- Simba P.K.S
- Kerala
- India
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is Morality on the decline!??
Morality is on the decline: true or false?
Or is morality on the rise? May be a time frame might be good for a discussion on a topic like this. Comparing the morality levels that existed in 1st century B.C and now may be meaningless. Since most of TED community have been around for about 25 years, looking at these past 25 years, from what you have observed, do you feel morality has improved in every/any field? Has it degraded in any field? Do you think morality is going to get better or worse with time?
Peter Law 50+
We are undoubtedly going down at the moment; probably for the last time..
For those who don't follow biblical truth, then I guess whatever is popular is ok. Trouble is that immorality is very popular, & as an ordinary guy I can see the attraction. It will bankrupt us though, morally & fiscally.
:-)
Stewart Gault 30+
Peter Law 50+
:-)
Stewart Gault 30+
Marshal Tucker
Comment deleted
Obey No1kinobe 50+
You can rely on auto pilot, the mix of nature and nurture that have developed into your moral framework, your values.
IF you are exposed to certain and experiences, you might learn to actually think about why you think something is good or bad, to analyse things. Your ability to analyse something from an ethical perspective.
Why is X considered bad? Think for yourself. But beware you are part of a society and need to pick your battles sometimes. First thing is deciding how you want to live, before trying to change everyone else.
It's not easy but you might find some traditional cultural or religious ideas have net benefit, others don't.
Colleen Steen 500+
We are influenced by our locality, tradition, and culture. How is our perspective and belief system formed?
We can simply accept a perspective and belief system of those around us (information that is given to us by our society, parents, etc.) AND/OR we can explore that information, as well as other information. We have the ability to think and feel for ourselves. As Obey says, we can analyse everything from many different perspectives.
Ask the questions of yourself...why do I believe certain things? How does it serve me? How does it serve the whole of humanity? How am I going to use certain information? Yes,we are inspired by our conscious, and we program our conscious mind with information all the time....or not.
It's simply a matter of being open to informaion. You know how you first said it was immoral to put parents in nursing homes.....period. When I gave you more information about my own personal experience, you seemed to understand that putting a parent in a nursing home is not always an immoral act.
When we get "stuck" in certain beliefs and try to convince others that we are "right", we sometimes deny oursleves the opportunity to get more information. We have the ability to sift through information to discover our own perspectives and truths.
Gabo Moreno 100+
Stewart Gault 30+
Comment deleted
Stewart Gault 30+
All of the above oppose homosexuality on all levels, oppose science, free inquiry, freedom of speech and logic.
Now think about this, all of the above all come from their respective holy books, except the catholic priests scandal, now think about this. An atheist wouldn't commit any of these evils as they have no reason to.
As Christopher Hitchens said, there is no moral act a religious person could do that an atheist could not, but there are immoral acts that religious people do that no atheist would ever do!
Colleen Steen 500+
You are absolutely correct..."...some people tend to think they can do whatever they want...".
Really? "True believers are always honest, loving & caring...." ALWAYS???
Although the catholic priest scandal may not be advised in the holy book, they are the leaders of that church...they claim to be representatives of god. Not only are the priests who actually sexually assaulted thousands of young boys guilty of a crime, but many higher up leaders in the catholic church KNEW about the abuses for a very long time, and they are also guilty of the crime. Thankfully, the courts are FINALLY recognizing this fact.
People are people, and whether or not one believes in a god does not seem to "ALWAYS" mean one thing or another......does it Sibin?
Stewart Gault 30+
Then there's the televangelist scams which cause hundreds of Americans to pay thousands and thousands in the vain hope that god will return the favour and make them rich or for little tubes of water which contain "holy water" to "cure" their ills. I actually watched one of the churches today on tv, the guy promised his audience that by donating god would make 100 of them millionaires, well firstly he's lying and second isn't materialism anti christian?
And I was far far too easy on the Catholic priests, thank you Colleen for waking me up.
Simba P.K.S
Stress is on the two words... not the namesake Christians/Hindus/Muslims etc who wear the tag of religions or religious leaders... That is to be condemned...:)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
So you don't believe in the bible I guess.
Or the Koran.
You define believers not by what they believe, or their source materials but by how they live their life.
Are atheists who are always loving and caring true believers?
Can you own slaves and be a true believer?
You realise this is just one interpretation of what a true believer is?
Another is: One who is deeply, sometimes fanatically devoted to a cause, organization, or person
Why don't you just say some people are loving and caring and honest and this is positive for society.
You just like to pick and choose some nice bits of human nature or religion and ignore the nasty bits. You can choose to define true believers how you want because religious people just take what they want from their books. There is no consistency. Thats why we have over a thousand different denominations and so many different ideas of what Christianity is.
Gabo Moreno 100+
Colleen Steen 500+
I enjoy every single moment of my life. I enjoy taking care of sick and dying friends and relatives. I enjoyed working at the women and children's shelter, the family center, united way, facilitating cognitive self change sessions with incarcerated offenders, I enjoy being a member of the regional planning commission and project review committee (gives me a chance to encourage good development practices that are beneficial for our environment) etc. etc.etc.
I love and enjoy gardening, kayaking, biking, hiking the beautiful mountains, spending time with wonderful friends, communicating with people from around the world here on TED. There is nothing wrong with enjoyment Sibin. There is nothing "bad" about enjoyment.
Colleen Steen 500+
Response to your edited response.
I agree that "enjoyment can be from the pleasure of doing good & bad".
In a previous statement, you wrote..." However, soon, life might become all about enjoyment! That's when this equation would come into play!"
And in your comment above, you write..."Enjoying oneself is fine, but not always... :)"
It appeared that the only way you thought enjoyment was possible, was by doing bad things. How might it be to think carefully about what you are writing and express yourself clearly?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Who thinks they can do whatever they like? We are all part of society. There are laws. It is wrong to think that without religious morals there is just a vaccuum. Our ancestors having been living together in groups longer tha n we have been human. We have thousands of years of philosophy, the enlightment, free thinkers, human rights etc.
I agree there is not a cookie cutter approach for an atheist. They don't just follow what the Catholic Pope or local Shiite Imman dictates or church dogma.
But all societies have norms. Less religious societies often have less crime and violence than more religious ones. Compare Japan and Sweden with the USA?
Then there is the question about whether religiously inspired morality is actually a good thing.
The God of the bible tells the Israelites, “Of the cities of these people which the Lord gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive.” (Deuteronomy 20:16)
He tells his chosen people to kill witches and homosexuals and people who work on the Sabbath.
He endorses slavery, even in the New Testament: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)
I grew up with human rights valued. I think these are better than half the biblical laws.
Random Chance 30+
Life is very hard, yet, me thinks you believe it a sin to enjoy anything.
"However, soon, life might become all about enjoyment!
Wow! That is what it was meant to be. Sorry if you didn't know that.
Do you now want to control those who are able to have fun and maybe you are not?
Do you agree with this statement by the Pope?
"The use of condoms is not as evil as not using them and spreading AIDS
If you do agree, then you agree that sex is evil. Do you ever engage in sex?
That is what the Pope is saying. He is relegating sex to the realm of evil and as such there is nothing anyone can do about it. It is still evil in marriage.
Did you know there are more nerve endings of pleasure in your anus than in the head of a penis or a woman's clitoris? Why is that? Shouldn't defecating hurt? Certainly it shouldn't be enjoyed by anyone ever, right? No matter how badly one needs to move their bowels, it is never to be enjoyed but why are there so many nerve endings of pleasure located there?
Because it is meant to be enjoyed. Even as an act of waste removal
In my experience, it is those who believe in god who believe they can do anything they want to, in the name of god, no matter how atrocious and this has been documented through out all of time.
Stewart Gault 30+
Colleen Steen 500+
I am sticking with my very first comment, which says that morality is not on the decline and that many of these abuses and violation of human rights have been happening throughout history. I believe that because of modern communications, we are learning more about the abuses, and can connect the dots around the world. I also believe, as I stated in my first comment, that isolation is one factor regarding abuse and violation of human rights. Because of communications, it is now more difficult to isolate people, and that, I believe is going to influence morality......hopefully for the better!
What do you think Stewart?
Stewart Gault 30+
I'd add that the main source of immoral acts and evil doings are committed by the religious who for so long claimed a monopoly on moral knowledge.
Let's grow as a species and not hold onto those bronze age chains!
Comment deleted
Colleen Steen 500+
The body often naturally aborts (it's called miscarriage) when conditions are not conducive for a successful pregnancy and birth of a child.
Comment deleted
Colleen Steen 500+
I would rather see a safe, legal, proceedure done in a safe, sterile environment, rather than what we saw for many years. Many women died from severe infections and hemorrhaging....many women were severely mutilated.
Abortions have been a practice since the beginning of humankind. There are herbal remedies, various practices and instruments, including a wire hanger, that can cause abortions.
Abortions are not going to stop, because women will take charge of how their/our bodies are used. I would much rather see it done safely, in a sterile environment.
Everyone (including myself), in the shelter where I volunteered, the family center, all medical professionals, any literature that is produced, etc., discourages the use of abortion as a birth control. Multiple abortions are not healthy for a womans body.
Stewart Gault 30+
So it used to be the idea that once the child can survive outside of the womb it shouldn't be aborted, but with modern science you can turn skin cells into a new human with the right tinkering and grow it in a stasis chamber.
So my definitions goes by what I deem to be life. So a group of 16 cells splitting every 20 odd minutes or something like that is not life, it's biological chemistry that's what that is.
