The Fall of the West (It's Happening Now)

[Bradskii]

I feel like I have missed something. Whatever you have explained time and time again I don't get. Maybe that's the dichotomy. Let me clarify your position on this. You don't support objective morality or moral truths or moral realism of any sort. Is that right.

We're 360 posts into a thread about morality. Please don't tell me that you don't understand my position. That cannot be possible...

 

[stevevw]

We're 360 posts into a thread about morality. Please don't tell me that you don't understand my position. That cannot be possible...

Actually I came in a bit later and as far as I can see the definition of morality has only come up in the last part of this thread. It may have been discussed earlier before I came in but as I mentioned a few posts back I thought this thread would inevitably end up arguing about whether morality is subjective or objective and not whether Western morals have declined or not.

That's because you can't have a debate about moral decline unless there is some agreement about what morality is. That is why we cannot get anywhere because we have a fundamental different belief about the definition of morality.

I hear those who support subjective morality say morals have improved in some ways, or have stayed the same more or less. From memory either you or Hans asked if we are going to measure Moral decline we need to compare it to another period. But how is that possible if there is no agreement about what morality is in the first place to measure it.

I think I understand your position on what morality is or perhaps isn't which is not being objective, truthful or factual in the world outside subjects. I happen to disagree. But I don't think understanding each others position is the issue. I think its because we cannot have any coherent discussion without any agreement on what morality is. Nor can anyone else as far as I understand.

 

[timothyu]

Set up billboards around the world saying God is coming to take away governance of man by man and His will will be done and see the reactions.

 

[Bradskii]

That's because you can't have a debate about moral decline unless there is some agreement about what morality is.

From the op:
'We have mass shootings, abortion, an LGBTQ+ agenda, a decline of Christianity, and only about 6% of people in the US hold a Biblical worldview (which drops to 2% for Gen Z). While you could make the case that other nations around the world are more unchristian (Japan, for example, where there are only 1% of Christians in the population including cults and anything even resembling Christianity), I say what I say due to such a rapid drop away from Christianity in the US. It is how fast we are declining that I say this. We are entering a state of spiritual blindness in the US.

It's time for millennials to make the change we need to make as a society. This can only be done by God. The US is in a very sad state. Liberalism is rampant. Philosophers are knowingly trying to change the definition of words (such as questions of gender). If you are a Christian, you must speak out against the secular society, get on your knees and pray for revival.'

There you have it. Apart from the reference to shootings, it's one long complaint about the lack of influence that Christianity has.

Pick the bones out of that...

 

[stevevw]

From the op:
'We have mass shootings, abortion, an LGBTQ+ agenda, a decline of Christianity, and only about 6% of people in the US hold a Biblical worldview (which drops to 2% for Gen Z). While you could make the case that other nations around the world are more unchristian (Japan, for example, where there are only 1% of Christians in the population including cults and anything even resembling Christianity), I say what I say due to such a rapid drop away from Christianity in the US. It is how fast we are declining that I say this. We are entering a state of spiritual blindness in the US.

It's time for millennials to make the change we need to make as a society. This can only be done by God. The US is in a very sad state. Liberalism is rampant. Philosophers are knowingly trying to change the definition of words (such as questions of gender). If you are a Christian, you must speak out against the secular society, get on your knees and pray for revival.'

There you have it. Apart from the reference to shootings, it's one long complaint about the lack of influence that Christianity has.

Pick the bones out of that...

Not sure what your point is to what I mentioned about not being able to have a coherent debate about whether morals have declined or not because there is no agreement about what morality means or what basis we should use to measure morality.

The original poster is more concerned than I think complaining about a decline in Christian belief because that is the basis or standard for him and other Christians to measure morality. So obviously a move away from Christianity equates to a decline in morals.

Obviously non Christians will disagree. So the question is what independent standard do non Christians use to measure morality. Without some consensus on how we measure moral decline ort not or what morality is I cannot see a way forward.

 

[Bradskii]

So the question is what independent standard do non Christians use to measure morality. Without some consensus on how we measure moral decline ort not or what morality is I cannot see a way forward.

