The Changing Moral Landscape

[KCfromNC]

We can group the items. One grouping being sexual items. Then try to date them. My hunch is that a pattern would emerge among the sexual items, with contraception being the first in that group to change. Then divorce. Then abortion and pornography. Then homosexuality.

Except that acceptance of some of these things aren't exactly linear.

The meta-reason for these changes would be an increase in selfishness, narcisism, the self over the community, whatever.

I think that's quite a stretch. Or if it isn't, you'd have to account for how an increase in religious freedom over the same time period isn't caused by the same thing.

But they would feed off each other. Like abortion does feed off contraception, because once one begins to say 'no' to a baby by contracepting, they continue to say 'no' by aborting their 'mistakes'. We had a so called 'sexual revolution' in the 1960's but the real revolution is happening now with every traditional moral mooring being swept aside. In comparison the 1960's was only the tickling of some fancies.

Doesn't forget to include a discussion of how these things were used as political tools to get poor and middle-class people to vote against their best economic interests.

 

[KCfromNC]

Is that part of a general decrease in formality, overall?

This gets back to my idea of people confusion fashion preference with morality. Or perhaps it is evidence that morality is mostly just opinion like that? Or that some groups feel that using "it's immoral" as a stick is effective, while maybe it is another reason why their moral authority has declined vs. other views of moral behavior?

 

[RDKirk]

You do realise that this sounds like some kind of weird conspiracy theory?

What does this 'cultural gang do? What's its purpose?


OK
There's:

The Cultural Gang
and
The Real Christians​

As far as I can see it's the Real Christians causing the problem. These are also the same Real Christians we have in this country who are also causing the problem - unless the US Cultural Gang has infiltrated Australia and taken control.
OB

When I was a kid in the late 50s in Oklahoma--a very short time after the murder of Emmett Till, still before the bombing of the church in Alabama that killed four little girls, in a time when a member of the WASP gang could kill a black child or rape a black woman with absolute immunity from any social consequences, my mother took me to see the annual community parade.

You've seen community parades, I'm sure. They are the explicit spectacle of what a community prizes of its ethnic and social culture.

My youngest aunt was in high school and played clarinet in the Booker T Washington High School marching band. As the town high school band marched by, I strained to see my aunt, but I could not see her.

At the time, I hadn't quite grasped what "race" meant. I don't think I noticed that none of those people were black and that my aunt did not--was not permitted to--attend that high school, nor did I conceptualize that neither Booker T Washington High School nor anyone black was even in the parade. Yet too young to notice and conceptualize such things.

I asked my mother, "Where is Aunt Faith?"

She said, "We are't allowed to be in their parade."

Let me repeat: A community parade is the explicit spectacle of what a community prizes of its ethnic and social culture. They had their annual Wheat Queen and her entourage...but not a single black person. It was a parade of the WASP gang.

What's throwing you is that I'm using the term "gang" in an unexpected context, but the WASP gang in America has always operated exactly as any other gang. Exactly as the Crips and Bloods and MS 13, exactly as the Mafia. When you're a socially obedient member of the gang, your life is gravy. If you're outside of the gang, or you betray the gang, they turn on you. When the gang is in complete control of the community, life can be quiet, even tranquil. The WASP gang has not been any different from the rest.

Let's say a gang adopts a sign of recognition. They post their gang sign throughout their territory, and they invoke it whenever they meet. When they invade new territory, they "tag" it with their gang sign.

Now, this gang sign might actually have had a different original meaning. There might be some people who remember its original meaning. But now the gang has adopted it and uses it for their own purposes, and most new people only know it as the sign for that gang.

As it is written, "The Gentiles blaspheme my name because of you." -- Romans 2

 

[RDKirk]

This gets back to my idea of people confusion fashion preference with morality. Or perhaps it is evidence that morality is mostly just opinion like that? Or that some groups feel that using "it's immoral" as a stick is effective, while maybe it is another reason why their moral authority has declined vs. other views of moral behavior?

I was taught a distinction between "morality" and "ethics" based on their etymologies.

"Morality" are the rules and traditions of the community. They may or may not have a rational basis--probably a mix of traditions born of hard-learned environmental lessons plus the personal prerogatives of those who have held social power over time. A community's social mores simply are what they have come to be.

