Has western social morality improved or declined recently?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

avatar6v7
 
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 07:35 pm
@averroes,
respect is in itself a rather modern obsession- it is a virtue certainly, but has only really been maintained because it is such an individualistic one- and consequantly become reduced, stript of its earliar context.
 
averroes
 
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 09:35 am
@Pythagorean,
The thing is that respect is a lot like Man's greed; it's always present, it just depends on where it is directed.
 
Elmud
 
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 02:15 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
Hi, all. Please vote in the poll above: Smile

I was wondering whether you think that the moral condition of the west has improved or declined over the past 20 years or so? If you think it has improved perhaps you could say a few words as to in what way this is so. Also, if you think it has declined maybe you could say why.

Thanks Smile

I have seen a vast improvement in regards to bigotry. Of course, I'm old and have witnessed the times of the Watts riots. We even had a curfew in those days because of the racial tension. I really think that society as a whole is growing up a little relative to this.
 
averroes
 
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 06:29 pm
@Pythagorean,
I will say that society has dramatically improved in terms of civil equality.
:a-thought:I would also like to add that the worst blow to Western civilization is sloth; no one can do a hard day's work anymore, and those who do are never given the full apreciation they deserve. Farmers are a prime example in this case. If you're moving a combine that takes up almost the entire road, people just flip you the bird and try to muscle their way through, no matter how civil you try to be. Between that and the fact that the new get-rich-quick scheme is to sue the clothes off another's back for the smallest things, I almost look forward to America learning its lesson in the not so distant future.
 
Elmud
 
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2009 10:51 pm
@averroes,
averroes wrote:
I will say that society has dramatically improved in terms of civil equality.
:a-thought:I would also like to add that the worst blow to Western civilization is sloth; no one can do a hard day's work anymore, and those who do are never given the full apreciation they deserve. Farmers are a prime example in this case. If you're moving a combine that takes up almost the entire road, people just flip you the bird and try to muscle their way through, no matter how civil you try to be. Between that and the fact that the new get-rich-quick scheme is to sue the clothes off another's back for the smallest things, I almost look forward to America learning its lesson in the not so distant future.

I'd have to agree with you in a partial sense. I've been busting my back for thirty four years and I've noticed that quite a few younger folks cannot or do not want to put in a hard days work. To quote a man in that fine movie "Caddy shack", The world needs ditch diggers too.
 
averroes
 
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 10:04 am
@Pythagorean,
Exactly! These days people assume that if all of the farmers are shut down, they'll still have food to put on the table. The car industry, the computer industry, the real estate industry, none of those matter if everyone is starving in the first place. Sorry if I seem to be ranting, it's just that the more I look at America, the more disappointed I feel.
 
Alexander phil
 
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 03:46 pm
@Pythagorean,
I definately that in this transition period from Christianity towards thinking for ones self morality has improved. However with the invasion of multiculturalism, we have had clashes of opinions more so than we used to have with the old biased NLT laws that governed this country more or less. So it's really hard to say. I think if we had a country full of athiests the morality might still be the same as a country full of christians. I think the only one we don't really want is a country full of islamic ethics.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 06:58 pm
@Alexander phil,
Alexander wrote:
I think the only one we don't really want is a country full of islamic ethics.


What is wrong with an ethic of love and peace?
 
Alexander phil
 
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 09:37 am
@Pythagorean,
Try asking that to someone whos been subject to Sharia law. Oh wait, they're probably dead.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 05:27 pm
@Alexander phil,
As if Sharia Law is universally applied in the same way. You do realize that Sharia Law as seen by the Wahhbis is not the only way Sharia Law is understood?

I watched a documentary a week or so ago about Sharia Law being applied in northern Nigeria. Alongside the French based secular legal system a Kadi, appointed for life by the region's governor, also handles cases. I was impressed, to say the least. In one case a group of young men were accused of stealing by their boss; the test of innocence was for each of the men to plunge their hand into a pot of boiling water to fish out a needle: whoever managed to do so without being burned would be innocent. When the Kadi saw this, the burned and blistered hands, he sent the group, the young men and their boss, immediately to the police. He went on to handle marital problems and trade disputes with an even hand and wisdom.

Before we jump to judge something, knwoledge is always useful.
 
Alexander phil
 
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 04:01 am
@Pythagorean,
Ok I understand that point, but in so many cases that would not detract from the harsh realities of many cases in which people have been persecuted for crimes barely mertiable of that name, in some cases not at all - i.e being gay or a woman.
I admit that this is only applied to its harshest of interpretations in about 20 countries and the rest have a much adapted edition, but to be honest, any laws that stem from a book asking people to go out and fight and kill for allah, and to submit people to islam, is hardely suitable to a country full of capitalists.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 01:21 pm
@Alexander phil,
First: even if you are right about this law and its application to capitalists it is useful to remember that capitalists are a minority in the world, and an even smaller minority in most Muslim nations. Looking around we begin to see that much of the anti-western sentiment in the Muslim world is a reaction against western materialism, which is understood as stemming from western capitalism.

