we are over all’’ less moral. I have argued that we are not, since despite there being more petty violent crime, drug use and sexual promiscuity there is far less institutional and private human rights violations (to paint with one phrase a broad spectrum of issues that I’ve mentioned in more detail above.) Now it’s up to you to respond and explain to me why despite our advances in human rights and social justice an increase in petty violent crime, drug use and sexual promiscuity still makes us less moral. You’ve posted facts, but you’ve refused to deal with the issue of measuring ``over all’’ morality or explaining how you’re claim that we are less moral today follows from the facts you’ve posted. [/quote]
And you’ve not addressed my list of facts. They have to do with crime, family, pregnancy, drugs, alcohol, etc. Many of the things that make up a societies moral values. I am talking about America the land I love. I hope your next post does one of two things: refutes all the facts that I posted, or agrees with me because you cannot refute them. Now get busy. As you look up each one you will get progressively depressed because I am CORRECT!
[/quote]
Your list of facts is not at issue, your inference is. I really don’t see how you can fail to understand this point. I can perfectly well accept your list of facts and reject your conclusion by rejecting the inference from the facts to the conclusion.
Here’s a second question, again keeping it simple.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And you’ve not addressed my list of facts. They have to do with crime, family, pregnancy, drugs, alcohol, etc. Many of the things that make up a societies moral values.
[/quote]
Question: Is the systematic suppression of human rights not something that makes up societies moral values?
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
I’ll make this really simple, ZED.
Question: Which is morally worse, a society with a high level of sexual promiscuity, or a society that systematically and institutionally represses the basic human rights a whole group of people? [/quote]
Wait…I think I hear a Godless, lefty speaking. Yes I do. Hello.
DUH why is sexual promiscuity bad? Hmm. I got it!
1-Unwanted pregnancy
2-The state paying for the unwanted child
3-Aborted babies
4-The spread of STD’s
5-Having sex at such an early age that they don’t even comprehend what a relationship is all about.
Question: Is the systematic suppression of human rights not something that makes up societies moral values? [/quote]
Why don’t you pay more attention to the posts you allegedly read?
I said “Most things that make up our “moral fiber” were better then.” I never said all of them were.
Why don’t you focus on the list that I wrote. Oh that’s right you can refute any of them. All you say is stupid stuff like: “Why is sexual promiscuity wrong”.
Question: Is the systematic suppression of human rights not something that makes up societies moral values? [/quote]
Why don’t you pay more attention to the posts you allegedly read?
I said “Most things that make up our “moral fiber” were better then.” I never said all of them were.
Why don’t you focus on the list that I wrote. Oh that’s right you can refute any of them. All you say is stupid stuff like: “Why is sexual promiscuity wrong”.
YOU GOT NOTHIN!
[/quote]
First of all, just like you never claimed that segregation or the other moral ills I pointed to weren’t bad, I never claimed that sexual promiscuity wasn’t bad.
Ok, so we’re on the same page?
Now I’ll try one last time.
Given that we both agree that the social injustices of the first half of the twentieth century were terrible, and we both agree that, say, sexual promiscuity is bad, the question is how to we decide which, OVERALL, is worse? I claim that the society with more sexual promiscuity and less social injustice is better than the society with less sexual promiscuity and more social injustice, and I claim that because I think social injustice is a worse thing for a society to have than sexual promiscuity. You seem to be claiming that a society with less sexual promiscuity and more social injustice is better than the society with more sexual promiscuity and less social injustice. I assume you claim this because you think sexual promiscuity is a worse thing than social injustice. (If not, just how are you coming up with your overall judgment?) But this seems implausible. Do you really think that a bit of sexual promiscuity is worse than the systematic and institutional repression of the human rights of millions of people? You really believe that? That seems to be what you’re saying. That’s the issue. Not whether or not your facts are right.
we both agree that, say, sexual promiscuity is bad,[/quote]
You seemed to think that sexual promiscuity is okay. At least that’s what you implied by asking what’s wrong with it, as if it was okay.
