Are secular societies prone to moral decay?

[viole]

What on earth is "moral decay?!"

Asking questions like that, I guess.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Agondonter]

The inherent weakness of secularism is that it discards ethics and religion for politics and power. It is an ideal that, once having found a voice, must impose its values (or lack thereof) in order to attain and maintain its goals. But if you look at history, religion is as natural to man as breathing.

Many people like to look at the secularization of Europe as an example of secularism's success in bringing about stability. My response to that is simply, "Take a closer look."

 

[Orbit]

I'm not sure myself. I ask because I read a couple of articles lately written by Christians. They were trying to make the case that secularism believes morality is relative and without the never changing "Word of God", morality is subject to the whims of the people. Eventually, this secular society will morally decay.

Right? Wrong?

Western Europe is pretty secular, and I don't see any "moral decay" going on. A recent survey found that over 50% of Socttish people were atheist, so that's pretty secular.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Religion and morality are not the same thing.

Some religions — generally the Abrahamic ones — have, or have had, moral codes that most non-believers find offensive. I don't need to list the examples.

Most religions do not regard morals as being dictated by gods, but as part of the human condition. Moral behaviour is behaviour that is conducive to a happy life as a human being born in specific circumstances. The Hindus would say the correct behaviour is your dharma; we Hellenics would say it's what leads to eudaemonia.

 

[sayak83]

I think the proof is in the pudding here, before Christianity the most advanced civilizations considered watching people die horribly the height of sophisticated entertainment. Less wealthy cultures ate each other.
They did not perceive this as immoral

I think we take for granted how Christianity transformed what we perceive as 'normal morality' in the world

Public torture, drawing and quarterings, beheadings and burnings remained a mass entertainment throughout the medieval era. Indeed, statistics show that in the 14th century, the number of public executions (with lots of enthusiastic attendance) in England and in the Triple Alliance were the same. The difference was the Triple Alliance had it centralized and a part of their religion, but not the English crown. Christians moved away from old ways of killing due to stories about how their martyrs were persecuted that way, but they devised new ones in their stead, quite as gruesome.

Cannibalism was never practiced by anyone other than some forest dwelling tribes.

 

[viole]

The inherent weakness of secularism is that it discards ethics and religion for politics and power. It is an ideal that, once having found a voice, must impose its values (or lack thereof) in order to attain and maintain its goals. But if you look at history, religion is as natural to man as breathing.

And one of these natural longings produced...Apollo. Among other deities.

Many people like to look at the secularization of Europe as an example of secularism's success in bringing about stability. My response to that is simply, "Take a closer look."

Would you rather move to Sweden or Afghanistan?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Public torture, drawing and quarterings, beheadings and burnings remained a mass entertainment throughout the medieval era. Indeed, statistics show that in the 14th century, the number of public executions (with lots of enthusiastic attendance) in England and in the Triple Alliance were the same. The difference was the Triple Alliance had it centralized and a part of their religion, but not the English crown. Christians moved away from old ways of killing due to stories about how their martyrs were persecuted that way, but they devised new ones in their stead, quite as gruesome.

700 years ago? Unfortunately public torture, beheadings, genocide still remain today, and Christians are often the target.

Cannibalism was never practiced by anyone other than some forest dwelling tribes.

right, so that describes most indigenous tribes across the globe

When Columbus reached the Americas, the Caribs were wrapping up a mass genocide of the Arawaks, keeping some as food and sex slaves. Cannibalism was commonplace in practically every culture Captain Cook came into contact with, and he himself ended up as the main course.

I'm certainly not suggesting there were never any atrocities committed by anyone identifying as Christian, but Christianity could at least recognize these things as atrocities, it was Christians who recorded them, fought to stamp them out. Doing unto others as you would yourself seems so intuitive now, it's difficult to imagine when this was a genuinely novel concept in many pre-christian cultures.

 

[BSM1]

During that same time when morality was defined by how much of your shameful body you discovered, there was a rampant domestic violence problem that went largely unreported. It was simply seen as controlling your family if you beat on your wife and kids. It wasn't until the 1970s when domestic violence was even considered a crime.

This is a good point that reflects on my statement. During this time there was no such thing as "domestic violence" as we define it today. Back then a man could easily get by with beating his wife as long as he didn't kill her (in some cases it was expected). Also if a man caught his wife with another man in her bed he could kill both of them and 99% of the time not be convicted of anything, let alone murder. Since then society has redefined the roles of men and women and we morally look at these actions differently.

 

[freethinker44]

I'm not sure myself. I ask because I read a couple of articles lately written by Christians. They were trying to make the case that secularism believes morality is relative and without the never changing "Word of God", morality is subject to the whims of the people. Eventually, this secular society will morally decay.

Right? Wrong?

Absolutely wrong.
Just compare the most religious places in the world to the most secular. You don't have to be genius to see the pattern.

 

[Agondonter]

Absolutely wrong.
Just compare the most religious places in the world to the most secular. You don't have to be genius to see the pattern.

That is a value-judgment. On what basis is it made? Religious or secular?

 

[McBell]

I'm not sure myself. I ask because I read a couple of articles lately written by Christians. They were trying to make the case that secularism believes morality is relative and without the never changing "Word of God", morality is subject to the whims of the people. Eventually, this secular society will morally decay.

Right? Wrong?