So to me once it unborn child can recognise pain, that's the point where'd I'd say no we can't kill this child it can feel. Prior to that it's just cells. And a lot of people see that as ruthless and yell at me for it. But I do what I can to remove emotion from this decision. Because it really does cloud your judgement sometimes.
So how do I get to the fact that when a child can feel it shouldn't be aborted without using emotion? Well I reduce it to a you scratch my back I scratch yours, so I don't hurt you you don't hurt me. And because the child can now feel and is CONSCIOUS of feeling then I wouldn't hurt it.
this can sound cold and what not but my way of thinking also solves lots of problems. Unwanted pregnancy, help control population size etc etc.
Comment deleted
Stewart Gault 30+
Comment deleted
Stewart Gault 30+
Colleen Steen 500+
In addition to what Stewart says...trafficking, STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and abuse, is the challenge we face with innocent children and young vulnerable teens (male and female) being bought and sold for sex. That comes under sex trafficking in a way, and I think it is the most immoral part of the business of prostitution. To bye and sell little innocent children and vulnerable young teens to use their bodies for prostitution is not acceptable. It adversly alters the life of a young person, and is a violation of human rights.
Comment deleted
Colleen Steen 500+
Stewart Gault 30+
And actually this brings up a great point I make, I hear all these American bible bashers saying if we allow homosexuality then how do we draw a line on bestiality? Well quite simple, to stop diseases mutating between animals to affecting us. Like I think the current idea for origins of HIV is monkey to human transfer or some primate species. So just think, if one disease makes the bridge from other animal to human (HIV) and kills millions every year, just think about the carnage that two diseases which made the jump would cause. Like if mutated bird flu ever got out we'd be screwed.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Agree the more partners you have or if you are having sex with people how have had many partners then the risk is higher.
Not something just to do with homosexual sex.
Re abortions, no abortions result from homosexual sex.
Colleen Steen 500+
I cannot get a response near your recent question, so I will do it here.
"sibin sabu
10 minutes ago: Does being acceptable make cohabitation a good thing to have?"
Yes, if it is acceptable to the participants, who are consenting adults, then it is a good thing. I know lots of people Sibin, who have been "cohabitating" for many, many years in loving, caring, very beautiful relationships. They are very committed to each other and do not feel that they need the oversight or permission of a god, a religion, or a civil authority to be together in a loving relationship.
P.S.
Since we were talking about cohabitating, I was reminded of friends...I wish to share this true, beautiful, practical story.
After cohabitating for 40+ years, the man in this relationship was dying of a terminal illness. He was an attorney, and knew that their marital status might impact his partner in relationship to his estate. At age 82, on his deathbed, they were married in a civil ceramony. They were (she still IS) two of the most caring people I know, and totally committed to each other for a long time:>)
You would judge this cohabitating relationship to be immoral Sibin?
Comment deleted
Colleen Steen 500+
Colleen Steen 500+
"Things" are not immoral in my perception. It is intention that causes actions to be immoral.
Some of the "things" you mention in your introduction for example:
Divorce: I do not perceive anything wrong or immoral about divorce.
Your perception and judgement that people "should" stay married forever causes you to judge divorce as immoral. So, what you are doing, is imposing your own beliefs onto others....yes?
Cohabitation: In my perception, the only way cohabitation could be considered immoral, is if forced on someone. In other words, if a person did not want to cohabitate, and someone forced them to cohabitate. Otherwise, it is a choice people make.....or not. Again, you believe it to be wrong or immoral, judge others based on your own beliefs, and try to impose your beliefs onto others?
Homosexuality: In my perception, there is nothing wrong or immoral about two people choosing to engage in an intimate relationship no matter what their sexual preference is. To force someone into sexual activities is, in my perception immoral. An example of this is the priests, who sexually assaulted children. That is immoral, in my humble opinion. Rape is immoral...again....forcing a person into sexual acts is immoral in my perception.
Dressing style: Immoral? Are you kidding me? I'm sure you are aware that many people throughout our world have many different "styles" of dressing, and I certainly do not have the authority or desire to judge anyone based on how they dress.
Sex: You are suggesting that sex is immoral? It is a very natural act for humans, and all other animals. Again, forced sex (rape) is not acceptable. That is a violation of human rights.
Atheism: Because you believe in a god Sibin, you judge all people who do not believe in a god to be "immoral"? Again, you are imposing your beliefs onto others, and judging them, based on your own beliefs.
I believe violation of human rights is immoral, and that includes forcing our beliefs onto others.
Comment deleted
Colleen Steen 500+
You mention "tolerance" and we had a short discussion about tolerance in another part of this discussion. Do you think/feel you are exhibiting tolerance with some of your general statements?
Divorce...
You say, if people could give up their stubbornness, most divorces can be avioded. Do you actually "KNOW" that for a fact? Do you honestly believe that all divorce happens because people are stubborn?
I was married for 24 years, then divorced. Are you willing to say that my divorce was caused by stubborness? Sure, if each of us had made more "adjustments", we could have stayed married. I realized after 10 years that the relationship was not good, and stayed for another 14, because I made a committment for life. Do you honestly think/feel you can judge people? Do you think it demonstrates tolerance? Are relationships becoming more "fickle now", as you say? Or perhaps people are making different decisions regarding what they do, and do not want in relationship?
When the institution of marriage was started, the life expectancy was around 30-40 years. So, if one made a committment to a life together, that may have meant 10 - 20 years living together.....yes? Today, the life expectancy is what....80 - 90? That means that if people marry at 20, they have possibly 60 years together. It can be wonderful if two people grow and evolve with the relationship, and that does not always happen. Times have changed. The divorce rate may not be influenced by "stubborness". Perhaps we were simply not meant to live together as partners for 60 years? Think about it my friend:>)
Parents in nursing homes...
Again, I share my own story, and you decide if you want to judge. My mom was dying of a brain tumor at age 87. We (brothers, sisters and I ) took care of her as long as possible at home, then the care needed was beyond our capabilities, so for the last months of her life, she was in a nursing home. You would judge that to be immoral?
Comment deleted
Colleen Steen 500+
Yes...I agree...opinion & judgment may be different. It can also be the same, because often people make judgments based on their personal opinion.....yes?
Perhaps there IS a misunderstanding Sibin. You make very broad, sweeping, general statements....like divorce, parents in a nursing home, cohabitation, homosexuality, sex, atheism, etc. are immoral. Sometimes, it appears that you do not consider ALL information before making these statements. What do you think about that?
You would like to know the implications my divorce had on the children?
They were 19 and 22 when we divorced, and they both said..."it's about time"!!!.
Kids can "feel" when a relationship is not working for the benefit of the whole, don't you think?
Sometimes, unfortunately, little kids are used and abused inappropriately when parents are divorcing. I suggest that those parents who would do that to their children during a divorce, probably did that to the kids when married as well.
I am very familier with arranged marriages Sibin. I have several Indian friends, and one of their daughters got married a couple years ago, to a man with whom there was an arranged marriage from the time they were little children. They now have a beautiful little child, and they all seem very content:>)
Sometimes, Sibin, when we know divorce is an option, we still understand, contemplate, ponder, and search for an answer, as I did for 14 years, and as many other people do as well. Think about it.....
Comment deleted
Colleen Steen 500+
Verble Gherulous 20+
History goes in cycles like this. Debauchery and hedonism, mixed with long bouts of societal suppression. It even happens between cultures. In my lifetime, let's take the 50's all this stuff happened - there was just as much divorces, cohabitation, homosexuality, dressing style, porn, corruption, sex, atheism, violence"" - you simply didn't see it on TV, movies - it was there, but it was subtle. Always lurking on the fringes, behind curtained windows, or in the shadowy back seats of cars tucked away on treelined park lanes.
Now is one of those cycles where it's blasted out of every video screen. For me, I only prefer the other times in that at least it made people more creative in their corruption. They found what you could consider "artful" ways to express their hedonism.
Don't get me wrong: moral turpitude is moral turpitude. Yes, some of what you mentioned is considered "liberated" and I absolutely cannot condone the unfair and immoral hycocritical punishment that has been historically doled out on these sexual sins. But they still tear at the moral fabric and are ultimately unhealthy.
For corruption (by which I assume you mean political and economic corruption) and violence, those are more obvious to state that there is open evidence for those throughout all of history. Even the parts of history that some people claim are more "moral" than others.
To wrap it up: Morality is not on the decline. It's always been at rock bottom. The question is: are we ever going to rise above?
James Zhang 30+
I believe that, if we were all hateful beings, we'd all be dead by now. But we haven't yet, so to me, it gives me reason enough to have faith in our humanity.
Tanka Poudel
Morality is a set of rules derived from the perception of people in reference to the emotion they carry regarding an issue. Morality is termed to be general in nature than of an individual person. Hence in this regard morality can change in reference to the change in perspective of a mass. Nature in this regard has also it's own set of rules to carry out different functions but that can not stop exceptions from happening time and again. Immoral actions can also been seen as exceptions and the only way we can go about it is by letting time decide it's fate especially if we do not want to get involved in further complication that rise from resistance of such exceptions. However to force something happen is and will always be "Immoral / Unnatural".
Obey No1kinobe 50+
All cultures have accepted norms of behaviour. It is part of living in groups.
I'm not arguing that you are not entitled to your opinion on what is moral or ethical or not. Obviously we can not say is morality decreasing until we have a shared idea of what is moral or not. Defining morality.
