How are we doing, morally speaking?

[iponjs]

If we had a "morality report card", what grade would you give western civilization?

How about in the 1950s (based on what you know)?

Please explain you answers...

[coffeezombie]

F for both. I don't consider the profit motive and the greed of capitalism very moral.

[Wilde Mutton]

I don´t see us ever to have been very moral. All ages have their particular and peculiar sins resulting from the state of technology and such but the intent or sometimes lack of it has, in my view, existed before (e.g. the atomic bomb was a blow-up waiting to happen). Since we are in fact lazy, unjust and unkind I strive to call ours a civilization.

Edit: I really ought to have some valid premises for my conclusions lest this be a mindless venting. The founding belief is that there are such evils as win because of us (again, allegedly) possessing such pitfall characteristics as said laziness and unjustness and unkindness caused at least in part because of that same laziness and then again, stupidity. Sterling examples of qualities which I dare presume aren´t missing from other "civilizations" but in whose execution in practice the Westerners are very apt because of technological feats.

[Shai Gar]

an f from me as well, sexual prudes, racism, sexism, hangings still common in south of US, gay bashing, death penalty, wars of aggression started , etc

[Sally]

D for dishonesty and self-delusion.

[YardGnome]

Define morality...

Do Morals only apply to people?
Does an animal follow a moral code?
What's truly right and truly wrong?
Who is to judge?

Discuss...

[Sally]

Who is to judge?

No one of course, but isn't it fun to pretend?

H for Humanity and Hypocrisy.

[Jacque]

69%
>
/

See Me After Class...


Explanation:
Morality is Civilization. Have we been that great of a civilization? More a failure of behaving civilized, than of the civilized failing to behave morally. They are natural incompatibilities.

[Dempsey]

Capitalism. Our morality is defined and judged by our leaders and lawmakers. Looking into any of our wars shows just how moral "we" are. It's a hard subject to put into perspective (alot to consider).

[crofbe]

Well, consider that war is the incentive for a lot of technology out there. Radar, laser, nuclear physics, things that make our lives "better" one way or another.

If by morality you mean going back to hunter gathering, then ok, but would anybody here give up the internet and cd-players at this point.

[euterpenc]

In Jung's opinion we are now heading down on a more Antichristian bent. There was that golden time of christianity and "goodness" but after that we started becoming more and more antichristian. Antichristian as in the antichrist, not against christianity. The antichrist is part of christianity. Our race as a whole is going through it right now, and it is necessary. Darkness is an inevitable effect of light, and so we must be evil as well as good. In the previous days (and today still of course) they tried so hard ot be morally good, and rebuked "evil" or bad things. Nowadays, more "evil" things are accpetable, which may in the past have been atrocious. We are discovering our dark side. We're making progress, and I would say that is good.

So I give an A, because we are hiding less and less of our "evil" nature.

[Dempsey]

Well, consider that war is the incentive for a lot of technology out there. Radar, laser, nuclear physics, things that make our lives "better" one way or another.

If by morality you mean going back to hunter gathering, then ok, but would anybody here give up the internet and cd-players at this point.

I know what your saying, but to imply that technology gives war any morality is silly.

[YardGnome]

In Jung's opinion we are now heading down on a more Antichristian bent. There was that golden time of christianity and "goodness" but after that we started becoming more and more antichristian. Antichristian as in the antichrist, not against christianity. The antichrist is part of christianity. Our race as a whole is going through it right now, and it is necessary. Darkness is an inevitable effect of light, and so we must be evil as well as good. In the previous days (and today still of course) they tried so hard ot be morally good, and rebuked "evil" or bad things. Nowadays, more "evil" things are accpetable, which may in the past have been atrocious. We are discovering our dark side. We're making progress, and I would say that is good.

So I give an A, because we are hiding less and less of our "evil" nature.

So religion, then, defines morality? What happens if you don't believe in god? On what basis is morality judged / measured? What makes something Good or Evil? How is there a right and a wrong?

[CoHo]

There was that golden time of christianity and "goodness" but after that we started becoming more and more antichristian.

When was this golden age of goodness? It must have been slammed somewhere between slavery and the holocaust *checks history books*

[Star Cannon]

Zeitgeist said:

We are discovering our dark side. We're making progress, and I would say that is good.

So I give an A, because we are hiding less and less of our "evil" nature.

***

Oooh. Let me expand on this please! Waay back when, we hid bad. Society didn't want to admit it existed, so therefore, it seemed like it didn't. It was like society was unconcious of it's own dark side. Now, as we go on into the 21rst century, we hear about lots of bad stuff. Why? I think it's related to how we deal with unconcious activities. In order to deal with a problem, we have to have one, right? So, as society seems to have more and more apparent problems, we gain the insight to what needs changing and therefore we change it.

Since this is more or less progress, as Zeitgeist said, I'll give society an B- for not working harder to deal with the dark side now that's appearing.

Star Cannon

[coffeezombie]

So religion, then, defines morality? What happens if you don't believe in god? On what basis is morality judged / measured? What makes something Good or Evil? How is there a right and a wrong?

I judge things on my own personal subjective view of morality.

[YardGnome]

I judge things on my own personal subjective view of morality.

Exactly, morality is entirely subjective...

[euterpenc]

When was this golden age of goodness? It must have been slammed somewhere between slavery and the holocaust *checks history books*

The time of augustine and all that. when christianity was very big.

