Hi LocallyP, I knew it was a joke but I thought it was a good question. And I must confess I just don't understand the economic and environmental and social and economic conservatives, so it's my fault for not studying these terms because you are giving explanations. I need to be more careful because again, a nerve was hit because of personal things in my life. I apologize.
Black Spyder, thank you for the explanation. So it's just using HTML tags?
What if we defined morality like we do when we are polite to each other. We are polite to make others comfortable in our presence... at least, that's how i taught my children. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the one teaching I know of that major religions have in common.
And I want to thank the quote: "Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace.. and those without religion". It makes my point that Jihad (murder) does not qualify Islam as a Religion and therefore should not be protected as such in America. Even though our legislators are choosing which laws to enforce, I don't think we will ever make murder legal.
I don't think anyone hijacked this discussion with references to religion. It is indeed true that as a young Country, there were not enough law enforcement people to manage the nation. My husband used to call Religion a "social control". It also helps when you are teaching your children to "be good".
But I think it is idiotic to not research stem cells to cure disease. Respect for life can get so convoluted. remember the terry Schiavo fiasco? That poor woman was vegetative for 20 years, had absolutely no brain stem left, but the politicos wasted tons of time intruding into this family's private business, while judges were letting child rapists get away with a slap on the wrist.
Peace, y'all. I find you a very bright and thoughtful group.
Full Version: Increasing Acceptance Of Immoral Ethics.
QUOTE(solaris32 @ Apr 10 2007, 12:21 AM) 
So what will the USA be like when these youth have reached their 30's? What will they teach their children? How will those children compare to their parents?
Their children will, in all likelyhood, rebel against that attitude.
Such was the case after the decadent generations of the "Roaring 20s" and the "Free love 60s".
It's a pendulum. Children rebel agains their parents regardless of what their parents are doing, whether it's being a hippy or being a square. Hippy parents produce yuppie children and yuppie parents produce rebelious children.
QUOTE(solaris32 @ Apr 10 2007, 12:21 AM)
I doubt this nation's steady spiral into immoral behavior will stop with our youth's children. Of course, many people don't even realize this, and are just "going with the flow."
What are your opinions on this matter? Is there anything that can be done? Don't be afraid to post!
People have been saying things similar to your opinions since antiquity. I think the first written record of someone disagreeing with such "these kids today - they're SLACKERS" opinions was Aristotle or Socrates.
What are your opinions on this matter? Is there anything that can be done? Don't be afraid to post!
This stuff may have been happening since thousands of years ago, it's still disconcerting to see it happen right in front of you and there's nothing to stop it.
QUOTE(BanditFlyer @ Jun 26 2007, 12:29 PM)
QUOTE(solaris32 @ Apr 10 2007, 12:21 AM)
So what will the USA be like when these youth have reached their 30's? What will they teach their children? How will those children compare to their parents?
Their children will, in all likelyhood, rebel against that attitude.
Such was the case after the decadent generations of the "Roaring 20s" and the "Free love 60s".
It's a pendulum. Children rebel agains their parents regardless of what their parents are doing, whether it's being a hippy or being a square. Hippy parents produce yuppie children and yuppie parents produce rebelious children.
QUOTE(solaris32 @ Apr 10 2007, 12:21 AM)
I doubt this nation's steady spiral into immoral behavior will stop with our youth's children. Of course, many people don't even realize this, and are just "going with the flow."
What are your opinions on this matter? Is there anything that can be done? Don't be afraid to post!
People have been saying things similar to your opinions since antiquity. I think the first written record of someone disagreeing with such "these kids today - they're SLACKERS" opinions was Aristotle or Socrates.What are your opinions on this matter? Is there anything that can be done? Don't be afraid to post!
But was there ever a time before when the reality of world destruction was so realizable?! The proliferation of nuclear weapons and the military-industrialization of numerous nations opens a whole new Pandora's Box. Sure, Aristotle saw the erosion of the younger generation, but when that generation came of age, they would not inherit atomic weaponry!
So, I think we really are at a crossroad, because as my generation ages, a lack of ethics will have far more sweeping consequences than unbridled greed (20's) or illegitimate children (60's).
Black Spyder, I hope I thanked you already for the info.
I have seen my nieces and nephews get married outside the Church, and lead productive lives, raising little geniuses. I have learned on this and other discussions that morals do not need a spiritual or religious basis. And has not Japan accomplished the lowest rate of crime in their nation? This president, thinking that "God" wanted him to be president, surely underscores the need to eliminate religion from lawmaking and public education.
