Is Western Civilization really seeing a major decline in morals?

[Count of Montesano]

During a recent Mudpit discussion on gay rights, some posters claimed that supporting gay marriage is just another example of the declining morals of Western civilization. The discussion then devolved into really bizarre sexual perversions like the guy in Tennessee who was recently arrested for raping horses (and btw he's a repeat offender).

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911...rom=blog_last3

Which got me thinking: have morals really declined in modern society, or is there just more media coverage of bizarre sexual practices and violent crimes?

I do think there's been a decline in civility, but I'm not sure you can make the same argument about morals. For example, America 120 years ago was a far more violent place than it is today. In terms of sexual promiscuity, almost every major American city and most smaller towns had brothels where immigrant women were often forced into sexual slavery. This still occurs, but not out in the open like it used to. Only Nevada has actually licensed brothels anymore. I'm sure people a century ago still engaged in all the weird fetishes they do today, except that of course the sheriff wouldn't ride out to investigate if the cowpokes were humping their horses out on the range.

And morality also encompasses a lot more than sexuality. I personally consider being enviromentally conscious and treating people with respect despite their race or gender as "moral," while people 100 years ago would accept wholesale destruction of the environment or blatant racism as perfectly fine.

So I've set up a poll to find out what everyone else thinks. I can see one argument that morality is declining, and that's the pervasiveness of media, especially online media. I've learned far more about human sexuality thanks to the Internet than I ever learned back in the high school lockeroom (but then again I went to high school in the late '80s). In other words, most young people today are exposed to weird sexual practices, whereas young people in Victorian times might only know to close their eyes and do their duty for queen and country on their wedding night. Meanwhile, I do worry that porn does shape people's expectations about the role of sex in a loving relationship.

[cfmonkey45]

It's latent and always been there. I thoroughly question the premise that within recent years morality has declined. In my opinion, mind you I'm a Christian so my morality is deeply rooted in my faith, I'd argue that morality has been perpetually low, from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, to the Victorian Era, to now. However, with the rise of mass media and numerous venues for free speech, images, opinions, and actions that many tend to consider immoral are becoming more widespread and more heard-of.

[Pious Agnost]

Hundred years ago, Segregation in the United States was in full swing, and women were not allowed to work or vote in much of the Western world.

I think we've made progress...

[Ummon]

Today western civilization has spent most if not all its moral inheritance and is about to face a major decline in social cohesion, cooperation and stability, probably resulting in its utter collapse.

The main reason is the lack of mutual trust: people being (unintelligent) egoists, the result to be expected is that each person will experience abusive, traitorous and antisocial behaviour to an extent capable of permanently undermining his/her trust in society, thus causing more of the same destructive behaviour, less trust, etc. in a feed-forward cycle.

[Count of Montesano]

Today western civilization has spent most if not all its moral inheritance and is about to face a major decline in social cohesion, cooperation and stability, probably resulting in its utter collapse.

The main reason is the lack of mutual trust: people being (unintelligent) egoists, the result to be expected is that each person will experience abusive, traitorous and antisocial behaviour to an extent capable of permanently undermining his/her trust in society, thus causing more of the same destructive behaviour, less trust, etc. in a feed-forward cycle.

Not sure I agree Ummon. Humans have always dealt with abusive, traitorous and anti-social behavior. 500 years ago, it would be unheard of that people from different countries would work together for long. 2500 years ago, people from different city states just a few hundred miles away would be constantly be at each others throats. In ancient times, Boston and NY wouldn't settle their scores in baseball games - they'd be declaring war on each other. Yet today we have a global marketplace, stable countries, and even a United Nations.

Certainly there were probably stronger social bonds among families, clans, and ethnic groups. But some of those bonds were forged out of desperate necessity. Maybe I don't have the same bond to other German Catholics as my great-grandfather would have as a new immigrant to America. At the same time, I'm glad I don't have to deal with no-nothings who deny me a job for being a dirty papist. I still call that moral progress.

[Ummon]

Humans have always dealt with those, but they had a series of protection mechanisms. Today, under the illusion that this would improve our freedom, we have got ridden of all them. The trends in the prevalence of mental health disorders, between other things, suggest, that although we have better screening lately which may increase our sensitivity to such phenomena, a significant negative change is underway.

