The Moral Crisis

[The Bellman]

In a couple of threads lately, I've seen Christians lamenting (and suggesting reasons for) the current "moral crisis". I've also seen people mourning the loss of morality in the Presidency (and, again, suggesting reasons for it).

I find these points of view strange. I've repeatedly asked for details as to what the current "moral crisis" is, and with few exceptions, nobody has replied. It seems to be taken as a 'given' that we are in the midst of a moral crisis, that our morals as a society have declined compared to what they were some time ago.

I dispute this most emphatically. While I'm Australian, I've spent a good deal of time in the U.S., and since most of the participants in this forum are American, I'll deal with that country, rather than talk specifically about Australia (although many of the issues are similar).

When I think of immorality as regards the U.S., my mind immediately leaps to the single most immoral act in the country's history - the treatment of native Americans and African-Americans for centuries. As we all know, the native Americans were basically hunted like animals almost to extinction - African-Americans were 'merely' enslaved. Even up until, say, fifty years ago (and more recently in some places), they were treated as second-class citizens. Today, however, increasingly native Americans and African-Americans are viewed as equals in terms of rights and opportunities to white Americans. While, of course, nothing can wipe out the harm done to these peoples in the past, America has gone a long way toward equalising the treatment of all races. This, to me, represents a huge moral advance - the single most significant moral advance of the last fifty years.

The next immorality that leaps to my mind (and it's by no means exclusive to the U.S.) is the marginalisation of women in general by treating them as second-class citizens. It occurred everywhere in the western world. Fortunately (again), over the last few decades in particular, great strides are being made to ensure that women have equal rights and opportunities to men. This, too, represents a huge moral advance.

The above two things combined represent an extremely significant improvement in morality over what it was fifty, a hundred, or two hundred years ago. A corresponding decline in morality would have to be very bad indeed to outweigh these things and turn the whole into a decline.

And, when pressed, what moral decline can these people come up with? Increase in premarital sex, increased societal tolerance of sexual activity in general (eg., tolerance of homosexuality), rises in pornography, divorce, drug us, etc.

Of these, in regard to many, it's very much a matter of opinion as to whether they represent a 'moral decline' at all. While many Christians may think of increased acceptance of homosexuality as a moral decline, most people do not. Other things a much larger proportion of people would view as a moral decline include increased drug use and rise in crime rates. However, it's far from clear that these, overall, indicate a general moral decline.

And, of course, the solution to this 'moral decline' is to return to god. Christians often lament the fact that god is no longer found in the classroom, that he seems to be disappearing from public life (due largely to the U.S.' dedication to the separation of church and state). Bringing god back into the classrooms and public life would, they say, reverse our 'moral decline'.

But would it? Look back on times when god was in the classrooms, when he was very visible in public life. These were the times that led to slavery, near-extermination of native Americans, devestating affects on the environment, zero opportunities and choices for women, universal condemnation for single mothers, and many other negative effects.

I submit that our society is not in a 'moral decline' at all, and that even if it were, a return to god - in any way - would not be the solution.

 

[CaDan]

Preach on, Brother Bellman!

 

[seebs]

If you distinguish between a return to God, and a return to religion, I think you'll find that, if more of the people pushing this stuff were to spend their time working on doing what God wants them to do in their own lives, and less of it pushing legislation about what everyone else did, society would be markedly improved.

Trivia point: There are more evangelical Christians committing adultery than gay people breathing.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

The United States was the only country to fight a civil war in order to free slaves belonging to its own citizens.

No doubt there was some really crappy treatment of American Indians by European colonists and their American descendents. I'd suggest there was a lot more intermarriage than there were conflicts. I grew up in Appalachia and almost everybody had some Indian blood in them. Ditto people living in the West.

That women were not equal citizens when the U.S. was founded has less to do with the U.S. and more to do the the European cultural matrix that preceded it. They got the vote eventually.