You give examples. We compare what is being done now with what was happening previously. The standard is what happened before. Has it improved or declined? This really isn't difficult. Allow me to kick off:

Once we had slavery. Now we don't. So that's an improvement.
Once being homosexual was illegal. Now it's not. So that's an improvement.

Feel free to extend that list.

 

[timothyu]

People are bickering over the wrong system, a world man has made in our own image.

 

[FireDragon76]

Actually I came in a bit later and as far as I can see the definition of morality has only come up in the last part of this thread. It may have been discussed earlier before I came in but as I mentioned a few posts back I thought this thread would inevitably end up arguing about whether morality is subjective or objective and not whether Western morals have declined or not.

That's because you can't have a debate about moral decline unless there is some agreement about what morality is. That is why we cannot get anywhere because we have a fundamental different belief about the definition of morality.

I hear those who support subjective morality say morals have improved in some ways, or have stayed the same more or less. From memory either you or Hans asked if we are going to measure Moral decline we need to compare it to another period. But how is that possible if there is no agreement about what morality is in the first place to measure it.

I think I understand your position on what morality is or perhaps isn't which is not being objective, truthful or factual in the world outside subjects. I happen to disagree. But I don't think understanding each others position is the issue. I think its because we cannot have any coherent discussion without any agreement on what morality is. Nor can anyone else as far as I understand.

You're presenting a false dilemma. "Moral subjectivism" and moral absolutism aren't the only choices.

 

[stevevw]

You give examples. We compare what is being done now with what was happening previously. The standard is what happened before. Has it improved or declined? This really isn't difficult. Allow me to kick off:

Once we had slavery. Now we don't. So that's an improvement.
Once being homosexual was illegal. Now it's not. So that's an improvement.

Feel free to extend that list.

The question would follow as to what is your basis for measuring that slavery and homosexuality were once immoral.

 

[stevevw]

You're presenting a false dilemma. "Moral subjectivism" and moral absolutism aren't the only choices.

Can you elaborate on this as I am not sure what you mean.

 

[Bradskii]

The question would follow as to what is your basis for measuring that slavery and homosexuality were once immoral.

As to the first I am sure it is would be the same as yours. As to the second, making it it illegal was immoral.

 

[stevevw]

As to the first I am sure it is would be the same as yours. As to the second, making it it illegal was immoral.

Ok what reason makes slavery and discrimination against homosexuality immoral. What if I or anyone else has a different basis for their moral position than yours. Does that make them morally wrong. Say for example what if someone believes homosexuality is immoral. Does that make them wrong compared to your moral position supporting homosexuality as moral.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok what reason makes slavery...immoral. What if I or anyone else has a different basis for their moral position than yours.

Let's hear an argument from you for slavery and we'll see what happens. I say it's immoral. What arguments could you suggest that it's not.

 

[stevevw]

Let's hear an argument from you for slavery and we'll see what happens. I say it's immoral. What arguments could you suggest that it's not.

That will be a bit hard as I agree that slavery is immoral. But if you are a moral subjectivist I would ask if your claim that slavery is immoral is just your personal opinion. If you noticed you asserted that "I say its immoral". You are merely expressing a personal opinion which carries no weight to support your claim that slavery is immoral.

I would first try to get some agreement on what we can use as an independent measure of what behavior is right and wrong rather than having a discussion about our personal opinions which inevitably will get no where.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That will be a bit hard as I agree that slavery is immoral. But if you are a moral subjectivist I would ask if your claim that slavery is immoral is just your personal opinion. If you noticed you asserted that "I say its immoral". You are merely expressing a personal opinion which carries no weight to support your claim that slavery is immoral.

I would first try to get some agreement on what we can use as an independent measure of what behavior is right and wrong rather than having a discussion about our personal opinions which inevitably will get no where.

Since you can't make the argument slavery is moral (and good for you), why not try to argue that slavery is wrong. Can you do that? It is a position you claim to hold. Then we can discuss whether your reasoning is subjective or objective.

 

[stevevw]

Since you can't make the argument slavery is moral (and good for you), why not try to argue that slavery is wrong. Can you do that? It is a position you claim to hold. Then we can discuss whether your reasoning is subjective or objective.

