Is it advantageous to let our moral standards degenerate?

A lot of discussion and debate today focuses on the alleged downfall of society.

The entertainment industry, in the form of rap and similar destructive influences, is said to encourage young people to unwittingly destroy their lives by glamorizing self-destructive lifestyles.

Growing teenage acceptance of drug abuse and sex are pointed out as things that irreversibly damage young peoples? lives.

A falling work ethic and feeling of entitlement without accountability are exemplified as things that limit young peoples? ability to build a successful life.

People who believe these things represent downward trends in our society instinctively try to stop them and help put society back on the right path. In return, they?re often insulted in any number of ways, including being labeled racist, being accused of having sexual hang-ups, and being blamed for selfishly holding down the disadvantaged.

So the question becomes: Why bother? Amidst all this resistance, one can?t be blamed for coming to the realization that the lower society falls, the greater the advantage for people who recognize the difference between destructive and rewarding behavior. Further more, the lower society sinks, the more assured judicious people can be that their children will succeed in tomorrow?s society. If society continues to decline at its current rate, children instilled with healthy work ethic, a strong moral barometer, high self-esteem, and the ability to apply common sense to all situations, will run circles around their peers.

So rather than fighting bad influences and trying to help society, are we better off letting the foolish perpetuate their own misery, and thus pave the path to success for those more inclined to achieve it?

Or is this just selfish? Tell me where I?m going wrong.

 

I would say no, because if we just turn a cold shoulder to every wrong being put on good people then people begin suffering from other peoples backward thinking and greed or whatever.


I say fight the good fight. Sometimes you simply have to knock people back down to reality. By laws, by force, or whatever means are needed. There must be order and there must be laws which govern a civil society and if that doesn't exist then we are doomed. That is why I cringe at people who don't want laws on this or that and this or that.

I believe that you have to say enough is enough before things get so out of hand that there is no way to fix the problems which have happened.

 

Whose moral standards do you refer to? Who establishes them?

 

Sense and reason. Right and wrong is what should be used here.

Is it right to promote violence against anyone? NO!!!!!

Is it right to run amuck and do whatever you want? NO!!!!!!

Is it right to steal? NO!!!!!

Is it right to kill without just cause? NO!!!!

I'm sorry but I think what has happened and it's scary is people have forgotten what is right and wrong and taking responsibility for ones actions. Instead use the excuse of blaming others when the problem is in them not other things.

So I'm not for adobting any particular model but how about good ol common sense. However I think common sense has left and will not be coming back anytime soon for society that exists today for the most part.

 

There must be order and there must be laws which govern a civil society and if that doesn't exist then we are doomed. That is why I cringe at people who don't want laws on this or that and this or that.

The thing I find sad is it seems we have to keep making more and more laws to micro-manage our lives and keep people in line because they spend so much time trying to rationalize breaking the moral biblical laws that Western civilization is based upon.

The coroporate scandals are a good example of this. People have stolen and lied which resulted in breaking the law, outright destroying people's livelihoods, and making even those not directly involved nervous and cynical. So now we need to pass yet MORE laws, which they will inevitably to try to get around, because they will persist in rationalizing away the main two: Do not steal, and do not lie.

What's so hard about just sticking to the basics anymore? It really DOES make life much easier, and much more pleasant for everyone.

 

We should keep in mind that every human society in history has asked this question or a question like it.

Extremists of all kinds garner lots of attention, but distract us from the reality that the vast majority of people are good, moral and modest. It's easy to forget that the greatest impact we can have is on the people we encounter day-to-day, in our own lives.

As our society changes, we either adapt, migrate or perish...in modern, civilized society we value adaptation. We have differences of opinion, come from different backgrounds...we acknowledge the differences, acknowledge the commonalities, discuss, debate, find a compromise or a way that permits "live-and-let-live."

 

What about seperation of church and state? All your "moral" laws are based on religious beliefes that I am exempted from. Anything they want to do they put some evidence of this or that behind it, but think about most of our laws...they are just the Christian Moral Systems on paper. I am Christian to, but we should love and convert, not imprison and destroy. Where is love and compassion in this Christian Country?

politician says: "That's a heathen thang...let's outlaw it bubba, then we'll show um...

politician #2 says: "But I like hookers too!"

politician says: "You know we can still do it, but they can't handle it! It'll....It'lll...I know, It'll hurt the children!"