Ethics, OTOH, is a specific rationalized system of behavior in which a goal--an "end good" has been rationally determined and each action toward that end good is rationally conceived. A set of rules for known situations may be spawned from an ethical system, but the real purpose of the ethical system is to logically calculate the "right action" in situations for which there is no rule.

 

[Occams Barber]

When I was a kid in the late 50s in Oklahoma--a very short time after the murder of Emmett Till, still before the bombing of the church in Alabama that killed four little girls, in a time when a member of the WASP gang could kill a black child or rape a black woman with absolute immunity from any social consequences, my mother took me to see the annual community parade.

You've seen community parades, I'm sure. They are the explicit spectacle of what a community prizes of its ethnic and social culture.

My youngest aunt was in high school and played clarinet in the Booker T Washington High School marching band. As the town high school band marched by, I strained to see my aunt, but I could not see her.

At the time, I hadn't quite grasped what "race" meant. I don't think I noticed that none of those people were black and that my aunt did not--was not permitted to--attend that high school, nor did I conceptualize that neither Booker T Washington High School nor anyone black was even in the parade. Yet too young to notice and conceptualize such things.

I asked my mother, "Where is Aunt Faith?"

She said, "We are't allowed to be in their parade."

Let me repeat: A community parade is the explicit spectacle of what a community prizes of its ethnic and social culture. They had their annual Wheat Queen and her entourage...but not a single black person. It was a parade of the WASP gang.

What's throwing you is that I'm using the term "gang" in an unexpected context, but the WASP gang in America has always operated exactly as any other gang. Exactly as the Crips and Bloods and MS 13, exactly as the Mafia. When you're a socially obedient member of the gang, your life is gravy. If you're outside of the gang, or you betray the gang, they turn on you. When the gang is in complete control of the community, life can be quiet, even tranquil. The WASP gang has not been any different from the rest.

Let's say a gang adopts a sign of recognition. They post their gang sign throughout their territory, and they invoke it whenever they meet. When they invade new territory, they "tag" it with their gang sign.

Now, this gang sign might actually have had a different original meaning. There might be some people who remember its original meaning. But now the gang has adopted it and uses it for their own purposes, and most new people only know it as the sign for that gang.

As it is written, "The Gentiles blaspheme my name because of you." -- Romans 2

RD -Thanks for this post.

I’m a white, non Christian, older male and I live in a culture which I suspect is more different to America than either of us realise. It’s particularly difficult for me to imagine the experience of black people in America. While I’ve read the books and seen the stories, your post made the experience of discrimination a little more real. Thank you.

You know and understand far more than I do about the degree to which this discrimination is embedded in your society and how it plays out. The difficulty I’m having is understanding how this relates to my comments about Christianity in general being morally lost. When I wrote those comments (Post #92) I didn’t have any particular country in mind. The comments apply to any Western, Christianised country although the US, as the biggest Christian country is a significant player. Nor was I aware of any racial dimension to the issues I was talking about.

As an example; I talked about gender discrimination in employment within Christian churches. Most of Christianity tends to be male dominated and strongly patriarchal- women are usually excluded from the ranks of priests, pastors, bishops etc. This applies across all Christian nations and isn’t, as far as know, specific to any race. I also talked about failure to report/deal with child abuse - a problem within the Catholic Church in many countries. Again, I have trouble relating this specifically to the US or seeing a link to racial issues.

If I’ve misunderstood you, I apologise, but I’m having real difficulty understanding the linkage between my post on the generally parlous state of Christian morality and your interpretation of it in an American context.

OB

 

[hedrick]

It's pretty clear that the thing underlying this thread -- the divergence between (a large chunk of) Christian morals and generally accepted morals -- is really focused on gender and sex. Evangelicals in the US have recently been showing a number of odd social positions. But through most of Church history, and today among Catholics and many Protestants, moral positions outside gender and sex have been pretty similar to the best non-Christian positions.

If you look at survey results from the US, there's a pretty even split among Christians on the usual gender / sexual issues. I think in Europe, the difference between Christian and non-Christian morals is even smaller. However Catholics in both areas have a special problem: their commitment to tradition and their governance model don't permit their official positions to reflect what even their own ethical thinkers believe, and what their people believe.

 

[Occams Barber]

It's pretty clear that the thing underlying this thread -- the divergence between (a large chunk of) Christian morals and generally accepted morals -- is really focused on gender and sex. Evangelicals in the US have recently been showing a number of odd social positions. But through most of Church history, and today among Catholics and many Protestants, moral positions outside gender and sex have been pretty similar to the best non-Christian positions.

