Is the latest morality the best?

[Charlemagne_III]

Chesterton paraphrased:

“I am really growing weary of those who say the morality of Thursday must be superior to the morality of Tuesday.”

A remark given by a poster in another thread is that we live in the best of moral times, and just before the thread was closed he challenged me to find a better century for morals.

I think just about any century since the rise of Christianity would be morally superior to the last century.

Your thoughts?

 

[Cheiron]

I must have missed that thread. Anyways, the poster was wrong by his own standards, because if morality inevitably progresses with each century, then a better century for morals would obviously be the 22nd. And the 23rd, 24th, etc. etc.

EDIT: I do agree that the current century is probably the most moral one thus far. But the passage of time doesn’t make this century more moral.

2nd EDIT: That closed thread was about the atheist’ best argument. I did see that. I still stick with my answer: the current century is the best moral century, but not just because it’s the latest century.

 

[davidv]

I must have missed that thread. Anyways, the poster was wrong by his own standards, because if morality inevitably progresses with each century, then a better century for morals would obviously be the 22nd. And the 23rd, 24th, etc. etc.

EDIT: I do agree that the current century is probably the most moral one thus far. But the passage of time doesn’t make this century more moral.

What criteria leads to this conclusion?

2nd EDIT: That closed thread was about the atheist’ best argument. I did see that. I still stick with my answer: the current century is the best moral century, but not just because it’s the latest century.

 

[Cheiron]

What criteria leads to this conclusion?

Morality is about the well being of people and societies in my opinion. Today, western societies are healthier and more literate than any in other century. Social mobility is high and lots of people have plenty of opportunities (although there is always room for improvement). We can think what we want without the threat of punishment. Women and men have an equal opportunity (at least legally) at shaping their life as they see fit. The laws, rules and regulations that lead to well-being, such as education for the young, are the most moral. And well-being, as measured by literacy rate, health and happiness is skyhigh. Higher than any other century. Therefore, this century is the most moral.

The Moral Landscape, by Sam Harris, is a good read on this subject.

 

[drac16]

No, I think we’re getting worse. Disobeying our parents has become the new norm, along with fornication, homosexuality, divorce, abortion and having babies out of wedlock. Many children today are growing up without a father figure and although it is possible for one parent to do a good job raising a child, it lacks the balance that a father brings (a sense of honour and courageousness).

If you look at the prophet Muhammad’s companions for instance, they had less anxiety. They weren’t as depressed or insecure as we are today. They weren’t obsessed with themselves and I think it’s likely that they were much happier than we are today.

 

[truetofaith]

No, I think we’re getting worse. Disobeying our parents has become the new norm, along with fornication, homosexuality, divorce, abortion and having babies out of wedlock. Many children today are growing up without a father figure and although it is possible for one parent to do a good job raising a child, it lacks the balance that a father brings (a sense of honour and courageousness).

If you look at the prophet Muhammad’s companions for instance, they had less anxiety. They weren’t as depressed or insecure as we are today. They weren’t obsessed with themselves and I think it’s likely that they were much happier than we are today.

You’re right…I should join your religion.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Morality is about the well being of people and societies in my opinion. Today, western societies are healthier and more literate than any in other century. Social mobility is high and lots of people have plenty of opportunities (although there is always room for improvement). We can think what we want without the threat of punishment. Women and men have an equal opportunity (at least legally) at shaping their life as they see fit. The laws, rules and regulations that lead to well-being, such as education for the young, are the most moral. And well-being, as measured by literacy rate, health and happiness is skyhigh. Higher than any other century. Therefore, this century is the most moral.

The Moral Landscape, by Sam Harris, is a good read on this subject.

Morality is not about the well being of people-it’s about right and wrong. An educated and literate society can be corrupt and immoral. Further a good portion of the world does not enjoy what you believe makes our society moral. You might ask those in North Carolina if they can think what they want without fear of reprisal.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[RCinMT]

Morality is about the well being of people and societies in my opinion. Today, western societies are healthier and more literate than any in other century. Social mobility is high and lots of people have plenty of opportunities (although there is always room for improvement). We can think what we want without the threat of punishment. Women and men have an equal opportunity (at least legally) at shaping their life as they see fit. The laws, rules and regulations that lead to well-being, such as education for the young, are the most moral. And well-being, as measured by literacy rate, health and happiness is skyhigh. Higher than any other century. Therefore, this century is the most moral.