Not only this, but the availability of highly destructive tools to even the most naive common man, makes every sudden insanity, much more dangerous on the whole of society, and thus much more effective in reducing confidence and security. See Columbine, 9/11.

Add media, the game is ready to be played.

[Monarchist]

The West is on its way down the drain and into the gutter. Its currencies are being devalued and made unusable by people who, morally, place trees over babies, in order to send the West back to levels of development which would embarrass Genghis Khan. How can anyone say that the morals of the West are improving in the last 100 years when it has become legal to rip babies out of the womb? How can anyone say that the morals of the West are impeccable, and getting better, when dance-floor raves and endless materialistic sex orgies go on 'till two o'clock in the morning in major cities?

Granted, brothels and raunchy dance clubs existed in the 1890's, but they were under-the-radar and considered very rude and disgusting. Today, the area around a gay bar, with shirtless men wandering about fondling each other in the street, is seen with loving-kindness by the "tolerant" West. When anyone dares reproach the sensitive modern Westerner for his belief that the Earth is about to burn to a crisp because of humanity's mere and tiny influence on the climate, he is insulted beyond belief. Massive amounts of Prozac being injected into the population since the early 1990's have certainly moved the process forward. Everyone thinks they have this disorder or that disease of the mind, so they are numbed down with endless government-subsidized pills.

The West isn't even decadent; it's just so full of nonsense that it considers firmly talking to Ahmadinejad to be the ultimate show of power and manliness in diplomacy. The nonsense has reached a level of such immensity that billions of dollars in tax money are basically stolen under the noses of the fat Americans, arrogant Frenchmen, lazy Englishmen, and guilt-ridden Germans. The fact that the dirty-minded, Jew-hating E.U. and U.N. even exist is a testament to the decline of the West, in my opinion. Whenever the Western nations see a mass-murder developing in Africa, they scream and run like little girls; however, when Israel sends a few missiles at terrorists - by God, it's a real genocide!

Sod the West, at least until it starts getting some scrota particles back.

[Maverick]

So I've set up a poll to find out what everyone else thinks. I can see one argument that morality is declining, and that's the pervasiveness of media, especially online media. I've learned far more about human sexuality thanks to the Internet than I ever learned back in the high school lockeroom (but then again I went to high school in the late '80s). In other words, most young people today are exposed to weird sexual practices, whereas young people in Victorian times might only know to close their eyes and do their duty for queen and country on their wedding night. Meanwhile, I do worry that porn does shape people's expectations about the role of sex in a loving relationship.

Most is the key word, there was hardcore pornography in Victorian times, for example drawings and descriptions of sexual sadism but most young people were not exposed to it.

Obviously the media has shaped public perception on the subject. For example not a lot of people know that in Ancient Egypt the recently deceased were never left alone with any one person during the mummification process as they were concerned about necrophilia.

And enough has been said about the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians etc. But I do think too much emphasis has been placed on their "bizarre" sexual perversions when they were cruel and callous people who enjoyed torture as a form of entertainment... they were human after all (cat burning/bear baiting in the Middle Ages, public hangings 'till recently and now we have like bum fights, dog fights, faces of death, crush films etc. in case you didn't catch my drift).

Which brings me to my next question

Today western civilization has spent most if not all its moral inheritance and is about to face a major decline in social cohesion, cooperation and stability, probably resulting in its utter collapse.

The main reason is the lack of mutual trust: people being (unintelligent) egoists, the result to be expected is that each person will experience abusive, traitorous and antisocial behaviour to an extent capable of permanently undermining his/her trust in society, thus causing more of the same destructive behaviour, less trust, etc. in a feed-forward cycle.

To be in decline we need to have had a high point. You can be talking about people anywhere from any time, what does this have to do specifically with Western Civilization?

Does it boil down to most? Greater numbers of neurotics because dysfunction is structural in modern society?

And is it the greatest evil? For example when I read about people having visions and such back in the day, I don't always brush it off as a fabrication or drug-induced hallucination, I think a lot of them were genuinely sick, damaged people because they had the all too typical experience of sexual and physical abuse that will break any person. I think today most kids are more in danger of neglect and social isolation than abuse and will be more neurotic than schizoid, what's worse?