Would that make the "moral decay" amoungst Christians even worse than the "moral decay" amoungst non-Christians?
i mean, is it not the Christians claiming a moral high ground here?

 

[McBell]

Morality, in itself, is not a rigid construct. It fluctuates from society to society. From a Christian perspective, I can see their point. Their foothold on the moral high horse has been slipping for awhile now.

They never had a foothold on the moral high horse outside of bold empty claims.

 

[McBell]

That is a value-judgment.

as is EVERY claim about morals....

 

[Dubio]

Thanks everyone. There is a lot to think about.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is a value-judgment. On what basis is it made? Religious or secular?

Moral.

 

[sayak83]

700 years ago? Unfortunately public torture, beheadings, genocide still remain today, and Christians are often the target.

Dodging the issue. The issue being that the rise of Christianity had no impact on the savage treatment of prisoners and captives. The means changed, but the cruelty remained the same, and the quantity of that cruelty.

right, so that describes most indigenous tribes across the globe

No, a minority of tribes practiced cannibalism.

When Columbus reached the Americas, the Caribs were wrapping up a mass genocide of the Arawaks, keeping some as food and sex slaves. Cannibalism was commonplace in practically every culture Captain Cook came into contact with, and he himself ended up as the main course.

I'm certainly not suggesting there were never any atrocities committed by anyone identifying as Christian, but Christianity could at least recognize these things as atrocities, it was Christians who recorded them, fought to stamp them out. Doing unto others as you would yourself seems so intuitive now, it's difficult to imagine when this was a genuinely novel concept in many pre-christian cultures.

Fortunately for us. Much greater knowledge of traditional societies have been gained after the accounts of colonials who exaggerated the savagery of native tribes to justify their own horrendous atrocities. Hiding savage conquests of enslavement and extermination in the guise of a moralizing mission is a popular colonial strategy. Read a book
There were several tribes who did indeed eat their enemy in case of extreme enmity. But since it appears that Europeans got preferentially eaten (rather than Indian, Islamic and Chinese seafarers who traveled through Africa and Oceania much before this and for much longer), it has something to do with how the European explorers treated the natives than anything else. Its more of "if you treat us like beasts, we will do the same" kind of ethic, which is justifiable to a great extent. Do not think that the tribes were stupid, they knew what the Europeans were upto and what friendliness would do to them. Ferocity was a strategic and somewhat effective decision on their part.

 

[Father Heathen]

I think the proof is in the pudding here, before Christianity the most advanced civilizations considered watching people die horribly the height of sophisticated entertainment. Less wealthy cultures ate each other.
They did not perceive this as immoral

I think we take for granted how Christianity transformed what we perceive as 'normal morality' in the world

Do you really think that "the golden rule" originated from - and is exclusive to - Christianity?

 

[Father Heathen]

What on earth is "moral decay?!"

The waning of Christian fundamentalists' power and influence upon society.

 

[Aquitaine]

I'm not sure myself. I ask because I read a couple of articles lately written by Christians. They were trying to make the case that secularism believes morality is relative and without the never changing "Word of God", morality is subject to the whims of the people. Eventually, this secular society will morally decay.

Right? Wrong?

Both, at least in my opinion.
For the most part, "morality" is relative from culture to culture; but to suggest that secularism - or even moral relativism itself - eventually leads to unethical societies is simply not true.

If anything, it seems that social progressivism in the more developed secular countries leads to improved equality, fairness and overall quality of life. Whereas the more orthodox cultures living in theocracies tend to be the complete opposite.

Ethics is not a product of religion.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Dodging the issue. The issue being that the rise of Christianity had no impact on the savage treatment of prisoners and captives. The means changed, but the cruelty remained the same, and the quantity of that cruelty.




No, a minority of tribes practiced cannibalism.


Fortunately for us. Much greater knowledge of traditional societies have been gained after the accounts of colonials who exaggerated the savagery of native tribes to justify their own horrendous atrocities. Hiding savage conquests of enslavement and extermination in the guise of a moralizing mission is a popular colonial strategy. Read a book
There were several tribes who did indeed eat their enemy in case of extreme enmity. But since it appears that Europeans got preferentially eaten (rather than Indian, Islamic and Chinese seafarers who traveled through Africa and Oceania much before this and for much longer), it has something to do with how the European explorers treated the natives than anything else. Its more of "if you treat us like beasts, we will do the same" kind of ethic, which is justifiable to a great extent. Do not think that the tribes were stupid, they knew what the Europeans were upto and what friendliness would do to them. Ferocity was a strategic and somewhat effective decision on their part.

I prefer the original candid direct accounts, logs, historical records from the time, from explorers, scientists (including Darwin) who had nothing to gain from painting new discovered lands as dangerous, unfriendly, resistant to good trade relations and further exploration, quite the opposite in fact.

... over modern day revisionist fashionable academic interpretations..

The fanciful idea of the 'noble savage' being corrupted by the 'evil European' is nothing new, it was very fashionable during the era of exploration also, among those who had never been to sea, some people of this persuasion signed up on expeditions as botanists etc, and their academic opinions were soon overturned by harsh reality.

It was not just cannibalism but also endemic theft that hampered relations, trade, kept cultures isolated from the outside world

Later many missionaries risked their lives and died introducing not just Christianity, morals, but farming & building techniques, literacy, health, education etc which vastly improved standards of living for many cultures