The Great Downturn in Morals

Excellent article. It is important to stop and think when someone talks about how great things used to be. Society has progressed and like all movement it is painful. In the end, societal changes have been good for all of us.

Its a misconception that infidelity, premarital sex, drinking, drug use, gay relations, and all the other things we like to consider immoral just got worse recently. Any study history will show that people have behaved in this fashion for centuries. Its just that in some time periods, people were more circumspect. The 40s and 50s were rife with out of wedlock birth, infidelity, alcholism, drug addiction, domestic violence and so forth...people just put on a front. How do I know? From demographic Census information, historic studies, and the personal accounts of my own grandparents, grand uncles and aunts and my husbands grandparents and their siblings recounting their own actions and behavior. Some of the things they did are just shameless! LOL!

Nice piece. I was going to suggest adding Women's Suffrage, but that was 100 years ago, more like.
If you see your pastor/minister/priest again, suggest that what's really wrong with this country is that we haven't passed a Constitutional Amendment banning births. That would take care of sooo many problems. Here're a few examples:

In a couple of generations (say, 50 years), there would be very, very little immorality left. Very few wars, at least of any consequence.

CO2 emissions would be substantially reduced, global warming would have been curtailed.

There would be very few people on welfare, a gradual reduction in racism, air and water pollution, no more arguments about abortion.

In fact, hardly any arguments about anything.

Food shortages? Virtually eliminated. Lawsuits? No longer any need for "tort reform."

Unconstitutional conduct on the part of our highest executives? Not a problem.
People with conspiracy theories about the planned demolition of Buildings 1, 2 and 7 in New York's World Trade Center? Gone. About staged attack on the Pentagon? Gone. Dead-enders who won't accept the "lone gunman" and "magic bullet" explanations of the JFK assassination? Nope. No more conspiracy theorists.

Income inequality? Nope. Problem solved. Religious intolerance? Gone, pffft.

The more problems I think of being resolved by this Constitutional approach--a ban on births--the more I'm convinced that it would provide a veritable utopia!

Enroll your leaders of faith. Let's form a grass-roots movement. This is MUCH better than the ever-so-timid "Modest Proposal" advanced by Johnathan Swift way back when.

I agree that our society is losing it's moral sense. I cite as evidence, the superficial treatment of that possibility, by the listing of "bad stuff" done by someone or other in the past, with the implication that "we" have advanced somehow in our moral comprehension. The very notion that reciting immorality by others is proof of ones own, is pathetically lacking in depth and quality of reasoning, and demonstrates the further slide into self reinforcing assumptiveness and the "mob" mentality which lies at the core of much of the past foolishness, so simplistically taken as a sign of essential change.

Is the author not trying to persuade others to assume they are moral, and assume that those whom do not agree on various issues can be dismissed as somehow "out of step" with their high moral standing ? Is this not in fact a repetition of the "we are just plain right" groupthink tendencies which led people in the past to ignore those "out of step" and proceed as if guided by divine wisdom ?

Is the author not encouraging the branding of those with whom he disagrees, as being in league with whatever wickedness he happens to be able to summons in the imagination of his readers ? Oh sure, this is a huge advance in ethics, and just plain proves "we" are beyond the immoral self centered impulses which overcame those silly folk of yesteryear. And now we carefully consider the moral ramifications of our words and actions . . . in a pig's ass.

I agree with John Knight. Citing the sins of the past and putting them up now as less sinful because we are not afraid to admit to them doesn't come across as moral progression to me. More often than not, this premise is used to excuse poor behavior and is construed as the moral highground by those who would rather take a pass than make a stand.

Seems like people should be scared that our moral values are out of whack. we are willing to disenfranchise a segment of the population because we 'disaprove of their lifestyle' on religious grounds. That we are willing to allow government intrusion into the most personal aspects of our lives and that Supreme Court Justices Scalia, Thomas and I'm sure alito and roberst now, don't believe there is a right to privacy. Yes our morals are definatly skewed. We spend more on bombs than oninfrastructure, education, the arts and every other program that Republicans hate. We allow ourselves to be cowed by scoundrels who wrap their false patriotism around the cross and the flag. Who use 'moral issues' to divide us rather than to build concensus. Who don't understand that morality is more than religiosity and prudishness but rather a desire to follow if I may use a religious pphrase' the Golden rule'. Do unto others before they do unto you.

An interesting story: When I came out to my grandfather (who was born in 1895), his reaction was to look me in the eye and state: Sex isn't anything new!. He had an incredible understanding that many people missed because of his curmudgeonly ways.

I like the Golden Rule as well, Louis. If more people would get that, they might understand what is going on with people. It takes a little giving to get back.