The Moral Landscape, by Sam Harris, is a good read on this subject.

We cannot think what we want without threat of punishment and thought policing is becoming more and more prevalent with each passing day. People cannot simply shape life as they see fit: aside from laws and scarcity of resources, lack of education and money both inhibit the ability to shape life. If you look at the education statistics, particularly for the poor, racial minorities and inner city youth, the value of education is tenuous and getting worse. Further, upward mobility is eroding as is social cohesion.

Happiness as an objective measure is, in my opinion, faulty. However, my opinion being worth little in my opinion, I have never seen any other statistically valid measure of happiness from other centuries. In fact, I have never seen a poll of happiness from any century prior to the 20th century (and none from the 20th century before the 50s).

It’s curious how one determines increased morality when considering suicide rates; the increase in divorce rates and abnormal parenting situations (not cohabitating with one’s biological parents) and the corresponding increased risk of drug use and poverty and decrease in attainment of higher education; terrorism; increasing income inequality, et. al. The only way I can rationalize the current state of society as being more moral is that morality is now defined as the ability to make choices.

Would it be correct to consider a person intent on committing homicide as being moral for providing potential victims with a choice of how they want to die: strangulation, poison, gun shot, drowning, etc.? While another potential murderer would be considered even more moral for giving a person the additional option of death by blunt percent trauma to the head?

The value of anything published by Sam Harris is dubious. I have seen him made to look like a complete fool by Eben Alexander, Noam Chomsky, Ben Affleck, William Lane Craig and others. I have also seen him duck debates with both Alexander and Craig. The guy is a pretty classic example of the decline in society: he makes specious arguments, ignores rebuttals and then claims victory by virtue of either being “done” with a discussion or simply by virtue of claiming victory himself. Were Harris a boxer he would have his own belt made and declare himself the world champion of all the world champions.

 

[carefullytread]

Morality is about the well being of people and societies in my opinion. Today, western societies are healthier and more literate than any in other century. Social mobility is high and lots of people have plenty of opportunities (although there is always room for improvement). We can think what we want without the threat of punishment. Women and men have an equal opportunity (at least legally) at shaping their life as they see fit. The laws, rules and regulations that lead to well-being, such as education for the young, are the most moral. And well-being, as measured by literacy rate, health and happiness is skyhigh. Higher than any other century. Therefore, this century is the most moral.

The Moral Landscape, by Sam Harris, is a good read on this subject.

You hit on a big point here where non-Christians and Christians are going to be deeply divided. For a Christian (at least a Catholic, can’t really speak to all forms of Protestantism), morality is about an absolute “right” and “wrong”. For you and I, morality is about properly functioning societies.

For our definition, this means that there isn’t necessarily a morality that’s better across all circumstances, although there are moralities that are better or worse for a given set of circumstances.

Our modern views about sex would be a disaster in a world without birth control, but while our society is still trying to figure out exactly the right rules for sex post-birth control, the old rules don’t have the same saliency they once did.

I do think our morality is better suited for our society than moralities of the past, but that means it’s better for us and not better for them and I suspect we could do better still. Our morality today is especially tailored for people on the upper end of society with devastating consequences for the poor. How do we fix their problem of having children young and in bad circumstances? I don’t know, but the answer isn’t going to come by forcing the rest of us back into the old sexual morality.

My own pet theory is that the reason morality looks like it’s on an upward trajectory is because we keep getting richer and richer and so have fewer constraints on our society and can relax some of the rules that bind us. For a few hundred years, every generation gets to look back and see people who were poorer and think “They were so intolerant and backwards”, but really, life was just harder. In hard circumstances, people become intolerant as a matter of making due. (Side note, see zombie movies. Once the times get hard, you do what the group says or you die. That’s just how it is. No time to be a special snowflake. Do what the group says and stay pure. It’s a conservative paradise!)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

How do we fix their problem of having children young and in bad circumstances? I don’t know, but the answer isn’t going to come by forcing the rest of us back into the old sexual morality.