What is referred to as the moral decline in the U.S. is the post-modern idea that there are no objective moral or ethical values, that everything is permissible. Americans traditionally do't mind what goes on behind closed doors, but also traditionally insisted that the public sphere have a modicum of decorum and morality. What contemporary moralists in America object to primarily is the infringement to the right of privacy by a constant bombardment of offensive behavior and media in the public sphere.

Socially conservative movements like Prohibition, various censorship drives, etc., usually comes after decades of egregious public offence.

 

[The Bellman]

The United States was the only country to fight a civil war in order to free slaves belonging to its own citizens.

The Civil War wasn't fought "to" free slaves; there were numerous reasons. One of them was to free slaves. This, however, is neither here nor there. Look at the Civil War as the beginning of the moral improvement regarding treatment of African-Americans which led to today.

No doubt there was some really crappy treatment of American Indians by European colonists and their American descendents. I'd suggest there was a lot more intermarriage than there were conflicts. I grew up in Appalachia and almost everybody had some Indian blood in them. Ditto people living in the West.

Native Americans were treated horrendously. They were treated like animals, hunted like them - they were not considered human. This remains the case regardless of how many people have native American blood.

That women were not equal citizens when the U.S. was founded has less to do with the U.S. and more to do the the European cultural matrix that preceded it.

Irrelevant. The issue isn't where this treatment came from or originated; it is that it existed.

They got the vote eventually.

Again, think of it as the beginning of the moral improvement regarding women's rights which led to today.

What is referred to as the moral decline in the U.S. is the post-modern idea that there are no objective moral or ethical values, that everything is permissible.

I dispute this. How many people in the US actually believe that there are no objective moral or ethical values, and that everything is permissible? A tiny fraction, I'd bet.

Americans traditionally do't mind what goes on behind closed doors

Americans traditionally haven't; many would like to change that.

but also traditionally insisted that the public sphere have a modicum of decorum and morality.

And, of course, the definition of "decorum and morality" has changed all the time.

What contemporary moralists in America object to primarily is the infringement to the right of privacy by a constant bombardment of offensive behavior and media in the public sphere.

I don't know who the "contemporary moralists" are to whom you refer; certainly, the above is not descriptive of the majority of christians I see talking about a moral decline. In any case, the media can't "infringe the right of privacy" unless and until it is forced upon you. Last time I looked, nobody in America was forced to watch the TV or go to the movies.

Socially conservative movements like Prohibition, various censorship drives, etc., usually comes after decades of egregious public offence.

Can you support this? For example, can you evidence "decades of egregious public offence" regarding alcohol consumption leading up to Prohibition?

 

[Philosoft]

What contemporary moralists in America object to primarily is the infringement to the right of privacy by a constant bombardment of offensive behavior and media in the public sphere.

This doesn't make sense. "Private" and "public" are definitionally distinct realms with respect to society. How can a right of privacy be considerably harmed by goings-on in public? An individual who does not agree with the programming on MTV - a public forum - can watch a different channel, or throw the television out the window - a private act.

 

[David Gould]

There is also the fact that violent crime in the US it at its lowest level in about three decades. If it is a fact that more and more people are believing anything is permissible and that there is no absolute morality it is hard to see how that is a bad thing if it has not actually led to any negative consequences ...

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Can you support this? For example, can you evidence "decades of egregious public offence" regarding alcohol consumption leading up to Prohibition?

Alcohol consumption was enormous in the 19th century, particularly the latter part when the various temperance movements began gaining traction in various states and communities. The temperance folks were having an effect on alcohol consumption, and prior to Prohibition overall alcohol consumption had been slowly declining.

