Are we more MORAL now?

No. No we are not.

 

It's natural to elevate ourselves above other people and other times. It's in our history and the culture we breathe in. Breaking it takes ground work and a lot of time.

Some would say that we are less moral. Could we even argue that we're more aware? We know more things, but it seems like we're filtering it more as information and statistics.

 

I will bite yet another RR's disguised morality thread.

I say there is no comparison. Now and then are different. To me there is a core set of morality and an evolving one. Obviously you can tell where I am coming from.

 

We're the same, but w'ere more connected with the rest of the world then before. We have a better understanding of people not like us. It's human nature to better empathize with what we understand as oppose to what we don't. So, maybe in that sense, maybe.

 

Look at it this way. We look back on the 20th century, and refer to the Nazis, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. as the very epitome of evil. But if you go back a few thousand years, genocide was common place.

With advances in technology, we have more destructive capabilities. But I think with that, we've also become more responsible in how we treat one another. Really, its a matter of necessity. If you mixed the weapons of today with the barbarism of the past, our species would die off in short order.

 

it depends.



Whether you believe in Postmodern views of Moralism or "Universal truths"


you may as well lock of this thread, because it's going to take you in a circle and come back to your question.

but of course there are many things which people may tell you to do, such as "read a philosophy textbook", "think about certain moral dilemmas and figure it out for yourself", "convert to Christianity" so on and so forth... but in the end I nor you can give a qualified opinion since our thoughts have been shaped by socializations steming from our past experiences and who we interact with.. but that in itself is an opinion isn't it?

 

hell no. We still live in an deregulated economy. Morality and deregulation go together like ice cream and mustard.

 

Western Nations
Locally, yes; globally, no. If we wanted to, through trade, infrastructure and real ground-level diplomacy, I think we could probably end extreme poverty and genocide. But a better bet over the next twenty years is that we'll just carpet bomb a few more major cities; and keep extracting diamonds and oil from genocidal hell-holes for pennies on the pound.

Russia
Locally, yes and no. Globally, you'll just never know.

Cuba, Venezuela
Relatively speaking, I have absolutely no idea.

Japan, South Korea
Locally, yes; globally, they seem nice.

Powerful Non-Western Nations
Locally, no; globally, yes.

Weak, poor, non-Western Nations.
Locally, no. Breast-ironings, female circumsions, witchcraft executions of adults and children. Child prostitution like it's going out of and coming back in style. Rape as not only a custom, but also a military strategy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear-baiting

 

Of course we are more moral as a society. Regardless of what people think of where we are now, we're lightyears ahead of where the world was 100 years on everything from society taking care of the elderly and sick (even if you think we can't afford it) to Geneva conventions to torture and rules of war to protecting children, slavery, basic human rights, etc.

While all of these things still occur, they are not the accepted norms of the past.

 

This has been posted before; but we're certainly less violent than we were before.

<!--copy and paste--><object width="446" height="326"><param name="movie" value="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="bgColor" value="#ffffff"></param> <param name="flashvars" value="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/StevenPinker_2007-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/StevenPinker-2007.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=163&introDuration=16500&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=2000&adKeys=talk=steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence;year=2007;theme=war_and_peace;theme=how_the_mind_works;theme=the_rise_of_collaboration;event=TED2007;&preAdTag=tconf.ted/embed;tile=1;sz=512x288;" /><embed src="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf" pluginspace="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" bgColor="#ffffff" width="446" height="326" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" flashvars="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/StevenPinker_2007-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/StevenPinker-2007.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=163&introDuration=16500&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=2000&adKeys=talk=steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence;year=2007;theme=war_and_peace;theme=how_the_mind_works;theme=the_rise_of_collaboration;event=TED2007;"></embed></object>

 

oh, goody...

 

And your contribution/point is...?

 

People used to enjoy watching things die in horrible agony. Except for Michael Vick and friends, the rest of us have moved on to a higher level of empathy. Normal, healthy people would no longer consider watching that to be entertainment, but would instead describe having to watch it as an unpleasant experience.

If anybody today said about a pack of wild dogs killing a horse with a gorilla tied to it,
[rquoter]
"...with the screaming of the ape, beholding the curs hanging from the ears and neck of the pony, is very laughable".

[/rquoter]

they would be promptly referred to mental health professionals.

 

It's better, but how much of it do we owe to technology and distractions?

Problems may be different, but our core has stayed mostly the same.

 

What evidence do you have of this?

Everything points to the contrary.

Whether it's technology or whatever (I'd say it's moreso people evolving/the world becoming smaller/information being shared quicker), we're still not using that technology to kill people or induce as much harm/suffering like we did in the past.

Hell, back in the day, this was pretty frequently used "technology".

 

Fake violence < Real violence

And beyond that, do we really need to go into the whole video game/tv/movies blame game thing again? I think we've pretty much determined that those things really have no bearing on how violent people are, whether they're exposed to them or not.