 

You're operating under the common assumption that no laws or morality existed before the Jewish prophet Moses received his Ten Commandments.

Every human society has had some set of rules used to live and work together. All the ancient civilizations developed independently and had laws to govern their societies.

None of them were based on the rules of the Judeo-Christian god.

When it comes right down to it, we all want to live, we all want the basics of food, shelter and safety from violence. Those are the basis for laws, even the laws of today.

 

You know what really helps make a point? Lots of exclimation points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Seriously can we please post like we're not 12 years old. Thanks.

 

How about this.

Moral actions are actions done with the intention to make the world a better place and suceed as intended in the reasonable minds of the people who are affected by the action?

Maybe it would be better to say an evil or morally neutral action is one that fails that test instead of saying that is moral.

With a diffenation, hopefully you can get back to the debate...

 

I was talking about laws that were based on morals, not fairness. Some moral laws are like prostitution.

Why should a women be denied the right to sell what is hers? Or for a man to do so?

Why should drugs be outlawed? They should be free for anyone to do so that they so desire. Who'd rob for crack when you could grow cocaine in the yard?

Why should man on man or women on women sex be outlawed? (No I am not gay) Don't those people have a right to choose?

Why should we imprison anyone that has never hurt anyone else? How can you ban a plant? The God of morals created those plants for some reason. How could you justify busting a legal medical cannibis club filled with dying people? You may think your way is perfect, because you have been taught that since birth. Put that aside, and walk a mile in the shoes of a gay person. or a black person. or a mexican, or even a peaceful cannibis user.

 

Ahh...I misunderstood.

Many of those issues are ones in which each of the opposing views protects the interests of some people (on one hand), and simultaneously infringes on the interests of some people on the other...not as clear-cut "don't kill," "don't steal." I guess each community must decide on its own, and even then, the law may change as the opinions of the majority change.

 

Moral standards, morality on TV, decline of morality. Who the CENSORED do these people think they are?! Are they the moral police? Do they have little badges that say "MPD" on them? I hate these sorta people. They're exactly the type that give being a 'decent' person a bad name. No, you see a decent person wouldn't try to dictate what you can and cannot do. A decent person would also realize that entertainment is one thing and real-life is another. But these people fail to do so. I think it's because they have nothing better to do.

Drug use - where's the problem? I don't get it, what happened to privacy? Have we forgotten this? If it doesn't cause a public disturbance then where exactly do these moral police come in?

Also, rap isn't all about drugs and killing. Believe it or not you moral police but there is rap with a positive message. You never see it on MTV because it's not 'hip'.

Advocating the abuse of women. HA! I love it when the moral group gets all uppedy on this. Usually it's some fat religious slob who thinks god 'talks' to him (Jerry Falwell)that is uptight about this. Namely because believe it or not, but even back during the 'moral' era of the U.S. women were abused. And these were 'religious' people. So the argument is invalid. Considering they talk about it instead of doing it. Gee.....which is worse?

Violence....ahh yes...good ol' violence. Can't have a discussion with these people without the violence argument and how 'bad' it is. Yes, tell the Romans that. And the people who attended public executions. I like the moral argument on this. Hey, which is worse? Attending a public execution or seeing fake violence on TV? Personally I'd prefer violence on tv then in real life.

Sex - what's so bad about sex? When did sex become a hot issue? To those moral police, you have problems. I think being more sexually open is a good thing. Why? Because it allows you to explore your sexuality in depth.

Homosexual 'lifestyle' it's really really funny with this. Why? Because heterosexual's are considered the norm. Yet these people have 'alternative' lifestyles. Give me a break. Sexual preference is not an 'alternative' 'lifestyle' it's how you feel toward other people romantically. Actually getting it bumped up to an 'altnernative' lifestyle is an improvement. Way back in the 'stone-age' it used to be considered a mental disorder.


So to you moral police, I say, lighten up and live life. Just because it's not your 'thing' doesn't give you any right to trample upon people who do this stuff.

 

Well...over 90% of population....that would be the norm.

 

Not really. Normalcy is all a matter of opinion.

 

"So rather than fighting bad influences and trying to help society, are we better off letting the foolish perpetuate their own misery, and thus pave the path to success for those more inclined to achieve it?"

I think the question's been answered.