Prohibition actually worked to the degree that it severely curtailed alcohol consumption, but failed in that it enable organized crime and political corruption to flourish. Alcohol consumption shot up the year Prohibition was repealed, spiking in the latter part of the 40s/early 50s, but again has been steadily declining. This is because social drunkeness is no longer considered acceptable and previous customs of offering plenty of hard liquor at social gathers have fallen away.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

This doesn't make sense. "Private" and "public" are definitionally distinct realms with respect to society. How can a right of privacy be considerably harmed by goings-on in public? An individual who does not agree with the programming on MTV - a public forum - can watch a different channel, or throw the television out the window - a private act.

Simple case in point: Sexually provocative advertising aimed at teens. This leads -- no surprise -- to teens being more willing to experiment sexually. This in turn leads to a higher rate of cervical cancer among females, and a greater risk of VD among both sexes. Using sexually provocative public ads to sell goods is a greater health risk than second hand smoke.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

There is also the fact that violent crime in the US it at its lowest level in about three decades. If it is a fact that more and more people are believing anything is permissible and that there is no absolute morality it is hard to see how that is a bad thing if it has not actually led to any negative consequences ...

It's lead to lots of negative consequences, not the least of which is the tragedy that we have to incarcerate a significant number of people to prevent them from doing harm to other people.

We have large numbers of people in jail because they do believe everything is permissible and they have acted on those beliefs. The previous permissive attitude of trying to rehabilitate large numbers of felons proved too dangerous; rehabilitation works for some and should be availabe to those willing to avail themselves of it, but tragically by the time most violent felons commit their first crimes as adults, they are almost irredeemable.

 

[Philosoft]

Simple case in point: Sexually provocative advertising aimed at teens. This leads -- no surprise -- to teens being more willing to experiment sexually.

Correlation fallacy. There is almost certainly a two-way relationship. Advertisers did not simply wake up one day and decide to use "sexually provocative advertising" arbitrarily.

This in turn leads to a higher rate of cervical cancer among females, and a greater risk of VD among both sexes. Using sexually provocative public ads to sell goods is a greater health risk than second hand smoke.

I'm still not seeing why this is necessarily an infringement of privacy rights. All the things you mention are the result of choices, however deftly manipulated.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

All the things you mention are the result of choices, however deftly manipulated.

Advertisements on public spaces (billboards, sides of buses, etc.) and public communications (TV, the Internet in the form of pop-ups and opening screens and banners, ads in movie theaters, etc.) are pushed upon the viewer. The viewer does not have a set of goggles that will filter out advertising he/she might find objectionable.

 

[Philosoft]

Advertisements on public spaces (billboards, sides of buses, etc.) and public communications (TV, the Internet in the form of pop-ups and opening screens and banners, ads in movie theaters, etc.) are pushed upon the viewer. The viewer does not have a set of goggles that will filter out advertising he/she might find objectionable.

That's because ads appear in nominally public forums. TV airwaves are publically owned; the internet is publically owned; movie theaters serve the public. They are not "pushed" into the private sphere - in each case, the individual must take active steps to expose herself to the media in question.

 

[seebs]

Prohibition actually worked to the degree that it severely curtailed alcohol consumption, but failed in that it enable organized crime and political corruption to flourish. Alcohol consumption shot up the year Prohibition was repealed, spiking in the latter part of the 40s/early 50s, but again has been steadily declining. This is because social drunkeness is no longer considered acceptable and previous customs of offering plenty of hard liquor at social gathers have fallen away.

There is a key point, though, which is that while overall alcohol consumption went down during Prohibition, alcohol abuse went up!

 

[The Bellman]

Alcohol consumption was enormous in the 19th century, particularly the latter part when the various temperance movements began gaining traction in various states and communities. The temperance folks were having an effect on alcohol consumption, and prior to Prohibition overall alcohol consumption had been slowly declining.

Prohibition actually worked to the degree that it severely curtailed alcohol consumption, but failed in that it enable organized crime and political corruption to flourish. Alcohol consumption shot up the year Prohibition was repealed, spiking in the latter part of the 40s/early 50s, but again has been steadily declining. This is because social drunkeness is no longer considered acceptable and previous customs of offering plenty of hard liquor at social gathers have fallen away.