As I mentioned in an earlier post I'll probably go through the list and see where society and Christianity have parted company. Like you I suspect that anything based on sex or gender issues will have diverged. One of the problems Christianity has when it comes to moral justification is that' while it will declare something as immoral, as far as a I know, it never (Biblically) explains 'why' apart from 'God said so'. If there is a 'why' it's usually a secular explanation. With new knowledge or attitudes or technology these secular reasons can disappear leaving a bald Biblical assertion as the only reason. In a society where backing up your assertions is expected Christianity is often looking a bit lost.

If you look at survey results from the US, there's a pretty even split among Christians on the usual gender / sexual issues. I think in Europe, the difference between Christian and non-Christian morals is even smaller. However Catholics in both areas have a special problem: their commitment to tradition and their governance model don't permit their official positions to reflect what even their own ethical thinkers believe, and what their people believe.

The US is normally regarded as the most Christian of the (Western) Christian nations. If this is the case I would expect Europeans to be less moral, in the Christian sense, when compared to Americans.

The Catholic Church seems to be getting into significant difficulties given the child abuse problem and criticism of the current Pope. This can only weaken the Church's hold on moral authority.
OB

 

[hedrick]

One of the problems Christianity has when it comes to moral justification is that' while it will declare something as immoral, as far as a I know, it never (Biblically) explains 'why' apart from 'God said so'. If there is a 'why' it's usually a secular explanation.

Part of that is that the Biblical evidence is pretty thin. Non-existent in some areas. The main exception is 1 Tim 2:14, but no one is prepared to use that justification today. Attitudes developed very early, but primarily post-Biblical.

If you look at the history of attitudes on sex, many of them actually did make sense in the Roman context, and were pro-woman there.

 

[RDKirk]

RD -Thanks for this post.

I’m a white, non Christian, older male and I live in a culture which I suspect is more different to America than either of us realise. It’s particularly difficult for me to imagine the experience of black people in America. While I’ve read the books and seen the stories, your post made the experience of discrimination a little more real. Thank you.

You know and understand far more than I do about the degree to which this discrimination is embedded in your society and how it plays out. The difficulty I’m having is understanding how this relates to my comments about Christianity in general being morally lost. When I wrote those comments (Post #92) I didn’t have any particular country in mind. The comments apply to any Western, Christianised country although the US, as the biggest Christian country is a significant player. Nor was I aware of any racial dimension to the issues I was talking about.

As an example; I talked about gender discrimination in employment within Christian churches. Most of Christianity tends to be male dominated and strongly patriarchal- women are usually excluded from the ranks of priests, pastors, bishops etc. This applies across all Christian nations and isn’t, as far as know, specific to any race. I also talked about failure to report/deal with child abuse - a problem within the Catholic Church in many countries. Again, I have trouble relating this specifically to the US or seeing a link to racial issues.

If I’ve misunderstood you, I apologise, but I’m having real difficulty understanding the linkage between my post on the generally parlous state of Christian morality and your interpretation of it in an American context.

OB

I talk about segregation because when I was young, segregation was a morality issue for the WASP gang. Preventing integration was just as much a matter of basic morality as preventing homosexuality. They preached it from church pulpits.

 

[Tone]

Technological revolution. Acceptance of scientific methodology.

At one point, some of the things we take for granted were associated with sorcery (drugs) and magic.

--Pharmaceuticals

--Chemistry

Exs. gmo's and AI

 

[stevevw]

The Changing Moral Landscape

Morality as defined by the Oxford Dictionary :

1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
2. A particular system of values and principles of conduct.
3. The extent to which an action is right or wrong.

A couple of days ago I was thinking about the range of significant moral changes which have taken place within Western, nominally Christian, society over time. I started to make a list of changes, but it became obvious that “moral change” was a slippery concept. At first, I went looking for things which were once seen as wrong which are now seen as right (or vice versa) but soon realised that this was an oversimplification.

While a specific behaviour can shift between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ it can also become (or cease to be) morally ‘neutral’. There are degrees of rightness or wrongness allowing for a shift from (say) absolutely wrong to trivially wrong. There can be shifts where a behaviour becomes acceptable (or unacceptable) in certain circumstances. A behaviour can be seen as wrong in secular society but right according to Christian morality. Some moral shifts are works in progress while others are, more or less, settled. Moral issues can shift from being definitely ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ to ‘unresolved’.