If the very premise - that drug abuse, teenage sex, and disregard for education in favor unsavory lifestyles, have more of a tendency to be destructive than not doing those things - is attacked as subjective moral supremacy, then I think raising any subsequent questions becomes pointless.

I'd suggest the thread be closed, as I don't think a useful discussion is going to come out of it.

 

Does anyone think some constructive discussion will come from this?

 

"Drug use - where's the problem? I don't get it, what happened to privacy? Have we forgotten this? If it doesn't cause a public disturbance then where exactly do these moral police come in?"

I think for the most part because it can and has caused a public disturbance. I don't think it's any secret that when one's mind is altered they can become out of control in various ways.

In regards to violence against women: "So the argument is invalid. Considering they talk about it instead of doing it. Gee.....which is worse?"

I would say both are inappropriate. If someone is in fact just talking about it and not doing it..then why are they talking about it? It's acceptable to go around threatening people so long as you aren't going to actually do what you say? Someone threatening me would certainly make me feel unsafe.

"Sex - what's so bad about sex? When did sex become a hot issue? To those moral police, you have problems. I think being more sexually open is a good thing. Why? Because it allows you to explore your sexuality in depth"

Nothing is so bad about sex and it has always been a hot issue. However, there is nothing wrong if someone doesn't wish to be bombarded with sexual imagery at every turn. I think that when it is treated so casually as it is now, it results in the spread of diseases and many unwanted children.

In regards to the question overall..no I do not think it is advantageous to allow moral standards to degenerate. If a society has no moral standards left or if it is not expected that someone should have moral standards then people stop caring about one another in general, which would mean a world that is in a much more sad state than it already is.

 

Most drugs were not illegal until the seventies when hippies protested the war. Did they not have freedom of speech to protest? Drugs were blamed for them not wanted to support a war that had little impact on the United States? What if someone thinks it's wrong to war unless warred against. That's not the effect of drugs, that's the effect of love, peace, and compassion. It is not the US's right to make everybody live a lifestyle that our government dictates to them. Drug use is only dagerous because it is unregulated and runs wild in the hands of real criminals. There is no weed in Alabama right now. That's fine, I can go without. Cold turkery for seven days now, and no ill effects after atleast 9 months of regular use. I have in my search been offered crack, cocaine, heroine, pcp, ice, meth, etc? These are the drugs that kill. They are easier to get than pot. This is where people are in danger. Going to the places to get the stuff, not doing it. I have never done any drugs other than alchohol, tobacco, and cannibis, but had the chance many times.

Prostitution has been around since the dawn of mankind. Why is it so illegal now? Only because religous people reject it, leaving the non religous out of the debate. If I see nothing wrong with going to a hooker, why should I not be allowed? I know the potential risk. These risk would be more reduced if it were legal and reulated. This would help cut down STD's amoung protitutes.

Oral and Anal sex are illegal in Alabama. This is designed to only target gays. About three weeks ago there was a huge arrest in Prattville/ Montgomery of gay people who congragated at a normal meeting place. That's just biggetry based on morals.

Why do lot's of whites hate blacks? The melting of the races. I hear everyday about "ph, such and such is dating a [Censored]. When I asked why it mattered, I have been told that God hates that. Why would he hate one human to love another?

"Morals" are based on religion. They are a tool of intolerance. They serve those who want to make sure that no one does anything they wouldn't do themselves. If you don't like drugs, I am glad for you. I don't like them either. Cannibis helps me with depression trememdously, and anxiety and insomnia. I have never slept well. I think it was from my early childhood abuse. I know someone is saying "he's using an excuse". I have heard it a million times. I was sodemized by a male cousin for some great length of time. When my mother found him on top of me one day, I remember her beating the both of us with the handle of a push broom. I remember being beaten by my father for sucking my thumb. You may not realize what your morals comdemn people to. I am ashamed of myself for all that has happened. I just need some release every now and them so that I can relax. I have been overweight all my life. Nine months ago I began a diet. I have now went from 225 down to 160 (that's my reccommended weight for height). Yay me! I would have never cared without my medicine. Everybody should be able to do in privacy anything that does not hurt another person.

 

Some of the stuff flying around here is real BS.