I believe the point is that people are being talked into harsh reactions to a supposed accelerating downhill run. Our generation (Viet Nam war) was accused of trashing our country and a complete degradation of morals. I guess I have to object to that -- I think our generation actually improved our culture and we were certainly more honest about things than our parents and grand-parents generations. I am loathe to do the same to the rising generation, I see considerable potential in that generation which is a very good thing because they are going to be presented with challenges that make what our generation faces look like a walk in the park. Am I displaying hubris? Yeah, possibly I am -- I get tired of all of the mouthing of how horrible our society is and how it is turning into a moral cesspool. That is the mantra of the weak and the fearful and it accomplishes absolutely nothing. I remember being at various functions in the late '70's and early 80's when people were complaining about how awful TV had become -- I would sit and listen for awhile and then I would say, "Gee, I don't understand the problem. We have not had our children watch bad TV since before they were born. You can have the same experience as well, its simple... unplug the TV and get rid of it." Immediately everyone would scramble to defend TV and talk about all the wonderful things on PBS, etc. etc. So I take all such complaints with a grain of salt and not much sympathy.

time is nothing but continual change. to fight it is a losing battle. must we embrace it? that is a personal decision. should we accept that it will happen. definitely.

"the fact that 50 or 70 years" Says it all, its not 50 years ago. Times change, people change, society on a hole changes. Why can't we just except one another no matter how different they are from us and our views.

George,

I too get tired of many foolish things. But I try to refrain from tit for tat reactions to what the most foolish might do. Your article makes a mockery of the incredibly complex and potentially revolutionary possibility of successful attempts to free mankind from his lazy habit of avoiding the actual "work" needed to qualify a position as "moral", and merely incites "piling on" and "cartoonification" of those who you would rather not take seriously.

Some. such as myself, have grave questions about "gay rights" and the effects of reducing abortion to nothing more than something a woman has a right to choose. How on earth can I expect serious consideration, of what I perceive upon careful reflection about these delicate matters, in an environment of intimidation and "mob-like " condemnation by association such as you here generate ?

There is much more to ethical thinking than picking a side in a battle of words. One cannot be ethical by virtue of the list of currently accepted platitudes, and the ridicule of those who do not agree. THAT my friend is what got the fellows in the pointy hats in trouble.

Society may not have considered these things, they were pushed to shameful secrecy. But women were still aborting, and gay people were still making love. Trust me.

Olga,

So let's not push ethics into the shadows to atone. It wiil not.

George,

Abortions are not a contraceptive. Contraceptives prevent pregnancy...abortion destroys a life already in the making.

Jeff P said, "I hardly think gay marriages are undermining traditional marriages but rather coexisting with them side by side".
You may think that way but whether this coexistence is true or not, people are feeling and thinking that it is undermining traditional marriage, whether the undermining that it is true or not. I know that I would rather not have gay marriage coexist with traditional marriage.

As far as all else, abortions, gays, drug use and other things that are now common, were common then too. I know from my mother that my grandparents were abusive alcoholics for example. I was the result of pre-marital sex. I may not have been born if it happened 20 years later!

Everything has just been brought out into the open rather than being hidden activities. Our country should be ashamed to allow bad behavior to be so out in the open. I think our society has lost its humility rather than morality. There are still a good amount of people who are very moral and law abiding. Sadly, the news makes it seem like those numbers are slowly diminishing.

A letter about today's youth:

Today's young people are out of control. They wear strange clothing, listen to vulgar music, and in general do not demonstrate even the slightest awareness of the social and economic issues facing our country. They seem to just wander aimlessly with no purpose in their lives. And they seem to be completely lacking in morality or responsibility. When I look at today's youth, I am seriously concerned that when the time comes for this generation lead our country, it will mean the end of our great civilization.

I've paraphrased the letter, but in reality, it was written by a politician in ancient Greece over 2500 years ago.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Devin -- I thought you were describing my generation.
John Knight -- I have severe questions about the ethics of abortion and am opposed to "gratuitous" abortions done for the convenience of the parents. However, I would not base any position upon what has happened in the past thereby painting the past as some kind of moral golden age, which it most certainly was not.
Felix -- you are absolutely right about the difference between contraception and abortion. I used the term the speaker used. I think that he was meaning something akin to what I call gratuitous abortions, ones where the mother's life is not at risk, the foetus does not have massive birth defects, the pregnancy was not the result of incest or rape -- in other words abortions done out of convenience to the parents. The real issue is who gets to make the decision -- the woman and the doctor, or the government.