Armed with this new appreciation I managed to list around 20 instances of ‘moral change’. I’m sure there are many more.

• Bearing in mind the range of possible states covered by ‘moral shift’, can you add any items to the list I’ve started (see below)?

I’m looking for things which have noticeably changed their status within the continuum of ‘morality’.​

• Can you see any patterns within the list?

For example: Are there common factors between types of behaviour which are gaining/losing moral ground? ‘Common factors’ might include things like new knowledge, ideological shifts or technological advances. Is there a direction to change?​

The ’Moral Change’ list - so far:

• Unwed motherhood
  
• Sex outside of marriage
  
• Homosexuality
  
• Allowable killing
  
• Same sex marriage
  
• Same sex parenting
  
• Working mothers
  
• Slavery
  
• Masturbation
  
• Treatment of non-combatants (in warfare)
  
• Racial discrimination
  
• Gender discrimination
  
• Religious discrimination
  
• Transgenderism
  
• Colonialism
  
• Freedom of Religion
  
• White superiority
  
• Anti-Semitism
  
• Abortion
  
• Capital punishment in general
  
• Specific forms of capital punishment (burning, beheading, drawing)
  
• Euthanasia/assisted suicide
  
• Child marriage
  
• Age of consent
  
• ?

EDIT- the following red entries added as a result of Poster suggestions

• Divorce
  
• Pornography
  
• Drug and alcohol usage
  
• Contraception
  
• Crime and punishment
• Modesty in dress
• Animal Rights
• Environmental Protection
• Divine Right of Kings
• Children's Rights
• Spousal (wife) status/rights
• Equal Pay for Women
• Age Discrimination
• Disability Discrimination
• Principle of Informed Consent
• Rape in Marriage
• Usury

Groupings?

• Sexual Issues
• Gender
• Discrimination

A Plea
I know that many of you have strong opinions about morality. This thread is intended as a reasoned discussion of moral change. Please don’t use it as a Forum for arguing the (im)morality of certain behaviours, groups or individuals.

OB

There is an assumption that the moral changes are moral. There may be a case to say that many of these changes can be measured and shown to be immoral so just because a moral changes does not mean it is moral. For example rape in marriage can be shown to be immoral regardless of what the individual says.

 

[Occams Barber]

There is an assumption that the moral changes are moral. There may be a case to say that many of these changes can be measured and shown to be immoral so just because a moral changes does not mean it is moral. For example rape in marriage can be shown to be immoral regardless of what the individual says.

I think you may have missed the point about rape in marriage. There was a time when forcing a partner (usually female) to have sex within a marital relationship was acceptable behaviour. This has now changed.

You are also confusing the term 'morality' with the specifics of 'Christian morality'. Christianity does not own the term 'moral'. To Christians, 'moral' means in accordance with Christian standards as defined by scripture, Christian tradition etc.. This definition may conflict with a broader societal definition of morality. As an example: Christianity sees homosexual behaviour as immoral. In broader society homosexual behaviour has generally become morally neutral.

Whether you like it or not, 'morality' is relative to the standards of a given group or society. Christian morality is just one of many versions of morality.
OB

 

[RDKirk]

Whether you like it or not, 'morality' is relative to the standards of a given group or society. Christian morality is just one of many versions of morality.
OB

I see clarity in going back to the etymology of the words.

"Moral" originally denoted the customs of the group. Those customs might have been originally rationally derived...or they could just as well have originally been the personal proclivities of a group authority figure. Most often, they will be a mixture of both. But the "morality" of a tribe, community, or nation simply is what it is, regardless how it developed.

This is compared to "ethics" which by definition is always rationally developed, deliberately adopted by a person, and rationally pursued pursued by that person.

It's entirely possible to be both ethical and immoral--true to one's own ethics and in opposition to the morals of the community. It's also possible to be moral and unethical.

 

[stevevw]

I think you may have missed the point about rape in marriage. There was a time when forcing a partner (usually female) to have sex within a marital relationship was acceptable behaviour. This has now changed.

You are also confusing the term 'morality' with the specifics of 'Christian morality'. Christianity does not own the term 'moral'. To Christians, 'moral' means in accordance with Christian standards as defined by scripture, Christian tradition etc.. This definition may conflict with a broader societal definition of morality. As an example: Christianity sees homosexual behaviour as immoral. In broader society homosexual behaviour has generally become morally neutral.