Iwakura:
Nothing is so bad about sex and it has always been a hot issue. However, there is nothing wrong if someone doesn't wish to be bombarded with sexual imagery at every turn. I think that when it is treated so casually as it is now, it results in the spread of diseases and many unwanted children.

So you're saying that we can't see sexual images but we CAN see planes crashing into buildings over and over again and human parts being pulled out of piles of rubble?

I think for the most part because it can and has caused a public disturbance. I don't think it's any secret that when one's mind is altered they can become out of control in various ways.

You're right. Do you know the name of a drug that makes people REALLY out of control? It's called "alcohol". Is it illegal. No......

KnightWriter:
Does anyone think some constructive discussion will come from this?

I do.

Get this into your brains, people: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "GOOD" AND "EVIL", "RIGHT" AND "WRONG". The definitions of these ideas are too subjective and vary from person to person. Thus, any defintion or examples of those words can never be considered a fact.

For example...
DARTHPIGFEET:
[i\Is it right to promote violence against anyone? NO!!!!![/i]

Hmm, I don't see anyone shedding a tear over Hiroshima. What about all the war propaganda and Uncle Sam's "I want YOU to join the Army?" Isn't that shameless promotion of violence?

Is it right to run amuck and do whatever you want? NO!!!!!!

The Founding Fathers ran amok with their words, and they did want they wanted to do. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison defied the law to write the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Are these actions good or evil?

Is it right to steal? NO!!!!!

I guess you're not a big fan of Robin Hood. I'll think of some examples later.

Is it right to kill without just cause? NO!!!!

And how do you define "just"? Al-Qaeda thought they were doing a good thing. And they were, from a certain point of view.

My point is that many people who commited acts of "evil" are exalted today, and that how you judge actions are based on your opinions, not some absolute black-and-white definition of good and evil.

Finally, I agree with practically everything Fire_Ice_Death said.

 

Nothing is so bad about sex and it has always been a hot issue. However, there is nothing wrong if someone doesn't wish to be bombarded with sexual imagery at every turn. I think that when it is treated so casually as it is now, it results in the spread of diseases and many unwanted children.

So you're saying that we can't see sexual images but we CAN see planes crashing into buildings over and over again and human parts being pulled out of piles of rubble?


Um, two very different things.

But, I do agree with you somewhat, I don't like seeing billboards with people wearing virtually nothing and turning on the TV and seeing the planes crashing over and over...

 

Yeah, tell me about it. Hell I'd rather see some scantily clad woman than seeing planes fly into a building and people jumping to their death. I'd also not like to see what the effects of the a-bomb were. I agree with Kuna, 'Good' abd 'evil' are outdated principles.

 

I think the problem with this entire discussion, and this entire concept of morality... is that the individuals who trumpet "moral decency" are looking for a sort of... Unified Theory of Morality. They want one simple answer to everything.. they want the Crackerjack Box answer to life... and folks, there isn't one.

Unfortunately, you are going to have to apply some of those brain cells of yours in every decision you make... and every thing that everyone else does, however it may affect you, is going to require some... *gasp* thinking... on your part, to figure out how to interpret and/or react to it.

If you're just going to put on blinders to block off half your vision, and then lock your neck in a brace so that the remaining field of vision you do have is fixed on staring at things you don't like or can't stand... well, that's your own damned fault. Otherwise, you might as well be trying to drive a car down the wrong side of the freeway with your head blindfolded and immobilized.

Self-paralysis of the mind is no approach to getting through life... it's merely escapism and willful ignorance of reality. If you aren't willing to sweat out the inconsistencies, vagaries, ambiguities of all life's situations, then you're just resigning yourself to apathy.

 

I completely agree. Which was the meaning of my post. But you did it more diplomatically than I did.

 

Every one should have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... but not at the expense of someone else's rights to the same.

Simple as that. It's already the basic precept at the heart of the US Constitution. No other moral "codes" need be applied... since they are all born out of one or another iteration of this basic premise... otherwise known as the "golden rule,"

Regardless of your background, your beliefs, your nationality... I think that most intelligent, educated people would agree that no other sense of morality, individual or collective, is necessary.

I welcome anyone to challenge the flexibility of this singular precept.

Keep in mind that any act that infringes on another's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness automatically is tantamount to overstepping the bounds of freedom and morality.

The moment one's approach to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness begins to infringe upon another's rights to the same... it is no longer freedom they are exercising, but tyranny.