What is your definition of what makes something moral or not. Or do you just accept whatever cultural norms a society or religion has. Are they all equal?
Why is atheism immoral?
Why is homosexuality immoral?
Why is divorce immoral?
Can you provide a rationale other than an old book says so or that this is normal in your society?
Comment deleted
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I suggest that just because one religion or another says something is bad is not enough. All religion is man made. So the morals are man made. So they are not perfect.
That doesn't mean there are not things that improve the human condition and others that harm.
Why do you think we need religion to have moral or ethical behavior. If you didn't believe in god would you kill everyone? I don't believe in any gods and I don't go killing or stealing or raping.
You just need a better reason to argue what is moral otherwise it is simply your opinion or the opinion of some old book.
If you have a reasonable rationale for why homosexuality is immoral, let's hear it.
Likewise I can argue that pedophilia harms children, is a misuse of power. We probably agree.
Of course we need self control. But we just disagree on what is good and bad. I guess we agree raping someone is wrong. I don't have so much issue with 2 consenting adults having sex before marriage. I have some problem with cheating on your partner.
I have a problem with stealing and corruption.
I agree too much porn, gambling, alcohol drugs can harm people. Even eating fatty food is no good. But some things are okay in moderation, not absolute no go.
I look for valid reasons to limit peoples freedom. Not just decide how everyone must live for no reason.
You actually haven't given any reasons why you think these things are wrong. Try thinking about it.
Some people used to think it is immoral for people of different races to have the same rights or vote. Some people thought that about women being able to work or vote or choose their husband.
Absolute freedom, hedonism is not the ideal. Not everything is acceptable. But you need a rationale before saying something is bad for society, for humans.
Just because some of your views on what is moral are challenged doesn't mean we can not have a discussion and agree on some things.
James Zhang 30+
We went from black slavery to civil war to eventually civil rights movement and now to a society where we have black people in the upper and middle class now.
Why did the civil war happen? Because Americans became more aware. The controversial topic of that time was, if all men are created equal, then shouldn't slaves have rights too? And different people interpret it differently. Some people agree, some people disagree, or some people just want to keep questioning why is this right/wrong and try to understand what's really going on. But the even bigger question is, how did they even think about this controversial topic as opposed to before? Slaves have always been around, so why think about it now? Because they were built on the society where people have rights and grew up on the notion that "all men are created equal" so to me, it was bound to happen eventually. Someone's gonna have to start asking, wait a minute, if all men are created equal, then shouldn't slaves be equal too? And thus there becomes a debate and the Civil War.
The bigger picture of this all is that society in general are more aware than they were before. We are more aware of issues like James Holmes gunning down 50+ people in a movie theatre. We are more aware about the "War on terrorism." We are also more aware about some of the underlying issues in the economy. And this wouldn't have happened had we not grew up in a society where we are not given freedom of speech, public education, and other bill of rights stuff.
And one of the next biggest controversial topics in the future is, is it moral to create/experiment on biotechnology? Is it moral to create machines that will think?
Colleen Steen 500+
I'd like to address one of your statements in the above comment.
You write..."why believe in God and practice self control when I can enjoy life doing whatever I wish & with no-one to whom I am accountable etc??"
Believing in a god is a choice you make, based on information you have at any given time. You are the only one who can answer your question regarding "why believe in God". If it is something you were simply told to do, you question, which you are doing right here and now.
In my experience and perception, most people (including me) who do not believe in a god are accountable and responsible to themselves, the society they live in, the people around them and our environment. That is what is here...now....on this earth.
Do you honestly think/feel that a god would put you on this earth simply to worry about what is going to happen next? Does that make sense to you? Or does it make any sense that we are here to fully live the human life experience with good intent and accountability to ourselves and the life experience?
When one is totally directed and dependant on a particular god and holy book for information, that person's wordview tends to be limited. Which is why you are making certain judgments about certain behaviors.
To me, life is not about judging others all the time. It is about exploring my own behaviors and determining if they are good and useful to the whole of humankind and our environment.
Colleen Steen 500+
I believe there has been too much tolerance in the past for abuse and violation of human rights, which I believe to be immoral.
As I said in my first comment on this thread, isolation is a major factor in abuse and violation of human rights. Because of our advanced communication systems, and the ability to discuss these issues openly and honestly, like we are doing here on TED, I believe the isolation factor continues to be addressed. Perhaps we can all come together with a better understanding and acceptance of our own perception of morals, and how we use that concept in our life experience.
Simba P.K.S
Today isolation based on race is on the decline, isnt it? Now income plays a major role in isolation, I believe! The division between poor and rich are visible everywhere... Some places are inhabited exclusively by poor, and some by rich... Religious tolerance especially WITHIN the christian, hindu & muslim factions is still to be attained.
I would like to know if you are for co-habitation or against it... Forgive my interest in that because this comment "I like how cohabitation is amongst those things deemed immoral. I wonder if that means all students are immoral?" has surprised/shocked me!
Simba P.K.S
Obey No1kinobe 50+
You got some good discussion going.
Some of the comments got me thinking too.
Thanks
Colleen Steen 500+
I cannot get responses closer to your comments....
Regarding your question... "BTW, did you mean you are an atheist??"
I don't like to label myself. I was born into a catholic family, abandoned that tradition at age 19, have explored, researched, studied and practiced various religions and philosophical beliefs, had an NDE/OBE (near death experience). With the information I have at this time, I do not believe there is a god, and I am open to possibilities. I like to keep the mind and heart open to information all the time:>)
I don't think/feel that believing in a God, or not believing in a God has anything to do with morals. We know lots of people who call themselves devout religious people and do not have very good morals. We also know people who do not believe in a god and have very good morals....yes?
Colleen Steen 500+
Regarding your comment, which begins...
"Well said! Today isolation based on race is on the decline, isnt it?"
I sincerely hope that ALL isolation is on the decline. I agree that income may play a role in isolation, division between poor and rich is still visible, and I also agree that religious tolerance is still to be attained. Good points Sibin:>)
Regarding your question...
"I would like to know if you are for co-habitation or against it... Forgive my interest in that because this comment "I like how cohabitation is amongst those things deemed immoral. I wonder if that means all students are immoral?" has surprised/shocked me"
It may help to identify what kind of co-habitation we are talking about? Students (and many other people) often "co-habitate" (males and females living together) as room-mates in dorms and apartments, which is a very common and acceptable practice in many places.
Sibin, you are talking about co-habitation with life partners in intimate relationships? I believe that if two consenting adults choose to live together in any way, I do not have the authority or desire to judge their choice. In my perception, it would be immoral to force this type of situation on a person, but for consenting adults who do not adversly impact other people, it is an acceptable choice.
If one feels that it is not moral, perhaps that is based on a religious belief?
Colleen Steen 500+
Regarding your comment....
"edited conversation a bit again... Still unhappy? I didnt find an option to delete it, else I would have done that & started a new one!"
I was not really "unhappy"....just wanting to keep things on topic:>) Thanks for your concern:>)
I agree with Obey...It doesn't need to be perfect. You got some good discussion going, and some of the comments got me thinking too. It has evolved into a good discussion Sibin....nice job!
Stewart Gault 30+
One the "wrongs" of yesterday are not today's "rights". Forced circumcision is one of the biggest evils permitted in society and hopefully will eventually be banned. Now to us, genocide is bad, and I don't think there will ever be a situation where people will use their heads and think, you know what, making ethnic groups go extinct is moral. I just highly doubt this.
Now here's a few points on out of marriage sex. Firstly quite a few people think marriage is redundant and you don't need a certificate and a ring to show love. So your logic condemns them to sexless lives. Secondly if you take a step back, and just look at it, what is wrong with sex outside of a marriage. To me there's no difference.
Cohabitation, is rather hilarious to be considered immoral, likewise it applies to the above logic of people just don't want to be married and think marriage is an awful trend.
Why not have multiple wives? Practices greed and probably comes with some nice tax benefits no doubt and so it stops the tax avoiders and also stops a poverty cycle developing.
Why not kill others? Well it just so happens you require other people in today's society.
Why care for your parents? For the giant debt you owe them of ensuring your survival?
Verble Gherulous 20+
You are right to be frustrated by a world in which no one seems to stand up for what seems right and good, and that most people simply adhere to the principle of pleasure for the sake of pleasure.
As you have probably noted from the right answers, most people who stand up for these pleasure principles can quote case after case where uncaring and abusive people have attacked and harmed other people in varying degrees simply for following their heart.
These issues of sex and marriage are going to be skewed no matter how you put it. So let me cut to the point of my personal beliefs.
1) Cohabitation is unhealthy. I say this because I've done it. It doesn't work.
2) On the other hand, Marriage is a sham. What we want marriage to be, we have not made it so, and thus you have two-three generations of people who have grown up with parents who so obviously loathed each other yet kept saying, "Marriage is beautiful" that they simply cannot believe in it. It's because we as a society have not lived what we have sold.
Finally, why believe in God and practise self-control? I say why not? I can see in your frustration that you are generally caring individual, and if you need to live a life where you exemplify your moral standards then who is to condemn that?
The fact that you live IN the world does not mean that you are OF the world. There is the difference. The world is what it is. We are all immoral. And frankly, sex outside of marriage has been more prevalent than sex inside marriage for all time. That, you simply must understand.