I'm not trying to argue that slavery is moral as I think its immoral because it harms humans. We could come up with different reasons why that is the case such as psychologically damaging not just for the individual but society as it diminishes respect and value for human life. Biologically it threatens our species as it is self destructive. Physically because it damages and disables bodies.

Constitutionally because it denies our natural rights to liberty and freedom and it denies human rights such as the right not to be tortured or unjustly detained and the right to free speech, self expression. Basically it denies a human their full potential to flourish.

It goes against our own psyche in that we naturally (intuitively) know that unjustly denying another the right to life as we experience it is not good because we can empathize how that would be. So doing such an act to others causes the perpetrator psychological harm as well. It takes a pathological mindset to impose slavery and that's not a good state of being for those who are running our society and for society itself.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not trying to argue that slavery is moral as I think its immoral because it harms humans.

And I didn't ask you to argue that.

You seem to be under the impression that some moral positions are objective and some subjective. In particular that you have objective reasons for your moral positions. So a couple questions:

Is you position that slavery is immoral an objective or subjective position?

From either, how do you justify you position that slavery is immoral?

Thanks.

 

[Neutral Observer]

Since you can't make the argument slavery is moral

I'm willing to take a shot at it. I personally believe that the morality of slavery is relative. It's quite possible to have a place and time in which slavery is actually beneficial to society as a whole, because it allows society to survive, to adapt, and to grow. We may sometimes forget that social structures didn't just pop into existence whole and complete, they had to emerge piece by piece within a variety of socioeconomic backdrops and upheavals. That's not always going to be an idyllic process. It may involve steps that more 'mature' cultures may find objectionable. But I do believe that it's naive to label parts of that process as being immoral, based upon what we the benefactors of that process currently deem to be morally acceptable.

I don't think that we have any more claim to the moral high ground than any other point in history, be it the 1800's with its views on slavery, or the 1900's with its views on homosexuality. Or the 2000's with its barbarous slaughter of billions of defenseless animals to satiate our desire for meat.

Now there may in fact be an 'ideal' society to which we're optimistically headed, but in the meantime perhaps we should try to avoid being the proverbial pot and kettle.

It's always tempting to judge others by one's own personal moral standards, but we really should be more mindful of just who we are and where we came from. Slavery needn't have always been immoral. Just as slaughtering animals for food may not always be acceptable.

Times change. Morals do too.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm willing to take a shot at it.

I didn't actually want one. I just want Steve to make an argument for a moral position and discuss its objectivity. Slavery, frankly, is a good one since virtually everyone here agrees that it is immoral. So lets see the reasoning behind that.

I personally believe that the morality of slavery is relative. It's quite possible to have a place and time in which slavery is actually beneficial to society as a whole, because it allows society to survive, to adapt, and to grow. We may sometimes forget that social structures didn't just pop into existence whole and complete, they had to emerge piece by piece within a variety of socioeconomic backdrops and upheavals. That's not always going to be an idyllic process. It may involve steps that more 'mature' cultures may find objectionable. But I do believe that it's naive to label parts of that process as being immoral, based upon what we the benefactors of that process currently deem to be morally acceptable.

Not gonna comment on the above.

I don't think that we have any more claim to the moral high ground than any other point in history, be it the 1800's with its views on slavery, or the 1900's with its views on homosexuality. Or the 2000's with its barbarous slaughter of billions of defenseless animals to satiate our desire for meat.

Now there may in fact be an 'ideal' society to which we're optimistically headed, but in the meantime perhaps we should try to avoid being the proverbial pot and kettle.

It's always tempting to judge others by one's own personal moral standards, but we really should be more mindful of just who we are and where we came from. Slavery needn't have always been immoral. Just as slaughtering animals for food may not always be acceptable.

Mostly.

Times change. Morals do too.

Agreed.

 

[Bradskii]

That will be a bit hard as I agree that slavery is immoral.

Then there's no need to ask me for reasons. You already know what they are as we both agree it's wrong. How about you list them so I know we're on the same page.