[Ummon]

Every social system has conditions of existence. Beyond certain levels of organizational strain, a society cannot sussist anymore in the environement. This means, that if we analyze a society's graph (the logical and functional structure) and we perceive certain signs of deterioration (prevalence of mental disorders is one, molecularization of polities another), we may use them to assess the trends in which that society is involved.

Of course, here we are talking of extremely complex and massive phenomena. But, surely, optimism now seems far-fetched.

[Maverick]

Every social system has conditions of existence. Beyond certain levels of organizational strain, a society cannot sussist anymore in the environement. This means, that if we analyze a society's graph (the logical and functional structure) and we perceive certain signs of deterioration (prevalence of mental disorders is one, molecularization of polities another), we may use them to assess the trends in which that society is involved.

Of course, here we are talking of extremely complex and massive phenomena. But, surely, optimism now seems far-fetched.

Today western civilization has spent most if not all its moral inheritance and is about to face a major decline in social cohesion, cooperation and stability, probably resulting in its utter collapse.

I think we're in a cultural dark age (I know, I'm so perceptive) but the Greeks had a dark age too from which they recovered long enough to plunge into another, much longer one (still going?). BUT there was a glorious couple hundred years in between dark ages that bore fruit for thousands of years.

Cicero said the Republic represents the nature of its people, why would a corrupt government necessarily be unable to keep a corrupt society from total "collapse"? Can an amoral society not function? And by function I refer to bread and games not necessarily Good Justice or Peace, at least 'till the next golden age maybe? Or do you envision an honest to goodness apocalypse and the end of the great civilizations experiment?

[basics]

Someone once wrote that Empires deteriorate from within, not from without and I think this is a true statement. In each case the rot starts with the government leading on to the people taking their lead from what they see from that department. And, when governments lose their sense of purpose so too does the population as a whole.

All you guys are witness to the decline of perhaps the greatest Empire the world has known to what some might call and have called it a basket case. I speak of course of Great Britain which today is not so great. We have become a nation of thieves where someone elses property is no longer sacrosanct. We take as though it is normal to take and this is costing our country millions per year.

Small gripe some might say but that is only the starting blocks wherein all of us are guilty. We pinch many man-hours from our employers and see no harm in that either. We now lie and cheat to get jobs, some prepared to literally lie to get qualifications and then celebrate our achievements down at the pub where quite shamelessly it is bragged of.

And our liberal/leftwing establishment considers us all good enough to get let off with a pat on the back whilst living in cloud cuckoo land. Our jails are filled to overflowing so rather than build more jails, their answer is not to send people to jail. Motoring offences carry a heavier penalty than most other crimes and here we have another example of our disregard for the law by the humble motorist.

Of course it would never do to disregard our drug culture which the middle and upper classes replaced smoking cigarettes with when that became unfashionable. Can't smoke inside anywhere now, apart from one's home, wife allowing under certain conditions, but one can snort powder under any roof and little said or done about it.

How can anyone question that we are in decline? Everyday shows it beginning with our elected, even unelected, leaders, griping about having to repay monies ripped off the taxpayer as if there was no tomorrow. And you know what? We are angry, not just because they did it and were found wanting, but that we ourselves didn't share in the goodies.

[Time Commander Bob]

No I do not think their is a major decline in morals at all. We respect the environment more than we used to, we are more critical of war than we used to be and we are more tolerant of others than before. Society still has its problems, but I'd rather have the problems of today rather than the ones in the past.

Lets turn the clock back 100 years when homosexuality was illegal (chemical castration anyone?), racism was rampant, the press was heavily censored, young people were fed propaganda about dying for their country and women did not have the vote. I can't imagine many people who would prefer to live in such a society.

[Monarchist]

No I do not think their is a major decline in morals at all. We respect the environment more than we used to, we are more critical of war than we used to be and we are more tolerant of others than before. Society still has its problems, but I'd rather have the problems of today rather than the ones in the past.

