Are we more MORAL now?

Pretty much this


as for the alien thing, idk. They may have become so advanced scientifically that they have become dehumanized and morality is not really a concept to them, so attacking humans for scientific purposes would be justified to them. Just thinking out loud

 

Morals have to be learned, but what we learn comes from context.

It's a simple exercise. People are living in closer proximity than any other time and will continue to. If the power goes off, would we use our superior morals to coexist and trust in the system?

 

Are you pulling a lord of the flies reference on me?

Of course when put in those extreme "kill or be killed" circumstances we're going to revert back to the basic, fundamental model for existing and surviving. That doesn't have much to do with morality. Those are instincts. I think people realize now, more than ever, that avoiding violence and generally treating one another better is a good idea that everybody benefits from. Otherwise we'd still have slaves and bloodsports, cause face it, from the standpoint of the oppressors, those were pretty sweet deals for them.

I think it isn't a good idea to bring morality into it, because it is so subjective and has such a religious connotation to it ("morality" used to be perfectly in line with basically having your wife as property, etc). But if you want to count non-violence, spreading education, and expanding opportunity and freedom as morals then yes, we're more moral than we've ever been. I think a better way to go is to ask are we more civilized.

 

I know that's what you meant, and I disagree. If you take away violent video games and tv/movies, people aren't going to go around creating/looking for violence. That much we already know.

 

oh, just to point out that identifying the results of our would-be progress in the past 100 years... as now being "less violent"... come off sounding as much of a personal, human, emotional, intellectual accomplishment and worth mentioning in the stretch of an entire century--in contrast to our engineering, technological advances in that same timespan--as saying... at least, we're less bestial...


huzzah...?

 

I think the change is microscopic.

The only difference is that we see violence less frequently, or are forcefully/non-forcefully engaged in it less frequently.

The reason it's less frequent is because the punishment for violence increases as time goes on. Go back 2,000 years and killing someone for something was not so uncommon and did not bring punishment unless an important/significant figure was killed.

The frequency is important because, well, it makes it easier. This is why soldiers can kill easily. This is why murderers and rapists actually find it easier to do what they do after the first time.

To a degree, I think there's a "ripping of the bandaid" effect. We have done everything we can to stop people from ripping off the bandaid.

I'm fairly certain that, given the same exact circumstances as x number of years ago, we would act almost exactly the same. Remember that, back then, avoiding a violent confrontation could mean things like being mocked by the town, not being employed, and you ultimately become a weak provider for your family.

In short, we are smart enough to put better systems in place. But we would still kill for food, when in fear of starvation, just the same.

 

Crime goes down with wealth. We are only as moral as our options.

 

Morality laws only exist due to the will of the populace. The fact that the laws are tougher is a reflection of the desires of society as a whole.

 

I still don't get your point. You think being less violent isn't a big deal? OK. (Tech/Engineering advances really aren't the point, I brought that up to knock down the excuse Invisible Fan was making for our non-violence)

 

Yes, but desires are not constant.

Pull the plug on oil and water, we'll see how much desire exists to maintain those laws.

That's why I said, it's also related to the circumstances.

"You attack our World Trade Center, we come there to kill a couple of hundred people, and take out thousands in the process."

preceeded by

"You oppress our people and steal our oil, we fly an airplane into the trade center killing a whole lot of innocent people who are not responsible for it."

preceeded by

"I will allow you to be a dictator of an oil-rich nation and oppress your people, if you make sure access to oil is very easy for me."

and so on and so forth.

There is no inherent desire which breeds this continuously developing fantastic morality. IMO there's better use of resources and intelligence - these are the things that drive our morality. You take away some basic needs, we go back to square one.

 

Doesn't sound "microscopic" to me. Sounds pretty significant.

Eh. Incorrect. It's been shown time and time again that deterrence plays no significant role in the prevention of violent crime. You cannot stop a crime of passion (guy comes home and finds his wife with another man), profit (somebody needs to mug somebody to survive), or compulsion (sicko with a messed up brain) with deterrence.

We can, however, evolve a better society that limits the amounts and ways people do resort to violence by using 1) the court/criminal justice system and 2) not having them so destitute that violence/crime become their best option for subsistence.

