Could the fall of morals from the 1960s to now have been avoided?

[RDKirk]

I think the break down in the family unit has led to a break down in communities and society. Government policies have acted against supporting the family unit. Secular worldviews undermine traditional families. When we put money and material wealth above people this will inevitably lead to unethical behavior and problems that break down society.

Actually, financial factors have acted against the family unit as much or more than government actions. Government actions are usually reactions to the consequences of economics.

For instance, a solid family has always been larger than the so-called "nuclear family" of only immediate parents and children. Raising children ideally requires the grandparents, who have time to impart cultural values to children while parents are occupied with earning the living and maintaining the habitat.

When economics began moving single men and women away from their parents, families were more weakened and subject to breakup.

 

[stevevw]

Strictly speaking, that's not true. Suicide rates have been rising since 1999, and are the highest since the 1940s. (Accounting for 14 per 100,000 deaths in 2017.) But the the highest rates ever were during the Great Depression in the 1930s. (Peaking at 21.9 per 100,000 deaths in 1932.) This is assuming these stats are accurate. Regarding suicide especially, there is likely a margin of error.

https://time.com/5609124/us-suicide-rate/

You're correct that social media, and the stress of life in general are involved. But the opioid crisis is also a major factor. And it's difficult, if not impossible, to determine if overdose deaths are intentional or accidental. (Though it's not unreasonable to say that using such drugs illegally is knowingly risking one's life.)

I was mostly speaking about young people as this is the area where most are also moving away from belief and suffering the highest rates of mental health issues. But stats are not the only measure. I think it is a combination of things that are happening that are contributing to the breakdown of society such as the environment, economics, family and community. I think modern life is messing people up with unreal and misleading ideals about life which a lot of young people look to and follow but end up causing more problems.

 

[stevevw]

Actually, financial factors have acted against the family unit as much or more than government actions. Government actions are usually reactions to the consequences of economics.

For instance, a solid family has always been larger than the so-called "nuclear family" of only immediate parents and children. Raising children ideally requires the grandparents, who have time to impart cultural values to children while parents are occupied with earning the living and maintaining the habitat.

When economics began moving single men and women away from their parents, families were more weakened and subject to breakup.

I was thinking more along the lines of traditional families breaking down because of government policies. Policies such as making it easier to get divorced and less support for families staying together have contributed to families breaking up. That's because there is little belief and value that a traditional family is best due to a view that there is no best family structure and families of all shapes and structures are just as good as each other. Yet the research shows that traditional families are bets when it comes to raising children. Considering that the family is the foundation for a stable society this is an important factor in societies breakdown including its morals.

You are right that economics plays a big part but that is often a result of government policies. What they place importance on and how they provide support. For example there is an emphasis on both parents working because of we can no longer support a family with one income. The cost of living has increased and we seem to be working to live rather than living to work. That is the result of government economic policy such as promotion of capitalist ideals and Neo-liberalism. Research shows that children brought up in child care centers suffer because they do not get the attachment bond needed by a close relationship with their parent (mother). A child with a poor attachment is more likely to experience a number of issues as a adolescent and adult which can contribute to moral breakdown.

The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of divorce

 

[Speedwell]

I was thinking more along the lines of traditional families breaking down because of government policies. Policies such as making it easier to get divorced and less support for families staying together have contributed to families breaking up. That's because there is little belief and value that a traditional family is best due to a view that there is no best family structure and families of all shapes and structures are just as good as each other. Yet the research shows that traditional families are bets when it comes to raising children. Considering that the family is the foundation for a stable society this is an important factor in societies breakdown including its morals.

You are right that economics plays a big part but that is often a result of government policies. What they place importance on and how they provide support. For example there is an emphasis on both parents working because of we can no longer support a family with one income. The cost of living has increased and we seem to be working to live rather than living to work. That is the result of government economic policy such as promotion of capitalist ideals and Neo-liberalism. Research shows that children brought up in child care centers suffer because they do not get the attachment bond needed by a close relationship with their parent (mother). A child with a poor attachment is more likely to experience a number of issues as a adolescent and adult which can contribute to moral breakdown.

The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of divorce

One of the most deleterious government policies has been the "no man in the house" rule insisted on by Conservatives as a condition for supporting social safety net legislation.

 

[RDKirk]

I was thinking more along the lines of traditional families breaking down because of government policies. Policies such as making it easier to get divorced and less support for families staying together have contributed to families breaking up. That's because there is little belief and value that a traditional family is best due to a view that there is no best family structure and families of all shapes and structures are just as good as each other. Yet the research shows that traditional families are bets when it comes to raising children. Considering that the family is the foundation for a stable society this is an important factor in societies breakdown including its morals.

Government policies that made it easier for women to get divorces (it was always easy for husbands to divorce their wives) derive from the economic factors that put more women into the workforce.

But there would have been less divorce if the economics had kept parents in the proximity of grandparents. The most deleterious factor of all is the removal of grandparents from close proximity to the children. It's grandparents who carry the culture.

Money always march ahead of government policy.

Scripturally, "love of money" is not the root of all evils because there was no money in the Garden.