I have seen my nieces and nephews get married outside the Church, and lead productive lives, raising little geniuses. I have learned on this and other discussions that morals do not need a spiritual or religious basis. And has not Japan accomplished the lowest rate of crime in their nation? This president, thinking that "God" wanted him to be president, surely underscores the need to eliminate religion from lawmaking and public education.
QUOTE(solaris32 @ Apr 10 2007, 03:21 AM)
This is something I've always thought about and observed, how many previously immoral and unethical behaviors are being accepted today, mainly by our youth. Just to clarify, I'm 19 and in college in the USA. This thread mainly refers to American youth because it's the only country I've had experience with.
Just for starters, drinking, drugs, fast driving, rebellious attitude and behaviors, cursing, pornography, sex, and many more, are being more and more accepted and adopted by our youth. (Check out post #7 for clarification). If your'e, say, 30, I'm sure your'e aware your youth wasn't this corrupt. Sure, they did all this, but nowhere near as bad as I'm seeing today. From the media to walking down the street, such actions and immoral behavior, thoughts, and attitudes can be observed. I've talked to some of these people, and they honestly think it's ok to be like this. I even know someone who wholeheartedly believes it's ok to steal, as long as they don't know the person. I'm sure you know worse people.
So what will the USA be like when these youth have reached their 30's? What will they teach their children? How will those children compare to their parents? I doubt this nation's steady spiral into immoral behavior will stop with our youth's children. Of course, many people don't even realize this, and are just "going with the flow."
What are your opinions on this matter? Is there anything that can be done? Don't be afraid to post!
Just for starters, drinking, drugs, fast driving, rebellious attitude and behaviors, cursing, pornography, sex, and many more, are being more and more accepted and adopted by our youth. (Check out post #7 for clarification). If your'e, say, 30, I'm sure your'e aware your youth wasn't this corrupt. Sure, they did all this, but nowhere near as bad as I'm seeing today. From the media to walking down the street, such actions and immoral behavior, thoughts, and attitudes can be observed. I've talked to some of these people, and they honestly think it's ok to be like this. I even know someone who wholeheartedly believes it's ok to steal, as long as they don't know the person. I'm sure you know worse people.
So what will the USA be like when these youth have reached their 30's? What will they teach their children? How will those children compare to their parents? I doubt this nation's steady spiral into immoral behavior will stop with our youth's children. Of course, many people don't even realize this, and are just "going with the flow."
What are your opinions on this matter? Is there anything that can be done? Don't be afraid to post!
I am an Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist---I use this label because it is the only one that fits...so please dont throw things at me.
My supposition to you is that "Morality" in society is cyclical. It peaks and valleys over the generations.
Allow me, Summer of Love=4 years in College=Fours in College Ends=Yuppies voting for Reagan.
The Liberals of today are the Conservatives of tommorow.
Now, lets apply your theory about age.
I am 31 and will be 32 in August.
As far as I am concerned these kids nowadays wouldnt know how to be immoral if it bit them in the butt.
I watch my kid's babysitter and her friends, my daughter and her friends and listen to their problems and laugh.
They arent less moral, they are more weak and less self sufficient and far less capable of dealing with failure.
QUOTE(yano)
immoral - violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
Actually by definition it would depend on the person and social ethics to determine what is immoral.
ethic - a complex of moral precepts held or rules of conduct followed by an individual: a personal ethic.
Ethics therefore are one's own personal views. What makes on person more ethical than another? Nothing. You can say "I'm more ethical than you." You can't compare it, there isn't a scale to use. Just because I believe abortion is right doesn't mean I'm less ethical than a person who believes it's wrong.
---
Therefore a person who murders finds it ethical to them, where as accord to morality it is consider immoral.
But if you look at the definition of immoral it involves social ethics. So basically it's circular logic... so therefore it would require the majority of a group's ethical stance. If one is in a group where majority thinks an action is acceptable then said action would be considered moral.
Actually by definition it would depend on the person and social ethics to determine what is immoral.
ethic - a complex of moral precepts held or rules of conduct followed by an individual: a personal ethic.
Ethics therefore are one's own personal views. What makes on person more ethical than another? Nothing. You can say "I'm more ethical than you." You can't compare it, there isn't a scale to use. Just because I believe abortion is right doesn't mean I'm less ethical than a person who believes it's wrong.
---
Therefore a person who murders finds it ethical to them, where as accord to morality it is consider immoral.
But if you look at the definition of immoral it involves social ethics. So basically it's circular logic... so therefore it would require the majority of a group's ethical stance. If one is in a group where majority thinks an action is acceptable then said action would be considered moral.
I am quoting myself from another topic where I mentioned this.