Lets turn the clock back 100 years when homosexuality was illegal (chemical castration anyone?), racism was rampant, the press was heavily censored, young people were fed propaganda about dying for their country and women did not have the vote. I can't imagine many people who would prefer to live in such a society.

The environment doesn't need "respect" - it needs human beings to tame it, cull it, use it up, then move on. War makes peace, and the real threat of war makes dictators think a second time. Tolerance of others, as a rule, is one that can only lead to moral relativism. Without a moral absolute, we simply become wimpy, spineless, and sensitive to everyone. None of those things you mentioned are positive, in my opinion.

When homosexuality was illegal, on pain of chemical castration, then gays just avoided having sex. Women don't need the vote; they need a spatula, and perhaps an apron. Dying for your country is a great service, and I love people who have the courage to do that, if it comes to it. I'm not trolling; this is what Monarchist actually believes.

[Time Commander Bob]

The environment doesn't need "respect" - it needs human beings to tame it, cull it, use it up, then move on.

Firstly, the environment is hardly something to be trifled with. We depend on it for our existence and thus must use it in a way that can sustain our existence as indefinitely as is possible. In addition, I was also referring to the human environment as well as the natural, cities are much cleaner than they were in the industrial revolution and even 50 years ago (smog in London was pretty bad I recall).

War makes peace, and the real threat of war makes dictators think a second time.

War should only be used as a last resort and one must be pragmatic with the military forces that are available and only use them when absolutely necessary to avoid getting entangled in too many conflicts.

Tolerance of others, as a rule, is one that can only lead to moral relativism. Without a moral absolute, we simply become wimpy, spineless, and sensitive to everyone

One cannot prove a moral absolute and thus morality should not be treated as such. Instead it should be viewed as the best way in which a society can operate in order to reach the outcomes desired by said society. Furthermore, tolerance means listening to others but not necessarily accepting their views.

When homosexuality was illegal, on pain of chemical castration, then gays just avoided having sex.

Which was obviously very fair, especially in the case of Alan Turing /sarcasm. What business does the state have in interfering with the private relationship between two consenting adults that causes no harm?

Women don't need the vote; they need a spatula, and perhaps an apron.

You are very fortunate this forum has an overwhelming male majority. Many women in the twentieth century have proven to be capable politicians that would not have been able to do so had women not been given the vote.

Dying for your country is a great service, and I love people who have the courage to do that, if it comes to it.

But would you agree with the state deliberately sending propaganda to young men to do so? Many boys who were obviously underage were allowed to join the armed forces in WWI.

[Justice and Mercy]

Yes.

There's nothing moral about the kleptocracies we have in place.

[MaximiIian]

No; largely, we've progressed morally and ethically in the past couple hundred years. Sure, we've seen the awful side: Nazis, Stalinism, reactionism, terrorism, etc. But we've also made great strides in development of various ethical models; we've had so many philosophers on ethics come and go, and voice their views, in that time period.

I think Western Civilization has progressed a lot in morality, and continues to do so today.

[Justice and Mercy]

No; largely, we've progressed morally and ethically in the past couple hundred years. Sure, we've seen the awful side: Nazis, Stalinism, reactionism, terrorism, etc. But we've also made great strides in development of various ethical models; we've had so many philosophers on ethics come and go, and voice their views, in that time period.

I think Western Civilization has progressed a lot in morality, and continues to do so today.

You shouldn't see morality as some kind of science that you "progress". This limits your view of what's acceptable, because things from the past are considered negative for the simple fact that they're from the past.

[cenkiss]

That is a wrong question who possibly comes from someone who thinks that morals can only come from religion.I think not only western world but the world as a whole has increased morals.

[Fiyenyaa]

Morals have definitely got better throughout most of the western world.
The reason people think morals are failing is because these people fear change. Homosexuals are now accepted - this is change. Racism is no longer acceptable - this is change. People don't always want to get married and have kids - this is change. Most western societies are pluralistic societies - this is change.
None of these things are indicative of any drop in morals: if anything, they indicate the reverse.

[Monarchist]

Isn't it interesting that it's generally the atheists who think morality has improved, and Christians who say that it has gotten worse? A little commentary on our various priorities, perhaps.