"Love of money is the root of all evils" specifically in the case of choosing leaders.

 

[stevevw]

Government policies that made it easier for women to get divorces (it was always easy for husbands to divorce their wives) derive from the economic factors that put more women into the workforce.

But there would have been less divorce if the economics had kept parents in the proximity of grandparents. The most deleterious factor of all is the removal of grandparents from close proximity to the children. It's grandparents who carry the culture.

Money always march ahead of government policy.

Scripturally, "love of money" is not the root of all evils because there was no money in the Garden.

"Love of money is the root of all evils" specifically in the case of choosing leaders.

Most western nations are individualistic and this can be divisive when it comes to family and community. Whereas collective societies which are usually less developed and less capitalistic support and maintain families included extended families where the grandparents are involved in looking after children. But also the children and parents look after the elderly. There is more community support and interaction where members will help each other and ensure the whole group benefits and not just individuals. So there is a greater degree of sacrifice for others whereas in westernized countries it is more about individual achievement and importance sometimes at the expense of others.

 

[stevevw]

One of the most deleterious government policies has been the "no man in the house" rule insisted on by Conservatives as a condition for supporting social safety net legislation.

What is "no man in the house" rule.

 

[Speedwell]

What is "no man in the house" rule.

Man-in-the-House Rule
Welfare's unintended consequences

 

[stevevw]

It is because America was founded as an experiment based on the principles spawned more-or-less from the era of liberal enlightenment to begin with. So ironically, I wonder how that directly started this sort of decline that started in earnest around 60 years ago.

I think enlightenment had its good and bad aspects. It caused people to inquire and ask questions which enabled them to discover. But this also led to modernism where people began to critically challenged things and then some wanted to criticize for the sake of it. Then people challenged everything and today nothing is sacred and tradition is torn down. This can also lead to defiance and rebellion. Now there is no truth and everything is up for being disputed and torn down.

This leaves us with no basis for how we should behave as everything can be rationalized as being relevant and acceptable. This leaves individuals and society as a whole susceptible to any and every idea and those who shout the loudest usually get their view heard the most despite whether it is good or not. It leaves us open to being swayed by radicals and those that don't always have the best of interests for others.

 

[stevevw]

Man-in-the-House Rule
Welfare's unintended consequences

This sounds like some of the policies the LNP conservative government in Australia has brought in over the years. They are designed to target those on welfare so that the government can reduce welfare spending. It is always the most needy and vulnerable that are targeted and usually the children are the ones who suffer the most. People live in poverty and charity organizations are left to help them with food and housing. This is another consequence of economic rationalization part of an ideal that was suppose to spread wealth but has created greater poverty and a small number of wealthy people and corporations.

 

[RDKirk]

Most western nations are individualistic and this can be divisive when it comes to family and community. Whereas collective societies which are usually less developed and less capitalistic support and maintain families included extended families where the grandparents are involved in looking after children. But also the children and parents look after the elderly. There is more community support and interaction where members will help each other and ensure the whole group benefits and not just individuals. So there is a greater degree of sacrifice for others whereas in westernized countries it is more about individual achievement and importance sometimes at the expense of others.

The great lie of individualism with regard to marriage is the lie that marriage is a private matter between the bride and the groom. That's false. The success of a marriage is always a community concern. That's obvious enough in very small communities, but aggregations of failed marriages are damaging even to large societies, when the effects become "statistical" and governments are forced to deal with the mass consequences.

Individualism to the extent of separating grandparents is IMO too much individualism. I would point to that as a reason northern inner cities began to loose moral cohesion even back in the '40s--the young blacks moving north for better jobs did not take their parents with them. For the working class, grandparents are the ones who teach cultural values to the following generation.

 

[dickyh995]

I'm still yet to see a valid argument that there has indeed been a fall of morals, I'm seeing people trying to explain something that doesn't exist. Unless I've missed it? Again, consistent reduction in violent crime, teenage pregnancy, moving closer to equality for all etc. I still don't buy that society is less moral now. Convince me?

 

[Speedwell]

It's about biblical morality, particularly about rules some religions derive from the Bible about sexual behavior--which are being increasingly ignored.

 

[dickyh995]

It's about biblical morality, particularly about rules some religions derive from the Bible about sexual behavior--which are being increasingly ignored.

The OP mentions nothing about biblical morality. Also, what is biblical morality? It can't be about keeping all the commandments along with the associated punishments laid out in the Old testament, at least I hope not. We don't stone people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath or for wearing mixed fabrics, eating shellfish and so on, so which bits of said biblical morality should we be looking at?
Sorry, I see you clarified that it's particularly about sexual behaviour derived from the bible. Perhaps you can help me understand why anything derived from an ancient text should apply to a modern society with all its nuance?

 

[Speedwell]

The OP mentions nothing about biblical morality. Also, what is biblical morality? It can't be about keeping all the commandments along with the associated punishments laid out in the Old testament, at least I hope not. We don't stone people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath or for wearing mixed fabrics, eating shellfish and so on, so which bits of said biblical morality should we be looking at?
Sorry, I see you clarified that it's particularly about sexual behaviour derived from the bible. Perhaps you can help me understand why anything derived from an ancient text should apply to a modern society with all its nuance?