Can you cite any evidence to support this? What you say above may be true - but at the moment it is as evidentiary as if I were to say "prior to prohibition, nobody drank...prohibition turned the US into a nation of drunks." I'd very much like to see any evidence you can supply to support your statements above.

Simple case in point: Sexually provocative advertising aimed at teens. This leads -- no surprise -- to teens being more willing to experiment sexually. This in turn leads to a higher rate of cervical cancer among females, and a greater risk of VD among both sexes. Using sexually provocative public ads to sell goods is a greater health risk than second hand smoke.

This has nothing whatever to do with violating anyone's privacy. Advertising doesn't violate anyone's privacy - nobody is forced to look. Nobody is forced to 'consume' whatever media the advertising appears in.

It's lead to lots of negative consequences, not the least of which is the tragedy that we have to incarcerate a significant number of people to prevent them from doing harm to other people.

And we always have.

We have large numbers of people in jail because they do believe everything is permissible and they have acted on those beliefs.

Sorry, but you'll have to evidence this. I maintain that it's completely false. VERY few people believe that "everything is permissible," and that belief (held by very few) is not responsible for anything, much. Case in point - pedophiles, when jailed, are always at significant risk from the rest of the prison population, often to the point where they are given special protective custody. The rest of the population views pedophilia as deserving of 'special' punishment - clearly, these people don't believe that 'everything is permissible'.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Can you cite any evidence to support this? What you say above may be true - but at the moment it is as evidentiary as if I were to say "prior to prohibition, nobody drank...prohibition turned the US into a nation of drunks." I'd very much like to see any evidence you can supply to support your statements above.

With pleasure, kind sir. The following table may be found at http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/homework/a/blquick01.htm and elsewhere.

Apparent per capita ethanol consumption for the United States, 1850-2000.
[Gallons of ethanol, based on population age 15 and older prior to
1970 and on population age 14 and older thereafter].

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Beer Wine Spirits Total
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 1.22 0.31 0.65 2.18
1999 1.23 0.31 0.63 2.16
1998 1.22 0.30 0.62 2.14
1997 1.22 0.30 0.62 2.14
1996 1.23 0.30 0.63 2.16
1995 1.23 0.29 0.63 2.15
1994 1.25 0.28 0.65 2.18
1993 1.26 0.28 0.68 2.23
1992 1.29 0.30 0.71 2.30
1991 1.29 0.30 0.71 2.30
1990 1.34 0.33 0.77 2.45
1989 1.31 0.34 0.77 2.42
1988 1.33 0.36 0.79 2.48
1987 1.34 0.38 0.82 2.54
1986 1.34 0.39 0.84 2.58
1985 1.33 0.38 0.90 2.62
1984 1.35 0.37 0.94 2.65
1983 1.37 0.36 0.96 2.69
1982 1.38 0.36 0.98 2.72
1981 1.39 0.35 1.02 2.76
1980 1.38 0.34 1.04 2.76
1979 1.37 0.32 1.06 2.75
1978 1.33 0.31 1.07 2.71
1977 1.29 0.29 1.06 2.64
1976 1.27 0.32 1.10 2.69
1975 1.26 0.32 1.11 2.69
1974 1.25 0.31 1.11 2.67
1973 1.20 0.31 1.10 2.62
1972 1.17 0.30 1.09 2.56
1971 1.15 0.31 1.12 2.59
1970 1.14 0.27 1.11 2.52
1969 1.12 0.26 1.13 2.51
1968 1.09 0.26 1.10 2.45
1967 1.07 0.25 1.05 2.37
1966 1.06 0.24 1.02 2.32
1965 1.04 0.24 0.99 2.27
1964 1.04 0.24 0.95 2.23
1963 1.01 0.23 0.91 2.15
1962 0.99 0.22 0.90 2.11
1961 0.97 0.23 0.86 2.06
1960 0.99 0.22 0.86 2.07
1959 1.00 0.22 0.84 2.06
1958 0.96 0.22 0.80 1.98
1957 0.97 0.22 0.80 1.99
1956 1.00 0.22 0.81 2.03
1955 1.01 0.22 0.77 2.00
1954 1.01 0.21 0.74 1.96
1953 1.04 0.20 0.77 2.01
1952 1.04 0.21 0.73 1.98
1951 1.03 0.20 0.78 2.01
1950 1.04 0.23 0.77 2.04
1949 1.06 0.22 0.70 1.98
1948 1.07 0.20 0.70 1.97
1947 1.11 0.16 0.76 2.03
1946 1.07 0.24 0.99 2.30
1945 1.17 0.20 0.88 2.25
1944 1.13 0.18 0.76 2.07
1943 1.00 0.17 0.66 1.83
1942 0.90 0.22 0.85 1.97
1941 0.81 0.18 0.71 1.70
1940 0.73 0.16 0.67 1.56
1939 0.75 0.14 0.62 1.51
1938 0.75 0.13 0.59 1.47
1937 0.82 0.13 0.64 1.59
1936 0.79 0.12 0.59 1.50
1935 0.68 0.09 0.43 1.20
1934 0.61 0.07 0.29 0.97