If anything, it looks to me that a new morality is being forced on society by the politically correct influence of various minorities in the media and academia How do you get more of a minority than the recent Supreme Court five to four decision on same-sex marriage?

The notion that the old morality is doomed because it is not the latest morality is a denial of history’s pendulum swing, which has demonstrated itself over and over throughout history and even throughout the last century. Just when we thought racial relations were getting good, they have gotten about as bad as they can get. They will get better again, but only when the conservative streak reasserts itself among both blacks and whites.

The fact of the matter is that there are eternal verities that are mocked by those who believe morality is totally relative to the times in which one lives.

Well, here is what is especially characteristic of the moral times in which we live: no previous civilization has had in its power the physical capacity to destroy all civilizations in a single day. This alone is insanity of the highest order, and shows that for the past century we live not only in dangerous times, but dangerously apocalyptic ones.

 

[inocente]

What criteria leads to this conclusion?

Some Americans forget they’re less than 4.5% of the world population. So the criteria need to recognize than more than 19 in every 20 people are not American.

In 1820 only around 17% of the world had a basic education, now it’s around 82% and still rising. In the same period the world population has shot up.

So anyone who wants to argue some other century had a better morality would have to explain why there were few fewer people, who were far worse educated, far poorer, and far more prone to disease and hunger than our current morality would permit.

 

[john_ennis]

Some Americans forget they’re less than 4.5% of the world population. So the criteria need to recognize than more than 19 in every 20 people are not American.

In 1820 only around 17% of the world had a basic education, now it’s around 82% and still rising. In the same period the world population has shot up.

So anyone who wants to argue some other century had a better morality would have to explain why there were few fewer people, who were far worse educated, far poorer, and far more prone to disease and hunger than our current morality would permit.

That’s a couple of times on this thread that education, literacy, and health have been equated with morality. A culture less literate is less moral?

Not to say that these things aren’t good achievements, but a very moral culture can happen to exist in a time, circumstance, or state of progression which is very ignorant.

 

[Cheiron]

Morality is not about the well being of people-it’s about right and wrong. …]

The peace of Christ,
Mark

The obvious next question is: What is the standard for calling behaviour right/wrong or moral/immoral? To me, that is well-being. Behaviour that leads to an increase in well-being = moral; behaviour that leads to a decrease in well-being is immoral. Now, there are a lot of grey areas, but as a general rule it works pretty well.

You hit on a big point here where non-Christians and Christians are going to be deeply divided. For a Christian (at least a Catholic, can’t really speak to all forms of Protestantism), morality is about an absolute “right” and “wrong”. For you and I, morality is about properly functioning societies.

I think that’s how the word morality is generally understood throughout history. Perhaps there are some believers who will say that morality is whatever God says is right or wrong - regardless of human well-being. In such a case, the discussion is pretty much over, because we can’t agree on a definition of morality. But I have yet to meet those people.

I do think our morality is better suited for our society than moralities of the past, but that means it’s better for us and not better for them and I suspect we could do better still. Our morality today is especially tailored for people on the upper end of society with devastating consequences for the poor. How do we fix their problem of having children young and in bad circumstances? I don’t know, but the answer isn’t going to come by forcing the rest of us back into the old sexual morality.

I agree with you and we should be careful not to speak condescendingly about the morality of the past. I think that particular problem you mentioned can partly be solved by good sexual education and the widespread availability of contraception. No need for old sexual morality.

That’s a couple of times on this thread that education, literacy, and health have been equated with morality. A culture less literate is less moral?

Not to say that these things aren’t good achievements, but a very moral culture can happen to exist in a time, circumstance, or state of progression which is very ignorant.

No, I’m not saying that a more literate person is by definition also more moral. I’m saying that literate and healthy people are better off than those who are not. And the policies that lead to a healthy and literate population are more moral than the policies that do not.

 

[o_mlly]

Chesterton paraphrased:

“I am really growing weary of those who say the morality of Thursday must be superior to the morality of Tuesday.”

A remark given by a poster in another thread is that we live in the best of moral times, and just before the thread was closed he challenged me to find a better century for morals.

I think just about any century since the rise of Christianity would be morally superior to the last century.