QUOTE(yano @ Aug 15 2007, 02:53 PM)
QUOTE(yano)
immoral - violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
Actually by definition it would depend on the person and social ethics to determine what is immoral.
ethic - a complex of moral precepts held or rules of conduct followed by an individual: a personal ethic.
Ethics therefore are one's own personal views. What makes on person more ethical than another? Nothing. You can say "I'm more ethical than you." You can't compare it, there isn't a scale to use. Just because I believe abortion is right doesn't mean I'm less ethical than a person who believes it's wrong.
---
Therefore a person who murders finds it ethical to them, where as accord to morality it is consider immoral.
But if you look at the definition of immoral it involves social ethics. So basically it's circular logic... so therefore it would require the majority of a group's ethical stance. If one is in a group where majority thinks an action is acceptable then said action would be considered moral.
Actually by definition it would depend on the person and social ethics to determine what is immoral.
ethic - a complex of moral precepts held or rules of conduct followed by an individual: a personal ethic.
Ethics therefore are one's own personal views. What makes on person more ethical than another? Nothing. You can say "I'm more ethical than you." You can't compare it, there isn't a scale to use. Just because I believe abortion is right doesn't mean I'm less ethical than a person who believes it's wrong.
---
Therefore a person who murders finds it ethical to them, where as accord to morality it is consider immoral.
But if you look at the definition of immoral it involves social ethics. So basically it's circular logic... so therefore it would require the majority of a group's ethical stance. If one is in a group where majority thinks an action is acceptable then said action would be considered moral.
I am quoting myself from another topic where I mentioned this.
Why?
Yano, in America, Ethics is a class taught in college and required ongoing education for our teachers. You have selected one definition. I found 13, just on one website. If you look, you can find ethics classes on our Public Broadcasting Stations, and usually concentrated within different professions, such as business and medicine. America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Although a jury might find extenuating circumstances for one event, murderers are generally considered unethical and morally reprehensible* everywhere in the world. This jihad, taught as an integral part of a "religion", is an ancient and barbaric practice to all except those have had to be taught to hate everyone whose culture/religion is different. America's culture of "live and let live", our freedom to practice (or not practice) religion is paramount. American soldiers have given their lives for over two hundred years to protect this freedom for ourselves and for our neighbors on this Earth.
If you look at other topics on this site where religion comes into discussion, you will see a myriad of passionate beliefs. That is why America ensures that religion does not enter our government. Government, to be for the greater good of all of its people, must remain separate from religion. Notice the last few words of this definition: it talks about the PURPOSE of conduct and actions. The purpose of jihad is to make sure that only muslims survive on this Earth. And it appears that muslims have different flavors of their belief systems, and fight each other to the death. Should this kind of government continue, there would eventually be no survivors. Example: most of the christians in portions of the Middle East have been eradicated. Do you really think this can be justified? And as Jwin said, why?
ethˇics
that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
* amiss, bad, base, blamable, blameful, blameworthy, censurable, corrupt, criminal, culpable, damnable, demeritorious, depraved, disgraceful, erring, evil, guilty, iniquitous, irreligious, low, morally wrong, piacular, reprehensible, reprobate, shameful, ungodly, unholy, unregenerate, unrighteous, vicious, vile, wicked, wrong
If you look at other topics on this site where religion comes into discussion, you will see a myriad of passionate beliefs. That is why America ensures that religion does not enter our government. Government, to be for the greater good of all of its people, must remain separate from religion. Notice the last few words of this definition: it talks about the PURPOSE of conduct and actions. The purpose of jihad is to make sure that only muslims survive on this Earth. And it appears that muslims have different flavors of their belief systems, and fight each other to the death. Should this kind of government continue, there would eventually be no survivors. Example: most of the christians in portions of the Middle East have been eradicated. Do you really think this can be justified? And as Jwin said, why?
ethˇics
that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
* amiss, bad, base, blamable, blameful, blameworthy, censurable, corrupt, criminal, culpable, damnable, demeritorious, depraved, disgraceful, erring, evil, guilty, iniquitous, irreligious, low, morally wrong, piacular, reprehensible, reprobate, shameful, ungodly, unholy, unregenerate, unrighteous, vicious, vile, wicked, wrong
Guess I'll have to wait until I have ethics in college. (Which I am starting this fall). Right now I only have a few core classes. Therefore, I probably shouldn't be arguing ethics/morality since I have never really had a class on it. Besides the dictionary as my source, I really have nothing else to backup my stances.
EDIT: I'm not trying to be smart. When I read back over my post it kinda seemed like it. Hope no one takes offense.
EDIT: I'm not trying to be smart. When I read back over my post it kinda seemed like it. Hope no one takes offense.