(Prohibition)

1916-19 1.08 0.12 0.76 1.96
1911-15 1.48 0.14 0.94 2.56
1906-10 1.47 0.17 0.96 2.60
1901-05 1.31 0.13 0.95 2.39
1896-1900 1.19 0.10 0.77 2.06
1891-95 1.17 0.11 0.95 2.23
1881-90 0.90 0.14 0.95 1.99
1871-80 0.56 0.14 1.02 1.72
1870 0.44 0.10 1.53 2.07
1860 0.27 0.10 2.16 2.53
1850 0.14 0.08 1.88 2.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Numbers may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Sources: Alcohol Epidemiologic Data System. Nephew, T.M.; Williams, G.D.;
Yi, H.; Hoy, A.K.; Stinson, F.S., and Dufour, M.C. Surveillance
Report #62: Apparent Per Capita Alcohol Consumption: National,
State, and Regional Trends, 1970-2000. Rockville, MD: National
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Division of Biometry
and Epidemiology (August 2003).

Data updated from: Hyman, M.; Zimmerman, M.; Gurioli, C.; and
Helrich, A. Drinkers, Drinking and Alcohol-Related Mortality and
Hospitalizations: A Statistical Compendium, 1980 Edition. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, 1980.

Alcohol Epidemiologic Data System. Stinson, F.S.; Lane, J.D.;
Williams, G.D.; and Dufour, M.C. U.S. Apparent Consumption of
Alcoholic Beverages. U.S. Alcohol Epidemiologic Data Reference
Manual, Vol. 1, 3rd Edition. Rockville, MD: National Institute on
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Division of Biometry and Epidemiology
(October 1997).

You'll note that prior to prohibition the lowest decade re alcohol consumption was the 1870s, and that post prohibition alcohol consumption did not rise to that level until the middle of WWII. The big 20th century spike in alcohol consumption came in the mid 60s/70s, not surprising considering the party atmosphere of that time (particularly the disco era). What's interesting is where the consumption slides back and forth; wine peaked in the mid-80s, for example, while patterns of beer consumption indicate it's a generational thing, with one group of young adults either embracing or rejecting it because it is cool/uncool with their age bracket.

Sorry, but you'll have to evidence this. I maintain that it's completely false. VERY few people believe that "everything is permissible," and that belief (held by very few) is not responsible for anything, much. Case in point - pedophiles, when jailed, are always at significant risk from the rest of the prison population, often to the point where they are given special protective custody. The rest of the population views pedophilia as deserving of 'special' punishment - clearly, these people don't believe that 'everything is permissible'.