But to understand that we are all frail and to live among people (tolerance) does not equate into your own supposed moral decline. It simply means that you understand that you are with the world, not above others, but beside them. And when we all know that, we can break a sweat and work side by side to make a world that's at least liveable for all of us immoral decadents!
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Just on: "no one seems to stand up for what seems right and good, and that most people simply adhere to the principle of pleasure for the sake of pleasure."
I think some of have a different idea of what is good and bad.
To me homosexuality is similar to heterosexuality. Not good or bad in of itself. Raping someone whether same sex or hetero is bad.
Also I'm not sure all those on the libertarian human rights side agree with being a complete hedonist. Its not so black and white.
Most ethical analysis come down to competing principles. Abortion - Rights of the Women to control what happens in their body versus the rights of the foetus. They are not easy.
On the more liberal side there is a continuum as well. Some say do what you like as long as it doesn't harm others. I'm a step in from that where I think we should educate and help people make better choices if they are considering doing something that will harm themselves mostly and little to others.
Most things that make us feel good in the present may have a cost in the future. Food, sex, drugs, shopping.
There is also the risk of addiction because of our physiology in pleasure producing activities - gambling, drugs, food, sex etc
I'm all for freedom balanced with responsibility for self and others.
So I'm not for do what you want, pleasure at the expense of all else. But I am for freedom and human rights and responsibility and improving the human condition and minimising harm balanced against each other.
You say cohabitation is unhealthy. Could you expand? Is it so harmful that you would ban it or just inform educate and let people make their own decisions?
Rather than be frustrated I suggest Sibin might develop a reasoned case in favour of his view of what is moral and put it out there in the contest of ideas.
E.g. Why is homosexuality inherently evil. To me its a bit like being left handed. Why is it harmful and bad for society if some people are same sex attracted? State the case.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
E G 10+
It's just obnoxious the way you do ridiculous some fair claims actually : " Can you provide a rationale other than an old book says so or that this is normal in your society?" this proves you don't understand even a bit the human nature or that old book because : -you ask rationale as if that old book is not rational therefore the belief in it is not rational too . If you think that old book is rational , why would ask rationale ? ... you see how your atheism is all over you and make your comment indigestible . He said an opinion , at least respect it , don't just make assumptions based on your own opinion .
- you seem to think that to have a view upon morality due to the society you live in it's not a reason to have this view , you just neglect the simple fact that there is inherent to our nature to want the good and to hate the bad ; if you have not neglected it , then why do you think that to have the view of the society you live in , it's not enough to think that view is good up to a certain degree ? and if is good is it part of 'rationale' ? or you just want more ?
Look more:
" Why is atheism immoral?" because it is claiming to be rational while the atheists are not (as example : you above) . Just a reason for an opinion .
" Why is homosexuality immoral?" because it's against the nature , it's against the natural order the things are done . Just a reason for an opinion .
"Why is divorce immoral?" because it makes everything a lie . Just a reason for an opinion .
You want some rationale , look some rationale and it proves also that your opinion about that old book is just wrong or that is irrational to put the question you put .
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Are these really your views or are you just arguing for fun?
Atheism. You don't make any reasonable argument why this might be imoral.
Homosexuality. How do you know it is not normal. Is being left handed normal. What is immoral about being in the minority. Why is it immoral if you are attracted to the same sex? Its just your opinion that it is not natural. Many people are attracted to the same sex. And even if it was some genetic hic cup or what ever, its not hurting anyone.
Divorce - makes everything a lie? Sweeping statement. No reason.
I suggest life is generally better than no living
Not suffering is better than suffering etc
Treating people the same regardless of sex, religion, race etc is generally better than discrimination.
I suggest some actions increase human suffering and other improve the human condition.
Can you agree with any of this.
Or is it okay for people to do anything they like, especially if they think it is moral. Is every moral framework equal in terms of how it enriches human experience.
I suggest there are ways to decide if things are good and bad, not just opinion.
You offer only opinion to explain your prejudices.
Even if one of the gods is real, is whatever she says automatically moral. If she says kill disrespectful children is that moral? If she says keeping slaves is okay, is that moral. If she says kill your child, is that a moral thing to do or just the gods opinion?
What makes something moral or immoral in your opinion?
E G 10+
Now , you got me wrong , I'm not making that claims you think I am , all I'm doing is to say and to prove that the opinion opposite to yours can be argued rationally , that's why I don't try bring you arguments why atheism , homo.... is immoral but to show you reasons why a person could consider that things immoral .
When you'll tell me (as implies your first sentence ) how do you know that the good is the good and not something else with arguments , then I'll try to prove you the opinion I'm arguing for right now .
' Atheism. You don't make any reasonable argument why this might be immoral. ' really, why what I said is not an reason for atheism=immoral ? because you say so or why ?
It is a reason for the opinion I'm arguing for : - the atheistic doctrine is claiming its rationality , however it's followers are not that rational ( I take you as example) do you see the inconsistency I'm talking about ? the results are contrary to the ones expected . This is a reason to consider atheism immoral or not good .
Homosexuality. I said that it is against nature or as you say not normal , now it's the same thing . How do I know it ? I know it because the sex between different sexes is essential to life on earth , it's what makes the nature to continue be alive , it's part of nature . I know it because it is what it is usually done by people .
Why is it immoral if you are attracted to the same sex? I don't necessarily argue for it , anyway I think that to be attracted of the same sex is a illness .
E G 10+
'I suggest life is generally better than no living' then why on earth do you support homosexuality?
I agree with that statements including the one above , but I don't agree with one of them , that : "Treating people the same regardless of sex, religion, race etc is generally better than discrimination." I agree with the discrimination based on value in other words I am for treating people according to their value .
"You offer only opinion to explain your prejudices." I guess you can consider them reasons now , right ?.
"What makes something moral or immoral in your opinion?" the same distinction between good or bad . Now that's the problem .
Colleen Steen 500+
So, the woman (stupid cow, as you name her above) and the person who is sexually oriented in a way that you are not, are not as valuable according to your standards, and you agree with discrimination based on value...you treat people according to their value.
That's pretty close minded, and one of the biggest challenges in our world as far as creating equality and freedom for all.
Gabo Moreno 100+
Eduard (EG) is not very rational. So better not to take him too much into a conversation. His comments are always all over the place, and seem more like random and angry outbursts than arguments. Today, if I engage with him, I try to keep it hyper simple. Even then he just won't get it.
Example, now there are many things he said I would answer. But, since I know he won't get it, I rather not.
E G 10+
"So, the woman (stupid cow, as you name her above)" nope i didn't name so above . What do you want to imply ? that I make women , stupid cows ? Did you understand what I said ?
" the person who is sexually oriented in a way that you are not, are not as valuable according to your standards," I didn't say it either , I said that the homosexuals should be treated according to their value . How do you know I'm not an homosexual ? it doesn't result at all from what I said that I'm not .
"and you agree with discrimination based on value.... "that's right , what wrong with it ?
Please next time when you think to answer to my comment , answer to my comment not to what you think I'm saying and also don't just tell me 'I'm close minded ' without justifying it rationally.
E G 10+
You should be ashamed of your naivety and nonsense : naivety because you think that if I don't agree with your conclusion I don't understand your point and nonsense because :
" Science is corrosive to religion means exactly that. Not that religious people are stupid. Being scientific means that you have learned science. Not being scientific means that you have not learned science. Not learning science can be due to a million factors besides failure for being stupid. Since there are many reasons why somebody intelligent would not be scientific, you are even more wrong"
and "Worse because intelligent people can be mislead by their beliefs and their trust in creationist quacks so badly that such a thing would not allow them to make the effort to understand science. "
What you meant to say was that many religious people are unscientific not because they are stupid (they are even intelligent) but because of many reasons , among them being:
- the belief mislead the religious people , they trust quacks in such a way they cannot allow themselves the effort to understand science .
Look I understood/got your hyper simple things ........ you see your nonsense , everybody can see it .
You think if I don't agree with your conclusions I don't get what you meant to say : this proves a lot of arrogance from your part . And yes, only this unfounded accusations get me angry and sad .
" Example, now there are many things he said I would answer. But, since I know he won't get it, I rather not." there is absolutely no thing you can say and I can't get . I can prove it if you want and help .
In fact you didn't understand my hyper simple claim which was : it's enough for stupidity to be a potential factor + the way Dawkins talked for a person to get the impression I got . So my impression reflects what Dawkins said .
Colleen Steen 500+
I do not "imply" anything. Here are some of your statements again, in case you forgot what you wrote. I am copying them directly from YOUR comments.
"" Why is homosexuality immoral?" because it's against the nature , it's against the natural order the things are done . Just a reason for an opinion".
" Divorce . Yes it makes everything a lie . 'I'll love you eternally , my dear' 'Are you stupid , cow ?' Is it so hard to associate this things with the divorce ?"
These are YOUR comments Eduard. Sorry that you do not remember what you write, but you can go back and check them. Yes, I understand what you write very well. Do you?
E G 10+
"I do not "imply" anything" , I remember vaey well what I wrote and from what I wrote do not follows what you said , you're implying things about what I said without any reasonable support to do it . Just read again what I wrote .
You're becoming impossible : are you telling me I don't know what I wrote , only you do ?
Colleen Steen 500+
E G 10+
Stewart Gault 30+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#Bonobo_and_other_apes
So it's very natural.
E G 10+
- if we think that 'heterosexual' is opposite to 'homosexual' then we have a contradiction in nature . It would be funny to say that this contradiction is natural too ...... it implies a lot .