Sorry, I can't help you there. But I am under the impression that the rules in question mostly derive from the New Testament, particularly the letters of St. Paul (see, for example, I Corinthians 6:9-10). In any case, the Levitical laws to which you refer were intended as ritual observances rather than moral precepts.

 

[stevevw]

It's about biblical morality, particularly about rules some religions derive from the Bible about sexual behavior--which are being increasingly ignored.

There is some truth to this as most western nations did place a lot of emphasis on biblical values for their laws and for societies morals. For example marriage was based on the Christian understanding of a man and women committing to each other, in some cases remaining a virgin until marriage and the importance of not committing adultery. Today these values are not held in high regard and hardly practiced.

 

[stevevw]

I'm still yet to see a valid argument that there has indeed been a fall of morals, I'm seeing people trying to explain something that doesn't exist. Unless I've missed it? Again, consistent reduction in violent crime, teenage pregnancy, moving closer to equality for all etc. I still don't buy that society is less moral now. Convince me?

It is not always about crime statistics as morals are not always about breaking the law. It can be for example about increasing inappropriate contentography which is not illegal. It can be about disrespect for parents and authority. It can be about something that people have always done but it has become more severe as a measure of declining morals. For example there may have been some young people that disrespected their teachers or parents throughout history but now this happens more often and they are taking things further by viciously assaulting them and even killing them.

There has always been inappropriate content but now we see inappropriate content as a common thing because of the internet and children are accessing it and acting on it. There may have been child sexual abuse but it was less common and depraved. Now we see organized pedophile rings because of the dark web. The increase in pedophilia is not just because we are exposing it more but because it has become more organized and society is sexualizing children. People may have become angry and got into fights but now we see a level of anger and hatred that causes people to viciously smash people up for no reason or because they are under the influence. This is got to a point where we are shutting down entertainment areas. There is a lot more mental illness where people are doing crazy things.

Even in my lifetime I can see an increase in the level of hate, anger and depravity. When I was young it was rare to hear about a teen pregnancy even counting for improved reporting today. It was rare to have a kid suspended from school or have police being attacked. And when this did happen it was not as severe. Now bad behavior is at the crazy level of behaving badly. I would say this is to do with people now having little respect for rules, laws and authority because they think that there is no rules and laws that apply to them and they have a right to do what they want.

 

[RDKirk]

I was thinking more along the lines of traditional families breaking down because of government policies. Policies such as making it easier to get divorced and less support for families staying together have contributed to families breaking up. That's because there is little belief and value that a traditional family is best due to a view that there is no best family structure and families of all shapes and structures are just as good as each other. Yet the research shows that traditional families are bets when it comes to raising children. Considering that the family is the foundation for a stable society this is an important factor in societies breakdown including its morals.

You are right that economics plays a big part but that is often a result of government policies. What they place importance on and how they provide support. For example there is an emphasis on both parents working because of we can no longer support a family with one income. The cost of living has increased and we seem to be working to live rather than living to work. That is the result of government economic policy such as promotion of capitalist ideals and Neo-liberalism. Research shows that children brought up in child care centers suffer because they do not get the attachment bond needed by a close relationship with their parent (mother). A child with a poor attachment is more likely to experience a number of issues as a adolescent and adult which can contribute to moral breakdown.

The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of divorce

Government policies do not cause but a very tiny percentage of divorces. Government polices allow divorce more readily--particularly divorces for women--but you're talking about a marriage that was already on the rocks.

The more significant issue is to discover and rectify why those marriages are on the rocks.

 

[stevevw]

Government policies do not cause but a very tiny percentage of divorces. Government polices allow divorce more readily--particularly divorces for women--but you're talking about a marriage that was already on the rocks.

The more significant issue is to discover and rectify why those marriages are on the rocks.

I agree that the reasons why a marriage is deteriorating are important as to why they end. But I think the government can also help minimize this by putting in place supports such as relationship counseling, family therapy and practical help with elevating the stress that couples and families experience. Many relationships break down because of financial stress for example. But governments have reduced support and leave it up to charities who find it hard to keep up with the increasing problems people face today.

There is little social capital in today's communities where there are networks of support that help people through the hard times and make them more resilient. Family breakdown affects neighborhoods where children are more susceptible to being led astray and getting into trouble. They get influenced by negative role models and this continues the problems onto the next generation.

 

[RDKirk]

I agree that the reasons why a marriage is deteriorating are important as to why they end. But I think the government can also help minimize this by putting in place supports such as relationship counseling, family therapy and practical help with elevating the stress that couples and families experience. Many relationships break down because of financial stress for example. But governments have reduced support and leave it up to charities who find it hard to keep up with the increasing problems people face today.

There is little social capital in today's communities where there are networks of support that help people through the hard times and make them more resilient. Family breakdown affects neighborhoods where children are more susceptible to being led astray and getting into trouble. They get influenced by negative role models and this continues the problems onto the next generation.

Grandparents.