Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Can you see that the morality in the world is in a decline?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you see it or feel it?
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
It is a difficult and somewhat sensitive question to answer given the changing views of what is moral and what is not.
Some of the positive changes I've seen in the world are:
1/ Greater equality between men and women
2/ A recognition of the oneness of humanity regardless of race, religion (or worldview) and nationality
3/ Greater international cooperation
4/ The rise of democratic and consultative bodies for decision making
5/ The abolition of slavery
6/ Universal education
While many have rightly abandoned traditions that have outlive their usefulness, many are anxious and confused as to where we are heading.
I voted both yes and no.
The answer depends on one's moral compass. There are aspects of morality that have improved, while there are others than have deteriorated.
The answer depends on one's moral compass. There are aspects of morality that have improved, while there are others than have deteriorated.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Every generation gets told they're worse than the ones before... by the ones of the previous generation.
In Finland, it seems to be improving in general by far comparing to the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s... but to balance things the really evil people seem more extensive in their immorality and get caught more often. So the illusion of decline is readily available. Statistics say that people use less alcohol, less drugs and for kids that is especially so.
In Finland, it seems to be improving in general by far comparing to the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s... but to balance things the really evil people seem more extensive in their immorality and get caught more often. So the illusion of decline is readily available. Statistics say that people use less alcohol, less drugs and for kids that is especially so.
I believe morality is improving as people gradually let go of outdated morals in favour of modern ones
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
To me this is morality
- I undertake the training-precept to abstain from onslaught on breathing beings.
- I undertake the training-precept to abstain from taking what is not given."
- I undertake the training-precept to abstain from misconduct concerning sense-pleasures.
- I undertake the training-precept to abstain from false speech.
- I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Across what time period are you referring? Exactly how are you measuring “morality in the world”? Are you looking at consequence or intent? Are you focusing on your limited perception or the reality of the entire world?
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
I look at how people treat each others, how people speak to each other, how people think of each others. Why we talk bad about religions
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Traditional morality was designed for the needs of the group; team, and not the whimsical needs of the individual. Morality was designed to be a team sport and not an individual sport. Under optimized conditions, the team can become more that the sum of its parts thereby elevating all the individuals.
If you have all the parts of an engine scattered on the floor, the parts are nothing but parts. Their identity becomes vague since as parts that can be used for many things, such as paper weights. If we assemble the parts into the motor, the utility of all the parts increases, and now each part becomes necessary to the team affect; the working engine. Every part has been elevated beyond a paper weight, There is only one way to assemble this engine to get this affect. Assembly or morality is not relative.
Consider the 10 Commandments. These define the rules the community living for a strong team. Each rule addresses an issue that could divide the team. Stealing and coveting are things that could maximize some individuals. They can even be justifies via a clever version of relative morality, but if it was allowed this will create conflict for the team. Even the first commandment, one God, circumvents religious conflicts that can fatally divide a group. These commandments do not cater to individual whims and opinion of relative of morality, but rather attempt to fortify the needs of one strong team.
Culture has become much less moral, since the needs of the team have become secondary, in favor of the diversified needs and whims of individuals who make up the team. Relative morality, is not even designed for the needs of the team. Rather it is designed for the individuals. The analogy for relative morality is like a coach having to cater to the whims of his players, first, thereby becoming unable to demand the individual sacrifices needed for a winning team. Everyone is a winner, is immoral, since this is not even real.
For example, when the quota system was introduced, jobs were not longer based on merit, but on quotas. This meant everyone on the team had to play, even of it meant better players had to sit on the bench. This was relative morality and not morality. This did not maximize the team or else merit would be in affect. To make this relative illusion of morality appear more valid, the rules of the game then had to change. It was no longer organic, but based on artificial selection.
Morality is not relative. That is an illusion. Very few moral systems can create a winning team. Relative morality is a way to make endless second string teams that are way over budget. These are destined for extinction ,unless propped up artificially.
If you have all the parts of an engine scattered on the floor, the parts are nothing but parts. Their identity becomes vague since as parts that can be used for many things, such as paper weights. If we assemble the parts into the motor, the utility of all the parts increases, and now each part becomes necessary to the team affect; the working engine. Every part has been elevated beyond a paper weight, There is only one way to assemble this engine to get this affect. Assembly or morality is not relative.
Consider the 10 Commandments. These define the rules the community living for a strong team. Each rule addresses an issue that could divide the team. Stealing and coveting are things that could maximize some individuals. They can even be justifies via a clever version of relative morality, but if it was allowed this will create conflict for the team. Even the first commandment, one God, circumvents religious conflicts that can fatally divide a group. These commandments do not cater to individual whims and opinion of relative of morality, but rather attempt to fortify the needs of one strong team.