Anyway your observation doesn't change with anything my reasons , it is obvious , isn't it ?
Gabo Moreno 100+
I am not going to argue that point in this forum. All I will say is that if you think that what I wrote in that other forum is "nonsense," then you did not get it. Not only that, you do not understand what "nonsense" means. By the way your style for quoting and inserting your comment in the middle of the quote is very difficult to understand. I suggest you to try and put the quoted texts by themselves, then add space and then your comment so that it is much clearer who said what.
E G 10+
Your nonsense here is that you think I can't get 'it' . The other forum is the other forum .
Stewart Gault 30+
What is natural though, is the fact that only heterosexual sex will create offspring.
And it does change your reasoning. It means you can no longer honestly say that it is against the natural order. So you need a new reason.
E G 10+
" What is natural though, is the fact that only heterosexual sex will create offspring. " This is my reason above against homosexuality in other words homosexuality is against life .
Obey No1kinobe 50+
It takes all sorts, but a couple of discussion threads have gone nowhere.
I've done a few sloppy comments but E G has a special talent for being rude and obnoxious and well different
It's a bit toxic. Might start to ignore or keep it short.
E G 10+
Maybe my style is obnoxious and this makes you think I have a talent for being rude and well different but I understand very well your points and what's going on here ....... your points are just nonsense . Just go and answer a rational person ( an atheist if you like) and I'm sure he would say the same thing I said about your points .
"It's a bit toxic. Might start to ignore or keep it short." That's right , what I write is too toxic for you , I give up .
Colleen Steen 500+
Some of us have been involved in discussion with you in the past, and it is clear that whatever anyone offers, you are going to try to prove them "wrong". I do not understand what enjoyment you get from this type of communication, but it causes people to eventually ignore you. If that is what you are trying to accomplish...so be it.
E G 10+
Stewart Gault 30+
E G 10+
Stewart Gault 30+
Ok a few things from y perspective which need cleared up, and as I couldn't reply to you directly Sibin I've to do it here.
With no god in my idea I'm still very accountable for my actions. I'm accountable to myself and my conscience and to society. I know enough to see humanity's real place in the universe and so I see us as semi evolved primates who can easily kill each other or just as easily create magnificent wonders on Earth.
So here's how accountability comes across in it's coldest most logical form. Society is like a living organism. It requires certain parts to work. If these parts don't work then society falls and I'm directly affected for the worse. So it's in my best interest to prevent society falling. So you can base very limited moral ideas on this basis and add a little emotion as in, it's everyone's right to enjoy society as much as I do, then you add extra moral ideas.
So an atheist isn't accountable to no one. I much prefer the idea that I can't be forgiven for my deeds, it reminds me every day that if I act in an evil way I'll forever be thought of as evil and so makes me want to be good. Instead of just unloading my wrong doing onto someone else in the sky.
And the christian judgement is an ultimate evil to me. And by the way, why wouldn't you want to be merry and happy all the time?
Also we don't need a god for morals, morals are seen throughout the animal kingdom.
Comment deleted
Obey No1kinobe 50+
That didn't stop me looking for the truth and asking questions.
I support freedom of religion. You are entitled to your beliefs, but if you want to argue about what makes the world a better place, then religion has a very mixed report card.
If it makes you happy good. But you need a decent reason to say what is good and bad, more than your god said so. Because there are plenty of people with different opinions about what gods are real and what they say about morality and they don't all agree.
Stewart Gault 30+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Do treat others as you would like to be treated generally still works
Not killing or stealing still works.
I could give you reasons how these principles enhance the human experience.
Better to live in a society where you are not always scared someone will kill you and take your stuff.
Its some of the other things that might have made sense 2,000 or 3,000 years ago that may not today.
We have had the enlightenment. We now talk about equality and human rights. These are superior to the violence and prejudice in the old testament.
Please don't think I'm for doing whatever you like if it harms other people.
Also some self discipline enriches our own life and others.
Some old prejudices should be challenged like the hatred of homosexuality. like inequality for different races and women.
We still have to manage the dark side of human nature, but some religious or cultural traditions should be challenged if we want a better world. Also no issue challenging the liberal view point as well. e.g. the bedrooms of consenting adults are pretty much their business, but sexual assault and the early sexualisation of children is problematic.
So lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some ethical positions are still relevant. Others not so. I just think it is an issue tying a view of morality to any religion or cultural norms and not think about if it really is good or bad.
Animal sacrifice is part of old testament tradition. Not that good. A lot of sexism in many religions. Not that good. Killing, stealing, lying are not that good still. But demanding everyone follow one god is not so good.
Critical thinking beats faith if you are looking for truth in my view.
Colleen Steen 500+
In a previous comment, you write..."What continues to amaze me is why does the do not's of today become the do's tomorrow?"
I agree with what Obey writes. And also, I believe that as evolving humans, we have the ability to look at information, determine what is working or not working in our societies, and make changes. One challenge, is that change takes time and persistance.
An example is regarding the status of women. In modern times, only about 20 years ago, there was STILL a law on this state's (USA) books, which said that a man had the right to shoot or whip his wife for certain infractions. The wife was considered "property" of the husband. That is a concept we carried over from biblical times, and even though we have evolved beyond that belief, in some respects and some places in our world, it was still a law, which was FINALLY removed!
The idea of a woman being the property of a man is still a belief in some cultures...yes? I believe that to think any person is the property of another person is immoral. This, in my perception, includes husband/wife, slaves, or whatever. This practice still exists in some parts of our world. We can continue to remind our global societies that it is not appropriate to "own" another human being.
Kiran Batta 10+
Stewart Gault 30+
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you complaining that homosexuality is immoral? Since when is sex immoral? And atheism of all things really? Not believing in the supernatural is now immoral? Japan is the most secular nation on the world and has the lowest crime rates, teen pregnancy rates etc.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Stewart Gault 30+
Colleen Steen 500+
You are speaking for everyone in your country? I don't think so!
Is this discussion question..."Is Morality on the decline!??", or are you trying again to promote your own beliefs about god and religion? It appears that you are trying to promote your own beliefs with a topic question that is misleading.
Your question, as it was in the beginning was fine...until you added your own judgement regarding what is moral and what is not moral.
Kiran Batta 10+
I am an Indian and I do not share your ideas, please speak for yourself. Yes, majority of Indians live in ignorance (about God especially!), that does not make them right, just like their ideas about cast-ism.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Kiran Batta 10+
Mitch SMith 50+
If you wish to use this word in an assertion. please give a definition. Without such a basis, the entire conversation is noise. Nothing wrong with that of course ... but if you want a conclusion, definitions help.
Comment deleted
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Colleen Steen 500+
You certainly DID revise the conversation to one that I probably would not have even bothered with, and will flag. It is not appropriate to change the entire meaning of a conversation after people have already commented.
Your judgement about what is, or is not "evil" is inappropriate.
EDIT:
This is a response to your comment below Sibin,
Again, in your comment below, you speak for everyone in Indian culture?
It is not what you "did away" with in your introduction that is in question Sibin. It is what you added.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
To determine whether morality is decline we need to agree on what is moral and what is not.
It is not as easy as you think. Killing is generally bad, but what about self defence.
It's sad if a marriage breaks down, but should a women stay married to a man how beats her or abuses her children? If no children but unhappy together, what is wrong with moving on?
The big question is defining morality or what is ethical and justifying what is considered immoral/moral or ethical.
Saying it is cultural or religious is not really enough. In some cultures it is culturally acceptable to perform genital mutilation on young boys and girls. In others if a women is raped she must marry the rapist.
How do we determine what is moral and what is not. Is it good enough to say my society thinks it is okay to stone adulterers or kill witches?
Surely we can do better than that.
I suggest it is about group dynamics and harm.
I suggest moral acts tend to improve the human condition, immoral acts tend to harm others.
Each situation may need to be assessed case by case.
Why is atheism immoral? How is it hurting? Surely atheists can act in a responsible and positive way. In fact more secular countries often have less crime than more religious ones.
Good opportunity to test your assumptions?
Mitch SMith 50+
However, the word "Morality" itself hampers any way forward.
Sibin, you have given examples, not a definition.
For a definition to exist, it must be aplicable to every situation to determine measure and facilitate judgement.
As it stands, the word "morality" is not even properly defined in dictionaries. This is a great oversight on the part of English-speaking culture - and one that prevents any constructive conversation based on a predicate containing the word.
For the sake of returning the conversation to reality, I would like to propose a new definition - and we can find a way forward in the discussion.
If this is not done, the conversation will devolve to what has always happened in the presence of non-words - such discussions always end up in an assertion of domination.
Try this:
"Morality; (noun) antonymn IMorality, the positive side of a continuum describing the dichotemy of relative harm to life and the conditions required for life to exist."
This is the most basic predicate I can express at the moment - but I am sure it is a firm enough basis to actually have constructive discussion.
Can we move forward on this basis?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I would also temper freedoms with responsibility, especially for adults and parents.
Early sexualisation is problematic etc.
I'm all human rights and ethical systems that improve the human condition. But not those locked in conflicting scriptures.
We have a brain. Lets use it to improve the human condition. Not to demonise homosexuals and make our sexual nature a dirty thing.
Atheism is not a moral stand. Just not having a belief in gods and goddesses due to lack of evidence.
Even if you believe in gods I suggest many people would disagree with a lot of religious moral rules. A book about a god that killed all but one family in a flood and will send others to eternal punishment should be viewed critically, not as the best source of morality. We can do better than the bronze age. Take the best from the past, religion, philosophy, ethics, the enlightenment and build on it.