QUOTE(yano @ Aug 15 2007, 10:35 PM)
Guess I'll have to wait until I have ethics in college. (Which I am starting this fall). Right now I only have a few core classes. Therefore, I probably shouldn't be arguing ethics/morality since I have never really had a class on it. Besides the dictionary as my source, I really have nothing else to backup my stances.
EDIT: I'm not trying to be smart. When I read back over my post it kinda seemed like it. Hope no one takes offense.
EDIT: I'm not trying to be smart. When I read back over my post it kinda seemed like it. Hope no one takes offense.
Yano, because you have not had a class on the subject does not disqualify you from the conversation. I assure you.
I was just getting at that since I don't have enough back ground knowledge of true ethics, I don't have as much credibility to debate ethics as compared to someone who knows more about it. Who would you trust more, a seasoned journalist for the NYT or a independent journalist.
Yano, I love to hear the views of the young. (At my age, lots of people are young IMO) Please don't hesitate to participate: part of being smart is knowing that there is stuff we do not know. You are attending college in pursuit of knowledge. I applaud that and cheer you on. Your open mind will get you far. Question everything, then decide for yourself. Your genius could very well invent or discover new answers. 
I just saw your new post. Careful of who (whom?) you trust... the NY Times has its own agenda and picks what "news" they report. IMO the mainstream media in this country is guilty of false advertising since news should be presented with "the whole truth" and identify what elements might still be missing from the story. Picking what stories they run is opinion with a political agenda: "spin", not news, usually in an effort to influence their readers toward the liberal left. I encourage you to always seek the other side of the story, decide which "truths" make sense to you, and then watch for new developments so that you are always in the process of learning.
Best wishes and thanks for the clue, Jwin.
I just saw your new post. Careful of who (whom?) you trust... the NY Times has its own agenda and picks what "news" they report. IMO the mainstream media in this country is guilty of false advertising since news should be presented with "the whole truth" and identify what elements might still be missing from the story. Picking what stories they run is opinion with a political agenda: "spin", not news, usually in an effort to influence their readers toward the liberal left. I encourage you to always seek the other side of the story, decide which "truths" make sense to you, and then watch for new developments so that you are always in the process of learning.
Best wishes and thanks for the clue, Jwin.
QUOTE(yano @ Aug 16 2007, 08:22 AM)
I was just getting at that since I don't have enough back ground knowledge of true ethics, I don't have as much credibility to debate ethics as compared to someone who knows more about it. Who would you trust more, a seasoned journalist for the NYT or a independent journalist.
Wrong question to ask me.....lol.....I would trust neither.
thanks for the clue, Jwin.
I gave a clue?
I don't think anyone would argue that simply because you have not taken Ethics 101 that you do not, or should not, make ethical choices or have an ethics (or morality). Ethical choices are part and parcel to human existence. I have never taken a course in counterpoint, but I think I know second-rate compositions when I hear them.
What a course in Ethics will do, however, is to bring into focus the kinds of ethical questions and the kinds of ethical answers that have been made. By studying various ethical systems and their differences and similarities, new perspectives are opened up by clearing away the rubbish of habit and the commonplace.
An unexamined morality is not worth having.
Regards,
John
What a course in Ethics will do, however, is to bring into focus the kinds of ethical questions and the kinds of ethical answers that have been made. By studying various ethical systems and their differences and similarities, new perspectives are opened up by clearing away the rubbish of habit and the commonplace.
An unexamined morality is not worth having.
Regards,
John
QUOTE(jgweed @ Aug 16 2007, 12:58 PM)
I don't think anyone would argue that simply because you have not taken Ethics 101 that you do not, or should not, make ethical choices or have an ethics (or morality). Ethical choices are part and parcel to human existence. I have never taken a course in counterpoint, but I think I know second-rate compositions when I hear them.
What a course in Ethics will do, however, is to bring into focus the kinds of ethical questions and the kinds of ethical answers that have been made. By studying various ethical systems and their differences and similarities, new perspectives are opened up by clearing away the rubbish of habit and the commonplace.
An unexamined morality is not worth having.
Regards,
John
What a course in Ethics will do, however, is to bring into focus the kinds of ethical questions and the kinds of ethical answers that have been made. By studying various ethical systems and their differences and similarities, new perspectives are opened up by clearing away the rubbish of habit and the commonplace.
An unexamined morality is not worth having.
Regards,
John
Of course, there are those that know the difference between right and wrong. And for them it doesn't take a college course to examine the world's standards and interpretation of what right and wrong is. (Particularly from the standpoint of a liberal college.)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.