Whether you like it or not, 'morality' is relative to the standards of a given group or society. Christian morality is just one of many versions of morality.
OB

OK I see, I thought it was about moral relativity. I was just saying that just because a society may think something is right at any given time does not actually mean it was ultimately right. But I agree as far as secular society goes the perception of right and wrong has changed.

 

[Occams Barber]

OK I see, I thought it was about moral relativity.

No problems. I was trying to build a list of significant moral shifts within Western, nominally Christian societies.

But I agree as far as secular society goes the perception of right and wrong has changed.

Has Christianity never changed it's perception of right and wrong?

I was just saying that just because a society may think something is right at any given time does not actually mean it was ultimately right.

How do we decide if a particular moral behaviour is 'ultimately right'?
OB

 

[stevevw]

Has Christianity never changed it's perception of right and wrong?

Humans have but I don't think Christian belief or morals itself has.

How do we decide if a particular moral behaviour is 'ultimately right'?

I guess you have to measure it in some way. Like the example of abusing a child for fun. Regardless of what people think it can be shown to be wrong. I don't think anyone can come up with a reason why this is right. But I also think we can use science to determine if a act is morally wrong. For example raping someone can be shown to be wrong no matter how a person tries to justify it. The science shows that rape is a violation. It physically and psychologically harms a person. The medical and psychological evidence is there to be seen with how trauma affects people and has been evidenced in journals like the DSM5 for diagnosing mental problems and with medical journals on the physical damage.

So no matter whether a person tries to claim that the act of rape is justified and OK according to their belief it can be objectively shown to harm human well being which has been established as not good for humans. So I guess people/society can change on what they think is right and wrong but that may not mean much if it can be shown to not actually be objectively good. So someone saying it is morally OK to rape we could say no it is not, that is immoral and therefore that moral has not changed despite people thinking it has.

 

[pc_76]

I believe the reason why these are naturally moral is that it historically led to better outcomes that overall lifted all boats in society so to speak.

 

[Occams Barber]

I believe the reason why these are naturally moral is that it historically led to better outcomes that overall lifted all boats in society so to speak.

If you go back far enough the roots of morality are evolutionary.

Several million years ago our pre-human ancestors adopted living in groups as a survival strategy. This strategy is very common and has been adopted by groups as diverse as grazing animals (antelopes, giraffes, elephants etc.), marine mammals (dolphins, seals etc.), birds (penguins and flocking birds) and insects (ants, bees, termites etc.)

Group living doesn’t just happen. To live as a group requires that animals cooperate and act in ways which foster group survival and success. As a group-living habit is established, groups and individuals whose actions are not consistent with group living will tend to be less successful, i.e., have less offspring.

This means that genetically transmitted behaviour which is inconsistent with group survival, will be gradually minimised. This is Natural Selection at work. To succeed as a group, its members must follow a set of unwritten rules which determine right and wrong behaviours. This is effectively a simplified, and largely unconscious, form of morality.

From here on cultural transmission, along with conscious beliefs about cause and effect relationships, starts to take over and morality gets a lot more complex.
OB

 

[SkyWriting]

"Mass incarceration is, predominantly, black incarceration. Black people are nearly six times as likely to be incarcerated as white people, and nearly three times as likely to be incarcerated as their Latino counterparts.

Why? A review of the research by the Sentencing Project concluded that higher crime rates in black communities explained about 61 to 80 percent of black overrepresentation in prisons. This means that other factors, such as racial bias or past criminal records influencing prison sentences, were behind as much as 39 percent of the disparate rates of imprisonment for black people."
https://www.vox.com/2015/7/13/8913297/mass-incarceration-maps-charts

It has to do with sitting down and shutting up.
It has to due with submitting to authority.
It has to due with following the whims of civilized law.
Whites europeans are better at this.

 

[Pope66]

It has to do with sitting down and shutting up.
It has to due with submitting to authority.
It has to due with following the whims of civilized law.
Whites europeans are better at this.

Well Blacks are more likely to be in poverty than Whites and there is a much larger proportion of people that are poor in prisons than those who were wealthy.

That the same as Australia as Aborigines who are the poorest ethnic group have a significantly higher prison rate than Whites.