Seriously for many, this is the best time ever to be living, in part because of the ideas of equality etc and pushing down theocracies and monarchies and pre scientific ignorance.
No religion does not mean a moral vaccuum. Religious morals are not also great ethically.
My understanding is the hindu related caste system is not that great. Some issues with Buddhism and other religious teachings as well. We should move on, but not without secular ethical education, good role models, some self discipline, using our freedoms for the greater good, not stuck in hedonism. There is a balance to be sort.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Divorces - not sure why this is immoral
Cohabitation - not sure why this is immoral
Homosexuality - not sure why it is immoral to be homosexual
Dressing style - Disagree. People should be able to wear what they want in general
Porn stuff - Suggest okay if consenting adults but risks of addiction
Corruption - I'd generally agree this is more harmful than good.
Sex - seems necessary for procreation, also good for relationships and fun between consenting adults
Atheism - Not sure why this is immoral
I note you are missing out eating shellfish, working on the sabbath, endorsement of slavery
Why do you suggest biblical morality is the benchmark? Why not Buddhist or Secular human rights.
Biblical morality is a mixed bag. Should raped women have to marry their rapist. Should children who are disrespectful to their parents be killed. No shellfish. The endorsement of slavery.
Relying on bronze age and medieval religious morality is highly problematic.
Colleen Steen 500+
With all due respect, the word Moral has meaning for me, and it appears to have meaning for many other people as well. I don't think you can speak for all humans. There are indeed existing definitions for "morality". Perhaps the existing definitions are not acceptable to you, and that's ok.
The original question was "Is Morality on the decline!??" Now you have encouraged the facilitator to change the introduction, which changes the direction of the topic to what IS, or IS NOT moral.
Mitch SMith 50+
On the basis of available dictionary definitions, the words "moral" and "morality" are far too porous to support a discussion to conclusion.
I cannot have any interest in the conversation until the predicate question is made clear.
As you can see above, all are jumping to personal conclusions and discussing symptoms rather than causes. This amounts to no more than "bird noise" - a cacophany of territorial assertions that progress nowhere.
Personally, I don't mind bird-noise - but one must see it for what it is and not pretend that it has a function other than flaging presence: "I am here, I am here" is very fine for mating rituals and agression diplays, but it does not serve to advance understanding.
I am not attacking the function or basis of "morality", I am seeking a mutual definition of the word to allow a real conversation - to free it from a festival of arrogance.
The author's actions have proven his intent to assert his territory over teh participants. I would have thought you would have apreciated teh demonstration ? ;)
Colleen Steen 500+
I totally agree with you..."one must see it for what it is and not pretend that it has a function other than flaging presence".
The author's actions were clear to some of us from the beginning. So, all of your long winded "stuff"....talk about bird noises!!! LOL:>)
Mitch SMith 50+
I said at the outset that I was interested in exploring morality - and whether there is a decline in it.
You will see that my long wind was a gift, and you will perceive your unkindness.
Colleen Steen 500+
Mitch SMith 50+
Perhaps you are used to less generous relationships.
Perception. For it to function properly in the communal setting, it requires convergence.
That requires a bit of "wind". To cast aspersion on it is to deny value - I admit I perceive that act as unkind, and counter productive.
If you engaged in this conversation for the sport of engaging in combat with the "author's action", then you reveal a motive that I do not have.
If there is an opportunity to explore the frame of the topic, then there is an oportunity for the author to progress beyond assertion. That is my intent.
Colleen Steen 500+
Mitch SMith 50+
My intution is that the dictionaries are at odds with personal understandings of the word.
To read the dictionaries, one sees circular references (morality: the practice of being moral"), References to other undefined words (Morality: The practice of "virtue"), or the counter-intuitive definition - "Morality: the observance of law or custom" i.e. "conformity".
I have offered a tentative definition that we, as a discussion community can develop. It may well be an impossible task, but the process will give us all a better understanding of our own sense of morality - if not a basis for being able to speak the word and be successfully understood.
So - what is your best definition of "morality"?
Colleen Steen 500+
I accept, understand, and agree with existing definitions of the words "moral" and "morality", and do not have a desire to start changing accepted definitions of words.
I have a very good sense of my own morality Mitch, because I have been exploring it in many different ways throughout the life experience for 60+ years. If the definitions are "at odds", with your own "personal understandings of the word", that is something you can explore in yourself.
I addressed the topic question..."Is Morality on the decline!??" with my very first comment on this thread. Here it is, in case you missed it.
"Colleen Steen
Reply 4 days ago: Sibin,
I do not agree that morality is on a decline. I think/feel that because of the advanced communication systems we have now, we are becoming more aware of morality, or lack of morality in our world.
Consider corruption in government, business, churches, etc. Those abuses and violation of human rights have been going on throughout history. Part of the process of continued abuse, is isolation. It is getting more and more difficult for offenders to isolate people now, so I believe there will be more uncovering of abuse and violation of rights in our world.
The "last days" spoken about in your introduction, may mean the "last days" of corruption in our world, and perhaps it is time for a new beginning, with mindful awareness:>)
We are evolving as humans, with more intention to think and feel for ourselves, rather than be led by people or organizations who may not have the betterment/improvement of humankind in mind."
Obey No1kinobe 50+
The common definition is around conformance to some moral code or similar. Sometimes it is used about sex and chastity etc.
It doesn't actually comment on whether that code is ethical or beneficial to the human condition.
This morality is highly subjective. It seems to depend on what each individual decides is moral, with some weight perhaps in numbers.
So if one group thinks genital mutilation of children is moral and another doesn't it is simply opinion, perhaps backed with some argument from human rights or religious scriptures.
That is why I find ethical analysis more powerful than morality statements. What harms, what improves the human experience.
Maybe in sibins view of what is moral things are decline. In my view it is a mixed bag.
I think it reasonable for people to have a rationale for what they think is moral if they want to claim that this is good or bad for humanity besides cultural tradition and religious dogma.
Mitch SMith 50+
But I observe that no one can truly express a useful definition for the words "morality" and "moral".
Until that occurs, I must assume that each mouth that utters the word seeks to impose some kind of conformity. In that sense, the word itself is a deception - and acts the reverse of its assumed intention.
Advantage is granted to those not so fooled. Please proceed.
Colleen Steen 500+
Perhaps you did not read my comment?
Here it is, in case you missed it...
"I accept, understand, and agree with existing definitions of the words "moral" and "morality", and do not have a desire to start changing accepted definitions of words.
I have a very good sense of my own morality Mitch, because I have been exploring it in many different ways throughout the life experience for 60+ years. If the definitions are "at odds", with your own "personal understandings of the word", that is something you can explore in yourself.
I addressed the topic question..."Is Morality on the decline!??" with my very first comment on this thread".
You may, of course "assume" whatever you like:>)
pat gilbert 100+
I see you continue to yik yak in your ambiguous style.
The definition of morals is agreements. E.G. if Aussies decide it is moral to drink 8 Fosters a day it is moral, of course ethics are another matter.
Get that morals are agreements? Of course you will fade away but none the less that is the long of it and the short of it.
Mitch SMith 50+
Thank you for exhibiting the courage to offer a definition.
Yik yak? LOL - I don't much like you either, but that doesn't stop a good conversation.
(edit) I think the topic has progressed the understanding of morality and whether it is in decline or not.
But the progress seems to remain "between the lines" .
If we were to agree that "Moral" means conformity to custom, - as you say "agreements".
Then it is a dynamic thing. Discussions about morals then become entirely relative to the external agreements brought to the table.
Perhaps, a discussion should always set a "moral" framework inclusive to the participants - and leave the external committments at the door?
Mitch SMith 50+
As Meatloaf so aptly observed:
"Would you offer your throat to the wolf with the red roses?"
I have asked this many times in many ways - there is only one answer that ever comes back:
"Yes! - And yes again!"
I have feasted and fed.
What is a "ted-cred"?
It is an index of adictive behaviour - we say yes to the wolf. The higher the cred, the more we have fed .. and sometimes, we get to feast.
Morality is agreement?
Then it is honour amongst thieves. What you have revealed to me allows me to walk in and do whatever I wnat - as you have done.
Robert Winner 50+
You make an argument based on biblical passage. One of the elements of a culture is religion. In order for your assertion to be true it can only apply to those who use the Christian Bible and specifically the New International Version and even then it would depend on the church you attend. Methodists, Baptists, Lutherns, etc ... all see thing a slight bit different.
If you had asked IS MORALITY ON THE DECLINE I may have answered more to the point.
All the best. Bob.
Ghassan Mustafa
Rhona Pavis 50+
Linda Taylor 50+
With that, I think that we are becoming more moral over time. When I was a child, it was not uncommon to listen to TV newscasts and hear about the thousands of Americans that died per week in wars. Our young men were called up and sent to die on a weekly basis.
Now a days, we are aghast at 46 Americans dying overseas and society moves to end the conflict. We are less tolerant of intolerance.
Roy Bourque 20+
I recently returned from Salem Mass. You ought to look at how people were treated during the witch trials. Go back to Jesus time; they crucified people. We see a lot of immorality, but we see a lot more people as well. What is one percent of a million? compare that to one percent of 6 billion. The same percentage yields a much larger number. And who gets the attention in the news? All the people that disturb the order of things.