And even if deterrence *were* true, aren't you arguing against your own point? That's a massive change in the priorities of our species to have developed a criminal justice system to subvert violence. That means that we, as people, are less tolerant and understanding of violent/criminal behavior, which I would argue is a pretty big step forward in our evolution as a society and "morals".

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Of couse if you put us back in the era of "Strongest Survive/Kill or Be Killed" with sticks and stones, no agriculture, food shortages, no civilization whatsoever, of course we'd act exactly the same (granted with our knowledge of how societies function, we'd likely evolve out of that and into a peaceful society a hell of a lot quicker than our ancestors). The circumstances reflect what the best course of action is. So why wouldn't we follow them? We do what we have to in order to survive. That is called a societal breakdown. But you can't deny that we as humans have steadily come to realize that a functional, educated, law abiding, non-violent society is in our best interest, and we are undoubtedly more "moral" because of it. Whether the circumstances we're in allow us to maintain that is another question that isn't related to morality at all.

Instinct >= Morals

Hard to be moral when you're dead, gotta look out for #1, and there's nothing immoral about keeping yourself alive. There's a giant philosophical discussion imbedded in here somewhere. ("steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family, does that make you a bad person?") But I think people need to realize that morality is what you make of it, and our instincts essentially are morals... so ask yourself, are our instincts now more moral than they were 2000 years ago? Even by the most abstract definition of morality, you'd have to say they are.

 

Anybody else think it is kind of funny how the most religious posters (RR, Mathloom, for example) seem to think that we're *less* moral or *no more* moral than we've ever been? There's something fundamental going on there. I see it as religion specifically going against the idea that people can evolve or become cultured/civilized. They seem to have no faith in the laws of man to govern himself properly. (or for the sake of this thread "morally"). I guess this gives credence to the idea of religion and needing to submit oneself to the idea of not having control, being flawed, confessing sins, asking for forgiveness, and people not being capable of acting "right" without the fear of punishment (be it from god, hell, or a swift ass kickin' in jail, etc). Whereas I have a lot of faith in people to rise above and act civilized and proper when enough collective, cooperative action is taken to create healthy, harmonious societies that govern by their own hand/morals and not by a spiritual or religious guide (i.e. dictated morals).

 

Like almost everything else, its cyclical, we are creatures of our environment.

 

Based on the discussions we've had about morality and human nature in the past, I'm not buying that you don't have an opinion on this, but ok.

 

I just laughed hysterically at this.

I swear I was just about to reply to the previous post with "good points all round, that makes sense actually".

Then I read this. You make me lose faith in humanity lol. I still give you the props for the good points in the previous points, but truly, regarding religion, you work backwards. You have framed religions a certain way and latch onto anything that fits in your frame it seems. I hope I'm wrong, but you do a great job of supporting what seems to be the case.

 

Don't let a post you disagree with affect the way you react to a post you do agree with.

Laugh hysterically all you want, but care to provide some argument or point to the contrary? Care to explain how religion gives people credit for their actions and free-will to change themselves for the better? It's a philosophical question, so you're more than welcome to throw an opinion out there. But on the face of things, free will vs. pre-destiny is virtually the same thing as a god-centered universe (religious morality, predetermination) vs. man-centered universe (free-will, rule of law). I have done no "framing", I simply play by the rules of logic as they relate to both ways of thinking. If you want to change what those two things mean (and the logic therein), then go right ahead, but that would be breaking the rules to suit your own purpose.

 

It is easy to claim that you don't do any framing. I didn't take back my props, I actually re-stated it. It seems you have seen what you want to see again.

There is nothing stopping a Muslim from doing those things (I don't know enough about other religions to speak for them). We can do anything we want, the only difference between us is that we have a personal responsibility between ourselves and God to meet a law, which we will be judged by later. What about Islam is it do you think causes that? Is there some hint? Do you have any reason to think so?

Frankly, your knowledge of Islam appears to be incredibly poor therefore your statements which just throw a whole bunch of religions together as if to say "it's all the same crap" make me not care at all to discuss it in the manner you like to discuss it.