Culture has become much less moral, since the needs of the team have become secondary, in favor of the diversified needs and whims of individuals who make up the team. Relative morality, is not even designed for the needs of the team. Rather it is designed for the individuals. The analogy for relative morality is like a coach having to cater to the whims of his players, first, thereby becoming unable to demand the individual sacrifices needed for a winning team. Everyone is a winner, is immoral, since this is not even real.
For example, when the quota system was introduced, jobs were not longer based on merit, but on quotas. This meant everyone on the team had to play, even of it meant better players had to sit on the bench. This was relative morality and not morality. This did not maximize the team or else merit would be in affect. To make this relative illusion of morality appear more valid, the rules of the game then had to change. It was no longer organic, but based on artificial selection.
Morality is not relative. That is an illusion. Very few moral systems can create a winning team. Relative morality is a way to make endless second string teams that are way over budget. These are destined for extinction ,unless propped up artificially.
wandering peacefully
Which way to the woods?
No, it's gotten much better. We don't keep slaves, we don't burn witches, we don't for the most part, execute prisoners, we don't for the most part, single out gays or minorities for special treatment, we attempt to care for the elderly who need helo, etc.
Where do you see a decline in morality?
You will get a skewed perspective on "morality in the world" on an internet forum. People here have a sense of "online bravado" because of the anonymity of hiding behind a computer monitor.
If you are going to look at morality, a better gauge would power down your machine, open the front door, step outside, and interact with the world.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
In this regard, the young people in America, the ones in my geo/socio economic region, are increasing in morality.
I actually think we have had some strong moral improvement over the last few centuries: the decrease of slavery, the increase in rights for women and minorities, the idea of democratic government, decreased use of the death penalty, decreased acceptance of torture, more tolerance for different ideas, decreased murder rate, decreased theft rate, etc.
On the other hand, larger cities and the internet has produced more anonymity, which means that interpersonal nastiness has increased. Things that people would not do in a small town because everyone knows everyone else are now commonly done because of this.
The one big change is in our sexual morality. Before the invention of effective contraception, sexuality was much more tightly linked with potential reproduction, which connected it to morality because a new human being could be formed. Now, it is possible to be sexual your whole life and never reproduce. because of that, many acts that were considered immoral before are now considered perfectly moral by many people. Those who still hold to the older viewpoints see a decline of morality in this area. I see it as a shift, not a decline.
On the other hand, larger cities and the internet has produced more anonymity, which means that interpersonal nastiness has increased. Things that people would not do in a small town because everyone knows everyone else are now commonly done because of this.
The one big change is in our sexual morality. Before the invention of effective contraception, sexuality was much more tightly linked with potential reproduction, which connected it to morality because a new human being could be formed. Now, it is possible to be sexual your whole life and never reproduce. because of that, many acts that were considered immoral before are now considered perfectly moral by many people. Those who still hold to the older viewpoints see a decline of morality in this area. I see it as a shift, not a decline.
Morality just coasts along, changing as it goes.
No...it's not getting worse.
No...it's not getting worse.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Murder. Rape. Stealing. Fraud.addictions. list go on and on.
Most of those have significantly lower rates than, say, 2 centuries ago.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Relative morality, is a philosophical spin off from the theory of relative reference in physics. In physics; Einstein's Theory of Relativity, it is assumed there is no absolute reference. Rather all references are relative to the observer.
This principle in physics was applied, by philosophers, to morality, to created a relative reference theory for morality. This is an illusion, since physics applies this to physical things and not ideas and opinions. It is a con job pushed forward by early Progressives.
Relative reference in physics, is an artifact of measurement and observation. It is not a statement of physical fact. All our measurements in deep space; cosmology and astral physics, involve using energy of some wavelength, from radio waves to gamma rays. We do not measure the mass of the sun or any object in space, directly. Rather we infer the mass from energy based measurements.
Einstein in his theory of Special Relativity; SR, defined three reference relativistic; relative terms; distance, time and mass. Our measurements of the universe all deal with time and distance (energy), directly, but mass indirectly. This is what has created an illusion. We do not measure mass directly, so we cannot double check out work, to make sure it is real. We infer mass based on bias. Instead of 3-D it is more like 2.5-D SR.
As an analogy, say you were wearing virtual reality glasses. Say these glasses are state of the art and are fully realistic. One cannot tell real from virtual looking though the glasses. Although we can see, what appears to be the exact same thing as reality, there is still one thing that would make it possible to distinguish between real and virtual. That is the sense of touch.
If a virtual ball is thrown at you, it may look real through the virtual reality glasses. Because we sense it as real, we will move body or our hand to catch or deflect the ball. However, you will not feel anything when the ball reaches your hand. This lack of tactical evidence will let you know it was virtual and not real.