Throughout history, it flows in ebbs and bounds. When people are doing well, many forget who their maker is, until push comes to shove and distresses start to take over. Don't lose your faith, but don't abuse it either. Follow the commandments, and let God do the rest. Just don't try to play God. I believe that we will be judged by how we treated others. So treat others the way that you would want God to treat you. You will have your reward in the end.
Kevin Jacobson
Zared Schwartz
Matthieu Miossec 100+
As for your question regarding evolution. What is the reverse of evolution if evolution has no direction? You seem to be saying that we're becoming more like other animals qualified as 'bestial'. Those animals are as evolved as we are, intelligence or moral rectitude are not the ultimate pinnacles of evolution. Humans are animal-like because they are animals.
I think morality progresses most of the time, the only thing we must really worry about is moral stagnation. Ironically, religion plays a considerable part in holding the progress of morality back. The Vatican, for example, prides itself in being severely outdated.
E G 10+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
E G 10+
But not this was what I tried to point to --- I wanted to show that you the atheists are not objective at all , you just talk about the bad things of religion as if there is nothing good in it , in this way you can't understand religion .
Colleen Steen 500+
You are absolutely correct...your argument is too much in your opinion, which appears to be based on a certain religious belief.
Our world has changed a great deal in thousands of years, and hopefully, our morals have changed in relationship to the life experience changes.
I do not agree with your previous statement that "religion are given the best examples of moral people".
Think about it E G. I believe you are an intelligent person, and you know what has happened because of religions throughout history.
E G 10+
No Colleen , that's my opinion but it doesn't mean necessarily it is because of my religion (by the way I'm not a catholic) , why do you people every time when a guy with some beliefs that's right , tries to make a point just think that's because his religion ? This is not correct . If what I said it's too much an opinion in other words if it hasn't too much tangency with the reality just prove it , ok ? if you don’t wanna hear me saying yours is too much an opinion ; I gonna take your comment as a try to prove it .
It's true our world has changed a great deal in thousands of years but it doesn't mean our morals have changed in so way that that people of 1000 years ago cannot be considered moral according to our 'new' standards ---- to not kill , to not lie , to love your fellow , to not steal , this are standards as valid now as 1000 years ago .
"I do not agree with your previous statement that "religion are given the best examples of moral people"." why ? because some bad things happened because of religion throughout history ; it is not a reason , just think about it .
Colleen Steen 500+
I assumed your comment was based on your religious beliefs because you clearly state... right above, in this same comment thread...
"Ironically, but from the same religion are given the best examples of moral people" .
That is not MY statement E G...it is YOUR statement!
I believe E G, that as evolving humans, we are realizing that we can think and feel for ourselves, and NOT be totally led by beliefs that do not make sense, and are not beneficial for the good of humankind.
I have my beliefs E G, and you have your beliefs, which I respect. I will NOT go around in verbal circles, which you seem to like to do.
E G 10+
I really don 't understand you , why did you deduce from my statement that I talk what I talk because of my belief ?
I assume your belief are backed by reason , that's why I gonna comment them and that's why I say that from the fact some people had some nonsensical beliefs much time ago do not follows our morals changed in so way some other people from that time cannot be considered moral today even though we are evolving humans .
Matthieu Miossec 100+
The good religion does should be a given while the bad shouldn't happen at all. A charity for example, has a particular mission, if it goes against it, then it will be judged on that, not on its good deeds. It doesn't matter the good that a charity has done if it is found that most of the money is being diverted to a personal account or if the charity is found to support some unethical cause it wasn't set up for. If you want religion to be weighed equally on its good and bad deeds then you cannot claim that religion is a beacon of morality, only that it is an institution amongst others.
I submit that this obsession with brushing away the bad is a failing of religion itself, that you would rather defend religion as it is rather than try to better it. The fact that some Catholics were quick to defend their religion when stories of pedophile priests broke out in much the same terms as you, by accusing the atheists of focusing on the bad, should ring alarm bells in anyone who is concerned with moral integrity. If the so-called source of morality that religion is supposed to be becomes more sacred than the morals themselves, then we have a huge problem.
Let's see a little self-criticism, then "we" won't have to do it for you.
E G 10+
Give me some examples of new moral standards ; what do you wanna say talking about the proximity we share with the animal kingdom ? that this help us to have access to new moral standards ? --- as much as I know we are more evolved than any animal (including our morals) . And even by absurd this happens it doesn't mean that that people of 1000 years ago wasn't moral as long as their moral standards are not proven wrong .
Maybe the religion as an institution is not a beacon of morality but I'm not asking you to understand the institution of religion and its actions but the religion itself ---you seem to think there (in the second paragraph) at religion only as at an institution (thus the example with the charity ) . By religion itself I understand basically its doctrines , their potential application and their results on particular people . Let the institution aside for now and weigh equally on religion good and bad deeds if you want to make sense because only sticking with institutional thing you prove you understand nothing about religion .
I don't have an obsession with brushing away the bad , if you had been careful at what I said you would have realized that I'm arguing for an understanding of the religion as a whole including here the good and the bad of religion and that focusing only on the bad makes it impossible.
So Matthieu next time when you talk with me , talk with me.
The same thing about self-criticism , I agreed there are bad things in religion . It rather seems that self-criticism is what atheism lack of .
You didn't prove your point about the new standards so far , remain on the subject don't just criticize religion (it's easy to reject it ) and do what you need to do .
Matthieu Miossec 100+
No Edhuard, you are not more evolved that animals, but I forgive you this error, as I know your interest in biology is limited. All living species today are the culmination of their respective branches. There are many paths to succesfully preserving ones species over the generations and humans have perfected it as bacteria, plants and other contemporary animals have. All living things today are the most adapted for their current environment until it changes.
Our current understanding of the animal kingdom has made it impossible to ignore animal suffering as if they do not really feel suffering, as Descartes once advanced, why do we? This is not what transpires from the Bible which treats animals as the property of mankind.
Edhuard, you misunderstand me. If we let the good and the bad weigh in equally, than religion cannot be held up as a beacon of morality. Only then it becomes a simple institution. If you want to weigh the good and the bad, than you cannot claim religion as a force for good. If you want to claim religion as a force for good, you have to show that it is inherently good. Charity was meant as an analogy that you've clearly misunderstood (also a charity is not an institution so I'm not sure how you made the connection)
the last three lines of your penultimate paragraph are pathetic. I think this conversation is over.
E G 10+
Even so with my limited knowledge of biology your conclusion cannot be accepted logically --- it's true all living things today are the most adapted for their current environment but it doesn't lead to your conclusion that I'm not more evolved than animals if we consider the full meaning of the word 'evolved' not only the scientific one , thus 'evolved' being synonymous with 'the best' , I am the best . Anyway it will be, I don't see how all this stuff leads you to the idea that knowing the animals we can advance our morality in such a way the morality of the people of many years ago cannot be considered morality today .
"Our current understanding of the animal kingdom has made it impossible to ignore animal suffering as if they do not really feel suffering" I'm sure that there were people before who knew that animals are suffering even though they didn't have the understanding of animals we have , so that people can be considered moral today , can't they ?
Well , animals are our property even today (the pets for example) and it doesn't mean they are suffering in this way or they were suffering in this way thus you can't say we advanced in morality so much that that people cannot be considered moral today .
It's just nonsense your claim that the people who lived before us cannot be considered moral according to our 'new' standards .
Yes , I guess i misunderstood you there and I still don't understand (your English was there a bit different than the one I'm used with f, for example your first sentence there : "The good religion does should be a given while the bad shouldn't happen at all" ) why
E G 10+
why are they pathetic ? because you tell me about self-criticism when I already criticized the religion because some others theists are not self-critic ? or because you make a analogy between the obsession of some catholic with and what I actually said and you misunderstood ? that's why I told you to talk with when you talk with me , not doing this was actually pathetic , I just wanted to remain on the subject and to talk about me=my claims and yours .
Come on , don't run so quickly .
Stewart Gault 30+
If your base for morality is increasing the well beings of others then a morality in which genocide, slavery, repression of women, animal sacrifice, vicarious redemption, ban on homosexuality are all examples of things which limit the well being of people, minus the animal sacrifice it's just an example of something needless. Now all of the above are permitted in religion. Death for leaving Islam is another evil moral idea.
And one latest story to make the headlines is the idea of giving whales and dolphins rights. Which I think is a brilliant idea, it finally recognizes that there are more intelligent species than just us.
Added: We see morality in animals too just in case you didn't know this.
Now EG you totally negate the fact that being the "best" by evolutionary standards is a perspective based proposition. Something which Matthieu has been trying to drill into you. Ok humans are the most evolved species mentally, I didn't say best, why? well because we've done a lot of bad stuff which is never observed in the animal kingdom which may rule out us being the best. But elsewhere we aren't the best, we can survive almost anywhere, but we aren't the best, tardigrades can survive everywhere on earth except for deserts and in lava.
If by size of population you go by the term best, we're still not great either, there's probably more ants in a square mile of where you live than there are humans in your country.
We aren't the best at swinging from trees, or swimming, or running, or jumping, or climbing and this is a non exhaustive list. Even our eyes aren't the best, octopuses have better eyes than we do. Dogs can feel earthquakes. We can be allergic to the sun or pollen.
So by what terms are we, the "best"
E G 10+
"EG we can't say people 2000 years ago weren't moral but we can say they were less moral than us" Nope , it's just obvious there were people before us (who were religious) who were more moral than some other people who live today . If there were few or more it doesn't matter because you talk about us all .