You do not even have a grasp of my earlier post. It’s not about social injustice vs sexual promiscuity. When did I ever say it was? How can you gather that from what I’ve written? Sheesh.
Go back to my original list. We’re not just talking about sexual promiscuity. There is a long list of moral problems that we face today. From sexual promiscuity to alcohol/drug abuse, higher crime rates and on and on.
Why don’t you address each one of them? Why do you keep avoiding that list?
LOOK AT THE LIST. This nation is close to becoming a train wreck. And it has everything to do with the moral tumble that we’ve taken. Trying to replace God with laws and big government is NOT WORKING.
Really, I’m not going to respond to anymore of your posts unless you address the entire list and stop cherry picking what you THINK you can defend.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You do not even have a grasp of my earlier post. It’s not about social injustice vs sexual promiscuity. When did I ever say it was? How can you gather that from what I’ve written? Sheesh.
[/quote]
You have written that we are a less moral people today than we were in times past. Evaluating the morality of a society at one period of time doesn’t just involve listing all the good and bad things that have happened, but somehow comparing those good and bad things to give an overall, total evaluation. Hence it IS about social injustice vs sexual promiscuity, or rather: it’s about whatever the moral failing of one time period are compared to another.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You do not even have a grasp of my earlier post. It’s not about social injustice vs sexual promiscuity. When did I ever say it was? How can you gather that from what I’ve written? Sheesh.
[/quote]
You have written that we are a less moral people today than we were in times past. Evaluating the morality of a society at one period of time doesn’t just involve listing all the good and bad things that have happened, but somehow comparing those good and bad things to give an overall, total evaluation. Hence it IS about social injustice vs sexual promiscuity, or rather: it’s about whatever the moral failing of one time period are compared to another. [/quote]
The moral failing is far more than sexual promiscuity as I clearly stated in my list. You’re trying to frame the debate around those two things and that’s simply inaccurate. When all the data is evaluated the air goes out of your argument like a burst balloon.
Here is the short list that I made - I could have doubled it:
In days gone by there were…
-More children being born into a family with both a mother and a father (MARRIED).
-Lower murder rate
-Less burglaries
-Less armed robberies
-Less rape
-Less drug use (and hence drug related crime)
-Less alcoholism as it’s doubled since 1960 (less people killed by drunk drivers)
-Less teen pregnancy
-Less people on social programs
-No AIDS virus
Now you are either able to demonstrate how things are morally better in the US now as opposed to 50-60 years ago, or you can’t. At this point you can’t. Do you want to try again or just keep repeating your inane argument about sexual promiscuity vs. social injustice?
I am not making some sort of argument about sexual promiscuity vs social injustice. That’s simply a single example. My claim is that if we list all the moral shortcomings of modern society and then list all the moral shorting comings of early twentieth century society and compare those lists, then it is clear that we are far more moral today than we were in the past. My claim is that in the grand scheme of things, the things on the lists you keep coming up with, while bad, are far less bad than the major moral atrocities of the past—e.g. systematic and institutional repression of human rights.
I’ll say it again—I’ll take a society with a few more of the things you listed, bad as they are, then a society where the rights of millions of people are systematically and institutionally repressed.
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
I am not making some sort of argument about sexual promiscuity vs social injustice. That’s simply a single example. My claim is that if we list all the moral shortcomings of modern society and then list all the moral shorting comings of early twentieth century society and compare those lists, then it is clear that we are far more moral today than we were in the past. My claim is that in the grand scheme of things, the things on the lists you keep coming up with, while bad, are far less bad than the major moral atrocities of the past—e.g. systematic and institutional repression of human rights.
I’ll say it again—I’ll take a society with a few more of the things you listed, bad as they are, then a society where the rights of millions of people are systematically and institutionally repressed. [/quote]
I agree oppression is wrong. When we weigh moral wrongs I don’t think either one of us will say that they are “morally right”. Naturally, they’re all wrong. But, as I said, 50-60 years ago was far more morally right than today. And there is a higher rate of oppression today as well, albeit a different kind.