The inability to measure mass, directly in physics, is like science using virtual glasses with its hands tied behind it back. We will still move our bodies when the virtual ball is thrown. This will help us avoid contact with something or nothing of substance. This will create relative reference illusions, since there is no way to confirm or deny, since touch is not possible.
Mass has substance and inertia, and will impact our sense of touch. Energy has similar properties, but these are too subtle, to show up with human touch. Relative reference , in physics, is based on the default position of physic observations, having to wear virtual glasses with their hands tied behind their backs. They have to infer touch from previous memory and experience, but cannot use real time touch. They will move to evade a thrown object, always assuming the worse; tangible.
Relative morality is in the same pickle, except it is not as conscious of the tactical limitation. One way to add touch to the visual reality glasses of relative morality, is with cost analysis. Not all behavior, condoned by relative morality, have the same social costs. The cheapest alternative would be connected to morality; maximizes team resources. Anything more expensive is immoral. Theoretically, the cheapest of the cheap is absolute morality.
Theoretically, say we cut social spending in half. The system would have to adapt. New priorities would need to be set and acceptable behavior would need to be modified. This would bring the team closer to morality; maximize the team.
As an example, say we cut off all funding for STD's; sexuality transmitted diseases. This has a large social cost. We stop R&D, prevention and treatment outlays. Now not all relative or virtual morality will be possible. Only certain sexual behavior could be practiced and still have a clean bill of health. One certain behavior would be unaffected by the loss of the social mop, that was needed to make virtual morality, appear relative. If we ignore the cost, we remove the sense of touch and now it all appears relative to the untrained eye.
This principle in physics was applied, by philosophers, to morality, to created a relative reference theory for morality. This is an illusion, since physics applies this to physical things and not ideas and opinions. It is a con job pushed forward by early Progressives.
Relative reference in physics, is an artifact of measurement and observation. It is not a statement of physical fact. All our measurements in deep space; cosmology and astral physics, involve using energy of some wavelength, from radio waves to gamma rays. We do not measure the mass of the sun or any object in space, directly. Rather we infer the mass from energy based measurements.
Einstein in his theory of Special Relativity; SR, defined three reference relativistic; relative terms; distance, time and mass. Our measurements of the universe all deal with time and distance (energy), directly, but mass indirectly. This is what has created an illusion. We do not measure mass directly, so we cannot double check out work, to make sure it is real. We infer mass based on bias. Instead of 3-D it is more like 2.5-D SR.
As an analogy, say you were wearing virtual reality glasses. Say these glasses are state of the art and are fully realistic. One cannot tell real from virtual looking though the glasses. Although we can see, what appears to be the exact same thing as reality, there is still one thing that would make it possible to distinguish between real and virtual. That is the sense of touch.
If a virtual ball is thrown at you, it may look real through the virtual reality glasses. Because we sense it as real, we will move body or our hand to catch or deflect the ball. However, you will not feel anything when the ball reaches your hand. This lack of tactical evidence will let you know it was virtual and not real.
The inability to measure mass, directly in physics, is like science using virtual glasses with its hands tied behind it back. We will still move our bodies when the virtual ball is thrown. This will help us avoid contact with something or nothing of substance. This will create relative reference illusions, since there is no way to confirm or deny, since touch is not possible.
Mass has substance and inertia, and will impact our sense of touch. Energy has similar properties, but these are too subtle, to show up with human touch. Relative reference , in physics, is based on the default position of physic observations, having to wear virtual glasses with their hands tied behind their backs. They have to infer touch from previous memory and experience, but cannot use real time touch. They will move to evade a thrown object, always assuming the worse; tangible.
Relative morality is in the same pickle, except it is not as conscious of the tactical limitation. One way to add touch to the visual reality glasses of relative morality, is with cost analysis. Not all behavior, condoned by relative morality, have the same social costs. The cheapest alternative would be connected to morality; maximizes team resources. Anything more expensive is immoral. Theoretically, the cheapest of the cheap is absolute morality.
Theoretically, say we cut social spending in half. The system would have to adapt. New priorities would need to be set and acceptable behavior would need to be modified. This would bring the team closer to morality; maximize the team.
As an example, say we cut off all funding for STD's; sexuality transmitted diseases. This has a large social cost. We stop R&D, prevention and treatment outlays. Now not all relative or virtual morality will be possible. Only certain sexual behavior could be practiced and still have a clean bill of health. One certain behavior would be unaffected by the loss of the social mop, that was needed to make virtual morality, appear relative. If we ignore the cost, we remove the sense of touch and now it all appears relative to the untrained eye.
Last edited:
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Bicycle metaphor noted