You seem to say that a morality which doesn't increases the well being of the people it's needless ? is it what you want to say with that examples ?
Anyway it's not true with example or not , a morality is about increasing the good in the universe not necessarily the well being of the people , there are cases when the good is more while the well being is not , so a morality which doesn't increase the well being of the people it's not needless .
I can agree that is better without genocide or repression of women (they need to be repressed sometimes ) ............ I come back later to finish the comment .
E G 10+
As a reason for your position it seemed to me you said somewhere above : "Since when is sex immoral?" , the thing is that not sex is immoral in homosexuality but the way it is done and with who it is done . It's just unnatural , it's just against the natural order the things are done . In my opinion it is a illness , they seem to be a kind of 'sexuopaths' . I just can't accept the morality of this guys when it comes about the sexual life , in rest perhaps they can do good deeds.
"Added: We see morality in animals too just in case you didn't know this." I talked with Matthieu a year ago or about so and he informed me about this but even so what he said doesn't make sense , maybe the animals have a kind of morality but it doesn't mean it is better than ours and in this way we can get some better perspectives on morality .
"Now EG you totally negate the fact that being the "best" by evolutionary standards is a perspective based proposition." I don't know what you want to say by this , you can read what I answered to Matthieu .
"So by what terms are we, the "best"" it's true what you described there , however we are the best by everything because and this is just a reason we have the power .
Matthieu Miossec 100+
E G 10+
Now , I'm not reframing you at all because I don't have what to reframe at you , you said some words which implies many things , I understood something at that moment , I set up what I understood as the point for debate and you had no reaction about it so I went further . Now in the end you say something more precise and that is --- in our time , the best examples of morality from religion in the past , cannot be still considered the best .
Do you know examples of moral people in the past which weren't religious but still can be considered the best today ?
Anyway , you're reframing me , I didn't claim you said people before our time are immoral or amoral but that people before our time are amoral according to your new standards . That's what I understood from what you said , but it seems now after my objections that it's not what you want me to understand --- the best examples of morality from the past are not to be found in religion according to the today's standards . First please answer to my question above , at least to know if according to your new standards (which aren't so new in my opinion) some people from the past can be considered moral .
Now , I have to do a huge work , to see if there is a relation between your new point and what you said in order to support it ( I assume because you said 'I'm reframing you' , to pay you back for this , that you actually said everything in the support of this new claim , I assume you knew it) .
First I need to clarify this " You keep saying I know nothing." " First paragraph, provide counter-arguments" you misunderstood me what I said was a counter-argument and obviously it means that I'm not keep saying you know nothing . You said that the way women are treated today finds no moral parallel in religion , my counter-ar
E G 10+
'Evolved' in the colloquial use mean 'the best' , did you never used this word with this meaning ? I did and I consider it covers anything what 'evolved' could mean . I'm best than animals in any sense and it proves my point, which is counter to yours , that the proximity I share with the animal kingdom can help access new standards of morality . Now , if the evolution goal was to say it or not it's not important for my argument obviously . But even if I take only the scientific meaning of 'evolved' , how does it prove your point ( that you tell I was reframing) ? It doesn't because they could be the best evolved as I am but it doesn't mean they have morality or if they have that their morality is better than the humans one . So again your support for your point doesn't make any sense .
By the way Stewart said an entirely different thing than yours there , you can read why .
It's already too much what we're talking about so i let the rest on later (if that later will really exist for us ).
Stewart Gault 30+
And you're right, there may have been moral people up to or beyond our current standards in the past. But judging from the control of religion and the amount who were under it's control I think it's a fair assumption to say what I say.
E G 10+
"But judging from the control of religion and the amount who were under it's control I think it's a fair assumption to say what I say." well, I wouldn't say this but I understand what you want to say .
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Stewart Gault 30+
E G 10+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
I'm sure you consider me a coward now and that's fine by me if it makes you feel good about yourself. Everyone's a winner.
E G 10+
Look , I can't say you precise what I mean by 'the best' , I told you I use the word with a colloquial sense , not with a scientific one . Let's use 'more evolved' in the sense you used it . I draw my word back .
Now, what is wrong with my reasoning if we let aside this thing ? which anyway in my opinion doesn't change the importance of my comments even a bit .
I don't consider you a coward , I just think you're wrong and I said why . My deleted message was meant to make throw yourself forward and answer me , a bit of stimulation , it didn't work , there were times when it used to work..... anyway
Matthieu Miossec 100+
E G 10+
To make a comparison : in the UFC there are more categories : heavyweight , light heavyweight , middleweight , walterweight ..... every current champion at this categories had a evolution on his own , from this perspective we can say as you did that they are the same evolved , but if there would be a match between the champ of the heavyweight with the champ of the light heavyweight , the one from the heavy will win therefore he would be 'the best' .
It's kind of saying : we are the best at open category .
That's why the proximity we share with the animal kingdom is not a thing that should suggest we can have access to new moral standards. We are the best at 'open' , therefore our morals and responsibility is the best .
Don't forget , just a colloquial use . And if you want answer to everything not only to the point related to what I wrote above , I don't like to waste my time .
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Your analogy must end here. The levels you outlined suggest that human being are the most adapted thing there is on Earth or that different specializations are comparable and levels of success are easily quantifiable. That is not accurate, humans are very succesful in their particular niche. We've made our success through intelligence, the use of hands and cumulative culture. That we excell at. This isn't the heavyweight category of evolution however. It's not the ultimate way to succesfully propagate as a species. Other species have made their success through other means and those means are just as legitimate. There is no measure you can take where Homo Sapiens is the fittest of all, unless it's biased.
I submit to you, that as a human being, you have a bias towards those features that make humans succesfull. You probably believe (although you can tell me if I'm mistaken) that intelligence and culture makes us the pinnacle of evolution. Not so.
Now to come back to my original argument, where I spoke of evolution in its proper sense (although the colloquial sense is, as we've shown, just an oversimplification of the scientific term). To know that we descend from shared ancestors with animals is to come to the conclusion that, the circuits of pain and pleasure in animals are all but the same as ours with modification that we inherited. It is true that humans may easily have perceived animal suffering in the past, but that wasn't a view shared by a majority. Now we are faced with the facts and not an educated guess. It makes a difference. You went on some sort of weird tangent on this one even though I was pretty clear!
E G 10+
"I'm saying by today's standards, the best examples of morality are not to be found in religion" or "the best examples of morality from religion in the past , cannot be still considered the best ." this is your claim , right ?
Now do you agree that this " It is true that humans may easily have perceived animal suffering in the past, but that wasn't a view shared by a majority." don't supports your claim ? maybe in that minority from the past there were religious people . This is what I called nonsense at you and I still do obviously . This is the weird tangent , is it still so weird now ?
And this is only one example .
Matthieu Miossec 100+
E G 10+
I don't consider you a coward , from your style of talking i think you're not enough mentally trained . I give up , bye .
Stewart Gault 30+
Random Chance 30+
You say, "Not much slavery left no thanks to the bible endorsement."
There is more slavery in the world today than ever in the history of human beings.
Rhona Pavis 50+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I guess in many countries you can not own another person as property.
That at least is an improvement.
Random, did you mean the same thing?
Rhona Pavis 50+
Salim Solaiman 50+
What you wanted to mean by saying human becoming "animal like"?
Are not human a species of animal kingdom as well?
Allan Macdougall 50+
Intelligence without morality is rapidly and globally destructive.
Intelligence, with a morality that is exclusively anthropocentric, is self-destructive and slowly globally destructive.
Intelligence, with a realistically wide contextual sense of morality, is potentially self-sustaining.
Comment deleted
Allan Macdougall 50+
Instinct alone is devoid of emotion and is therefore behaviourally co-dependent on genetics and external environmental factors. Instinct, genetics and environment work together and are self-sustaining. If one changes, the others adapt and evolve.
Things change when morality and intelligence develop.
A lion killing young cubs for instance, is an act of instinct to protect genetic purity with a lioness in bearing his own young. An emotional (and therefore moralistic) intelligence would consider that to be an outrageously offensive act if it were allowed to happen within our own species.
My assertion is that human intelligence and morality have therefore effectively removed us from the natural course of evolution, and it is the resulting behaviour that determines our own course of progress - and indeed the fate of our own planet.
This calls into question whether we really are as intelligent as we think, and also if an anthropocentric moral code simply perpetuates an already malfunctioning collective intelligence.
The 'height' of human intelligence is without question. It is the 'breadth' of intelligence that is woefully inadequate in devising functional moral codes.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
My understanding is violence is actually reducing.
Inequality has reduced in terms of race, sex and sexuality.
Not much slavery left no thanks to the bible endorsement.
I'd rather be alive now than any time in the past. That is not to say there are not issues.
Colleen Steen 500+
I do not agree that morality is on a decline. I think/feel that because of the advanced communication systems we have now, we are becoming more aware of morality, or lack of morality in our world.
Consider corruption in government, business, churches, etc. Those abuses and violation of human rights have been going on throughout history. Part of the process of continued abuse, is isolation. It is getting more and more difficult for offenders to isolate people now, so I believe there will be more uncovering of abuse and violation of rights in our world.
The "last days" spoken about in your introduction, may mean the "last days" of corruption in our world, and perhaps it is time for a new beginning, with mindful awareness:>)
We are evolving as humans, with more intention to think and feel for ourselves, rather than be led by people or organizations who may not have the betterment/improvement of humankind in mind.