Now, then there is the claim about what that book (the Koran) says. Go out and kill, submit people to Islam. What are the qualifications the book mentions? Does the book command people to go out and kill anyone who is not Muslim and to violently coerce people into being Muslim? Here too, I think we should be mindful that this book can be read and understood in different ways, just as Sharia Law can be read and understood in different ways.
 
Alexander phil
 
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 02:30 pm
@Pythagorean,
It's not how it can be interpretated, but how it is interpretated that counts. I'm not even saying I like capitalists, just in a country full of them, i.e ours, I don't think Sharia law is compatable.

And you make the point that they are the small majority, so it doesn't matter, yes, in their countries they probably don't have it, but none the less the laws that sharia laws express are still unjust to that vast majority that lives there. This is one of my main critisicms of utilitariansm, it doesn't take into account the minorty. With many poor people who are born into Islam families brainwashed into that way of life, it seems like just because it's so big, it can't be wrong. Not the case.

The Evil Sin of Homosexuality :: load-islam

This religion may claim to be peaceful, and I don't doubt that It can be, but only if you "submit" (islam's very name) to their code of conduct. Islam has no place anywhere let alone in this country.


Just read that, rather shocking to see that ten's of thousands of people are a member of that forum.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 02:49 pm
@Alexander phil,
Alexander wrote:
It's not how it can be interpretated, but how it is interpretated that counts.


Right: and sometimes Sharia Law is interpreted in wild and brutal ways, and other times (and far more often) Sharia Law is interpreted in a way that promotes justice.

Alexander wrote:
I'm not even saying I like capitalists, just in a country full of them, i.e ours, I don't think Sharia law is compatable.


You are probably right: Sharia Law probably does not condone capitalism. Just out of curiosity, is there anything in particular about Sharia Law that makes you think this?

Alexander wrote:
And you make the point that they are the small majority, so it doesn't matter, yes, in their countries they probably don't have it, but none the less the laws that sharia laws express are still unjust to that vast majority that lives there. This is one of my main critisicms of utilitariansm, it doesn't take into account the minorty. With many poor people who are born into Islam families brainwashed into that way of life, it seems like just because it's so big, it can't be wrong. Not the case.


Capitalists are a small minority in those places.

When you say that Sharia Law is unjust to the vast majority of people who live there (which I take to mean the Muslim world), how do you know? The Muslim world is large and diverse, and one must also consider the topic throughout history. Christians and Jews have been treated well and brutalized under Sharia Law depending on the period. Depending upon the interpretation.

So, while it is true that Sharia Law may be used to promote injustice, it is also true that Sharia Law can be used to promote justice. We cannot broadly condemn Sharia Law, only Sharia Law when misused.

Alexander wrote:
This religion may claim to be peaceful, and I don't doubt that It can be, but only if you "submit" (islam's very name) to their code of conduct. Islam has no place anywhere let alone in this country.


Islam is to submit to God. Whether or not someone else choses to submit to God does not change the fact that Islam teaches peace. Also, it is worth noting that one can be thought of as having submitted to God without being a Muslim: by definition, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians cannot be infidels because they worship God.

To say that Islam has no place anywhere is a wild claim. Muslims live peacefully in most (probably all) nations of the world. I know Muslims, go to school with them, hang out with a few and not one has ever given me any grief. A good friend of mine is Muslim; peaceful guy, nice fellow.
 
Alexander phil
 
Reply Tue 10 Mar, 2009 01:10 pm
@Pythagorean,
I am not inclined to continue this, since I feel we've reached the point where it is a matter of opinion and not arguement. I think I'm more against any religious doctrine, not specifically Islam. But I say that one with most objection because it is the one that is outwardly most influencial.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2009 05:35 pm
@Alexander phil,
Where is the opinion?

Sharia Law can be interpreted in ways which are perverse and justify brutality, and Sharia Law can also be interpreted in ways that promote social justice and peace. That's not so bad.

Muslims manage to get along with people in all societies, and so Islam certainly has as much place in this world and in our country as any other ideology.

This isn't terribly complicated.

You say that you would object to any religious doctrine: why? Does your own philosophy contradict every religious doctrine known to man? For example, the Bible teaches us not to murder, and I imagine you also oppose murder: if you oppose murder, then there is no reason for you to oppose that particular religious doctrine. Instead, that would be a religious doctrine that one would expect you to promote, even if you are not personally religious.
 
Leonard
 
Reply Sat 30 May, 2009 03:47 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Exactly. Moral standards are much better in comparison to the 1600's, where we had little freedom.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/28/2020 at 06:28:33