Those things that you dismiss have a lot to do with oppression. It’s just oppression of a different kind. I bet many who live in poverty right now feel oppressed. And there are far more people living at the poverty level than ever before. Those who have become impregnated because they were promiscuous are feeling oppressed. Babies who are ripped from their mothers womb in the name of choice are in fact oppressed. Those who have had their home’s broken into, or held up by gun or knife point, those who have been the victims of a driver who was high or drunk (60,000 people killed yearly on the road). Those who are over taxed, and under respected. Your view is not broad enough my friend. The fact is far more people are being touched by the moral depravity that passes for our society today than ever before. It’s a fact.
As I said many times not everything was better then. But on average it was a morally better time period. And since you cannot refute the list of things (and don’t think it’s important to do so) I stand by my original assertions.
[quote]kamui wrote:
things were not morally perfect decades or centuries ago.
and i don’t know if things are really worst today.
but i’m pretty sure they are at least more complex, more intricate and as such more unsolvable at human scale.
past societies had local problems.
we have global problems now.
and, ceteris paribus, THAT is far worse. [/quote]
The forced relation and enslavement of millions of people (e.g. the transatlantic slave trade, colonization, etc.) don’t count as global problems? They’re local? Local to who? Just what did you mean by `global’?
The forced relation and enslavement of millions of people (e.g. the transatlantic slave trade, colonization, etc.) don’t count as global problems? They’re local? Local to who? Just what did you mean by `global’? [/quote]
There was no “enslavement of millions” in the US 50-60 years ago.
[quote]
The forced relation and enslavement of millions of people (e.g. the transatlantic slave trade, colonization, etc.) don’t count as global problems? They’re local? Local to who? Just what did you mean by `global’? [/quote]
yes, these moral atrocities were obviously local.
the transatlantic slave trade was organized by a few countries and companies and it made the wealth of a few ports.
the vast majority of the europeans, who were paesants back then, didn’t even knew that Africa existed and they barely knew there were black people.
the rural majority of europeans learned about black people in the late 19th century, when public schools became mandatory.
at this point, transatlantic slave trade had already ceased and most of the world had already been colonized.
comparatively, dislocated families is now a global problem.
there is dislocated families in each and every town, each and every social categorie, each and every western country.
The forced relation and enslavement of millions of people (e.g. the transatlantic slave trade, colonization, etc.) don’t count as global problems? They’re local? Local to who? Just what did you mean by `global’? [/quote]
There was no “enslavement of millions” in the US 50-60 years ago.[/quote]
This started out as a discussion about America around the time of the revolution until 50-60 years ago. But don’t worry, claiming that there were no global ethical issues 50-60 years ago is just as silly.
[quote]
The forced relation and enslavement of millions of people (e.g. the transatlantic slave trade, colonization, etc.) don’t count as global problems? They’re local? Local to who? Just what did you mean by `global’? [/quote]
yes, these moral atrocities were obviously local.
the transatlantic slave trade was organized by a few countries and companies and it made the wealth of a few ports.
the vast majority of the europeans, who were paesants back then, didn’t even knew that Africa existed and they barely knew there were black people.
the rural majority of europeans learned about black people in the late 19th century, when public schools became mandatory.
at this point, transatlantic slave trade had already ceased and most of the world had already been colonized.[/quote]
I really don’t know what to say to this.
I think dislocated families, whatever you’re referring to, are an economic issue by and large. What ethical principle are dislocated families violating that makes this essentially a moral issue?
Besides, even if it is, dislocated families'' sound more like a local problem that is found in a lot of places, not a global’’ problem. If by global'' you mean something happening all over the world’’ then obviously there have always been global ethical problems, since, for example, petty violent crime and theft have surely been happening all over the world since the dawn of humanity.