If "everything is permissible" were confined just to criminals, the philosophy would not nearly be as destructive. What makes it destructive is that people who aren't criminals embrace it to avoid responsibility for their own actions, and subsequently go on to do much harm that isn't necessarily as direct and as immediate as a violent felon. The Playboy philosophy of Hugh Hefner, for example, worked hand in hand the the feminist agenda of the 60s and 70s to produce a couple of generations who see no moral obligations to the next.

 

[The Bellman]

With pleasure, kind sir. The following table may be found at http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/homework/a/blquick01.htm and elsewhere.
You'll note that prior to prohibition the lowest decade re alcohol consumption was the 1870s, and that post prohibition alcohol consumption did not rise to that level until the middle of WWII. The big 20th century spike in alcohol consumption came in the mid 60s/70s, not surprising considering the party atmosphere of that time (particularly the disco era). What's interesting is where the consumption slides back and forth; wine peaked in the mid-80s, for example, while patterns of beer consumption indicate it's a generational thing, with one group of young adults either embracing or rejecting it because it is cool/uncool with their age bracket.

Very interesting data - thanks for posting it. But I notice that over the last ten years, the average consumption has been around 2.2, with a peak of 2.3. In the twenty years just before prohibition, average consumption was around 2.4, with a peak of 2.6. You earlier claimed that "ocially conservative movements like Prohibition...usually comes after decades of egregious public offence." Yet this doesn't seem to be borne out by the statistics. For the twenty years prior to prohibition, average consumption was under 10% greater than it is now, which is not much of a difference. I certainly wouldn't think that alcohol consumption 10% greater than currently qualifies as "egregious public offence."

If "everything is permissible" were confined just to criminals, the philosophy would not nearly be as destructive. What makes it destructive is that people who aren't criminals embrace it to avoid responsibility for their own actions, and subsequently go on to do much harm that isn't necessarily as direct and as immediate as a violent felon. The Playboy philosophy of Hugh Hefner, for example, worked hand in hand the the feminist agenda of the 60s and 70s to produce a couple of generations who see no moral obligations to the next.

Not only is "everything is permissible" not confined to just criminals, it's not even present in criminals, as shown above (the pedophile example). You keep insisting it's a problem, but you've shown nothing to demonstrate that any significant portion of the populace believes that 'everything is permissible', or (if you had) to demonstrate that that belief affects their actions.

Certainly, you haven't provided any evidence that a significant number of people subscribe to the idea, or that people who embrace that idea use it to "avoid responsibility for their own actions, and subsequently go on to do much harm."

You cite Hugh Hefner and his "playboy" philosophy, without any evidence that his philosophy equated to "everything is permissible". Then you talk about "a couple of generations who see no moral obligations to the next," again without providing any evidence for such a thing.

While you carefully showed data to support your claim re alcohol (and we can continue to discuss that data and what it means), you've shown nothing to support your claim that the pomo view of 'everything is permissible' is held by any significant portion of society or that it has had any impact at all to that society. I maintain that it is not and has not.

 

[The Bellman]

I'm very disappointed in this thread. I've seen a number of Christians on these forums state that we're in a "moral decline" or a "moral crisis" - I've been told I don't even know what morality means for questioning it. Yet so far the only Christian to stand up and attempt to defend that view is Buzz Dixon. While I disagree with him, at least I can respect him for defending his views, and doing so intelligently and reasonably. Where are all the other Christians who believe similarly?

Their absence seems to support my view that the "moral decline" they talk about is merely the change in the prevailing societal morality as regards a few, comparatively small areas (sex and tolerance), and they realise that they can't actually defend the view that these areas consitution a 'moral decline' of society as a whole.

 

[seebs]

Actually, I think I could make some case for moral decline in the following areas:

1. Seriousness of oaths and vows.
2. Willingness to go to war. (At least, moral decline in America, compared to what we once believed.)

Hmm. Not sure about much else.