Your thoughts?

Certainly, at the top or near the top of the list of evil acts is the taking of human life.

Incidence of Abortion

• In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed in the U.S.

• From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million abortions occurred in the U.S.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/current-abortion-statistics.cfm

Note that the number of abortions recorded above are not global, U.S. only.

According to World Health Organization, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day.
worldometers.info/abortions/

Arguably, abortions alone may make this century, especially the past 30 years, the most evil and likely the most immoral in history. Reparations will be made for these innocent deaths.

 

[davidv]

Morality is about the well being of people and societies in my opinion. Today, western societies are healthier and more literate than any in other century. Social mobility is high and lots of people have plenty of opportunities (although there is always room for improvement). We can think what we want without the threat of punishment. Women and men have an equal opportunity (at least legally) at shaping their life as they see fit. The laws, rules and regulations that lead to well-being, such as education for the young, are the most moral. And well-being, as measured by literacy rate, health and happiness is skyhigh. Higher than any other century. Therefore, this century is the most moral.

The Moral Landscape, by Sam Harris, is a good read on this subject.

Why should I accept your definition of morality?

 

[inocente]

That’s a couple of times on this thread that education, literacy, and health have been equated with morality. A culture less literate is less moral?

Not to say that these things aren’t good achievements, but a very moral culture can happen to exist in a time, circumstance, or state of progression which is very ignorant.

I think that could only be true if you limited morality to duty ethics alone, because in that system the only thing that matters is how closely people observe sets of rules. In duty ethics, if a rule is to give a tenth of your spices, then even if that works against justice and mercy, it’s moral, because morality is only about following the rules.

But I gave the game away, you’ll know that example is from Matthew 23, where Jesus argues that duty ethics by itself is cleaning “the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence”.

So I think for a Christian, there must be moral worth in virtue and in making the world a better place, so a society where more people are educated, well fed and healthy is more moral.

 

[Aloysium]

Belgium kills its first minor because he was ill, suffering and wanted it to stop.
A win for the new morality and its plan for salvation.

 

[davidv]

I think that could only be true if you limited morality to duty ethics alone, because in that system the only thing that matters is how closely people observe sets of rules. In duty ethics, if a rule is to give a tenth of your spices, then even if that works against justice and mercy, it’s moral, because morality is only about following the rules.

But I gave the game away, you’ll know that example is from Matthew 23, where Jesus argues that duty ethics by itself is cleaning “the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence”.

So I think for a Christian, there must be moral worth in virtue and in making the world a better place, so a society where more people are educated, well fed and healthy is more moral.

Where does agape fit in this?

 

[inocente]

Belgium kills its first minor because he was ill, suffering and wanted it to stop.
A win for the new morality and its plan for salvation.

And this year is a centenary of the Spa witch trial in 1616, when 14 women were sentenced to death by garrotting and burning. Ten were executed, the others possibly died in prison while being tortured. So yes, you’re right . (In other words, not sure it’s helpful to raise specific events).

 

[john_ennis]

No, I’m not saying that a more literate person is by definition also more moral. I’m saying that literate and healthy people are better off than those who are not. And the policies that lead to a healthy and literate population are more moral than the policies that do not.

Agreed. Now a people who find themselves in a state of advanced education and medical knowledge are benefitting from the effort–much of it very morally driven–of the civilization prior. It doesn’t follow that they themselves must be very moral.

That’s the logical mistake here: if moral measures got us to this desirable state now, WE must be more moral than those who were in less desirable states.

Counterarguments abound. Prior to their atrocities, were the Germans of the early 20th century not becoming less moral in their attitudes about humanity? Even as they reached the height of education and order, and before visible immoral conduct was occurring, is it reasonable to say they were indeed becoming less moral?

So here, is it not reasonable to fear, even while we are benefitting from great progress, that we are on the cusp of immoral actions? And that even though those visible actions have not taken off yet, that in no way contradicts the assertion that we are indeed very immoral?

Public arguments to deny people’s right to believe certain things, and to act in ways that complement their religious convictions, are being made with a fervor not seen in recent decades. For this to rapidly result in persecutions–immoral acts which prove our prior immoral state–is easy to predict.