Some of the issues have been here since time immemorial. Fights regarding gays goes back at least to Sodom and Gommorah. Various forms of abortion and infanticide go back even farther -- the ancients approach to deformed or blemished babies was to just leave them out on a rock to die.

The primary point, however, is this tendency to look backwards as a basis for condemnation of the present. It seems to be more prevalent with regards to arguments by conservatives. Liberals tend to look backwards as a basis for calling for improvement or change. You might say its whether Adam and Eve were near perfect and we started steadily downhill from there, or whether we have been improving with some hills and valleys in that improvement. Personally, I think the liberal approach is more optimistic and more likely to result in improved well-being for everyone on average over time. Mind you -- there is nothing wrong with looking back and in some cases we may find the solution for rising problems in the future -- for example we may need to look back at some of the cultures that Western civilization indescriminately crushed as examples of how we can live without killing the planet.

George,

"I would not base any position upon what has happened in the past thereby painting the past as some kind of moral golden age, which it most certainly was not"

Neither would I, and that is why I did no such thing.

My point is about creating the impression of "morality" by citing the immorality of others. This is precisely what those you condemn from the past did, and it is no more valid a way to generate ethical thinking or behaviour than it ever was.

There is no end to immoral examples which can be dredged up to generate outrage and pride. There is no end to examples which can be used to rationalize oneself into the "moral" clan, and place those who disagree into the "them" clan which is the cause of all our problems. But it requires actual soul searching and self critical contemplation to move one toward ethical thinking and action. Just as it always has.

I object to what you do here. I do not object to this or that "position" you infer to place you on a higher level of morality. I do not fancy myself worthy of judging my fellow humans, but do see what was required to rid myself of that nasty habit. It was certainly not a recitation of cartoon images of "bad guys", or the condemnation of other's point of view by finding some behavior or other someone else performed which can be rhetorically linked to them.

If you persist in such silly assaults on the profound and serious business of actual moral enlightenment, I , and others of like mind and heart will have no choice but to point out the shallow nature of such "us vs them" children's games. I certainly have no desire to do so, and do not believe this constitutes the whole of your understanding or consideration of morality.

John, went I was referring to the "golden age", I was not referring to anything you said, but rather to the talk which is referenced in the posting. The objection which I raised is basically on point in that people who make the argument that something is going downhill because society would not have permitted something or even considered something a generation or so before are using a dog that does not hunt. The reason it does not hunt is the fact that they assume that because something was not done 50 or 70 years ago translates into it should not be done now. If you wish to support a position, you do not relate to a mythical golden age in the past -- but rather put forward a rational discussion as to why something should not have changed. Personally, I am mildly opposed to "gay marriage" being authorized by the government -- but my argument is that no form of marriage should be the subject of government regulation gay or straight. That argument is based on the fact that "marriage" is a holdover from the days when the church was an extension of the government. Because "marriage" is a religious ordinance, the government should get out of the business of marriage altogether and regulate committed relationships strictly as civil unions or domestic partnerships. Marriage should be solely an ordinance governed by religious and religious-like entities and the marriage vows should only be enforceable via excommunication, disfellowshipment, shunning, etc. This would leave the religious entities open to define marriage anyway they want and would make it possible for the State to regulate committed relationships whichever way it wants without be subjected to the charge of violating the establishment clause. This is how the debate should run, not by some blanket endorsement of a prior non-existent golden age.

There was no golden age, as you say, George. We are more aware of life due to the exposure through the media. There really is nothing new under the sun. People continue to want to communicate and get to know one another. It isn't as grim as some would have you believe.

I remember a work retreat we held for our School Board when I was on the Board not long ago. The Superintendent had a list of commonly made complaints about the students we were producing nationwide. Contrary to popular belief, we were actually improving on all fronts with respect to the complaints as compared to the 1990's -- yet if you listened to what people were saying about the schools and public education you would believe we were still in a major nosedive to the bottom of the sea.

Here's morals for you.

I was on the train yesterday and I sat next to a young man who is 16 yrs old. we had a little conversation and the boy wants to go into politics to make a difference. he had some nice ideas about education but when I said they would be hard to pass he didn't understand the idea of consensus and said well' " George Bush has gotten away with breaking lots of laws" . So here's a fine example for our youth who have asupposedly 'moral' president who they see as having broken many laws.....Paris Hilton? A Rod? Libby? all moral upstanding citizens.....right?

and yet the immoral majority uses its immorality against gays and women and blacks and minorities. the world is indeed upsidedown but not because of gays and abortions....look at the church. at the bishops who coverup pedophiles [not gay] who supress sex education and contraception. all on basis of morality? better be ethical instead.