[Miss Anthropic]

Morality is defined by civilization. We as a country, starting from the top down, are good at talking the talk but not necessarily walking the walk, so to speak--or would that be "walking the talk."

[Wilde Mutton]

Morality is defined by civilization. We as a country, starting from the top down, are good at talking the talk but not necessarily walking the walk, so to speak--or would that be "walking the talk."

Indeed. There´s a joke(?) that says that when someone asked Gandhi what he thought about Western civilization he replied: "It´s possible."
Maybe we´ll get there.



Maybe not.

[Anti__F]

Exactly, morality is entirely subjective...

It is...
Good and bad depends on differance, a product and driving-power of evolution.
That's why I give western morality an A, its as good as any.

[crofbe]

With subjectivity, it's entirely personal and you end up doing whatever. If you live comfortably (physically and mentally), you're more likely to give it an A, but if you're not so well-off (or just like to think a lot), then you're going to have more resent. And think more about why things are unjust, unethical, and so on.

The old school opinion is that capitalism and materialism is trash and we're decaying from the inside. The new school opinion is that who gives a damn and everybody is having fun so why not take what we have? How can you say either side is wrong?

[Claverhouse]

In Jung's opinion we are now heading down on a more Antichristian bent. There was that golden time of christianity and "goodness" but after that we started becoming more and more antichristian. Antichristian as in the antichrist, not against christianity. The antichrist is part of christianity. Not that according to these catholics Jung was the best person to judge on christianity: Catholic Culture: The Scary Side of Jung (http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=246)


How odd that the Swiss psychoanalyst, who considered himself the founder of a new religion to replace traditional Christianity, who wrote of his own "deification" as a lion-headed god from an ancient Aryan mystery cult, should achieve such pre-eminent status.

Odder yet, in our post-Holocaust world, that Jung, a virulent anti-Semite whom the British Foreign Office wanted tried at the Nuremberg war crimes trials as a Nazi pseudoscientist, should be embraced as a spiritual guide by millions of Catholics seeking psychological healing.
He was a pro-nazi, blah blah blah: a spiritualist, blah blah; an adulterer, blah blah...


Evidence of his 'pro-nazism':



Noll shows, via a letter Jung wrote to Oskar Schmitz in 1923, that Jung considered Christianity a foreign growth on Germany. Like Wotan's oaks, Jung lamented, the gods were felled and a wholly incongruous Christianity, born of monotheism on a much higher cultural level, was grafted onto the stumps. The Germanic man is still suffering from this mutilation. . . . We must dig down to the primitive in us, for only out of the conflict between civilized man and the Germanic barbarian will there come what we need: a new experience of God.

In a January, 1939 interview with Hearst's International Cosmopolitan, Jung described Hitler in glowing terms: There is no question but that Hitler belongs in the category of the truly mystic medicine man. As somebody commented about him at the last Nuremberg party congress, since the time of Mohammed nothing like it has been seen in this world. This markedly mystic characteristic of Hitler's is what makes him do things which seem to us illogical, inexplicable, curious, and unreasonable. . . . So you see, Hitler is a medicine man, a form of spiritual vessel, a demi-deity, or, even better, a myth.

Neither of these statements are in the least pro-nazi, but why let such facts get in the way of propaganda ? And ignore his concern after the death of Hitler that the manner of his going was sufficiently an archetypal heroic suicide to add to the heroic myth of nazism for future ages.


***



I do not know enough to judge a report card. Earlier ages had enough horrible things, both in daily life and as positive acts, to vie with most of our atrocities: then again the weakness of a democratised world and the exultation of the trivial and base seems to add a further unique degradation to the 20th & 21st centuries. And having democracy as an ideal, replacing God with the Mass of people, is depraved beyond belief: at least in the past they could only hope for it to come to pass, now we live with it as a reality.


If past ages had slaves, so do we today, except we don't acknowledge them as such; if past ages had massacres, we burn people alive by bombing them for freedom; if past ages slaughtered animals gruesomely, we now do it a million times as much due in part to the increase in population, but also due to a direct decision to avoid thought for their plight.



Probably F. ( If it goes from A - H, I don't know the scale for American school reports --- and I don't get the reference to the 1950s in the first post. )





Claverhouse :ph34r:

[euterpenc]

Yeah, that stuff is bull. It said he was deliberately planning to overthrow the catholic church, which I do not think was his intention. Idk. Maybe the catholic church, but not christianity itself.

[Architectonic]

The time of augustine and all that. when christianity was very big.

But only in certain parts of the world....

[In...TP]

an f from me as well, sexual prudes, racism, sexism, hangings still common in south of US, gay bashing, death penalty, wars of aggression started , etc
I think you are confusing hanging with lynching. Lynching is when two or more people (mob) attack an individual. It does not require a rope.

[Birdsnest]

Crofbe, you are from the Bay AREA! That is my all time favorite place on earth. I am from there, and miss it a lot, can you tell? Are you near Palo Alto?

My opinion is that we are deteriorating and have been since the 1800's or so. Our biggest problem is that we are overpopulated. Too many people - too much competition.

I give humanity an F because if we are supposed to be ensuring our survival in the future, & we are not... Without people, (except natural tribes like aborigines and Indians) I think everything would take care of itself far better.

We are too much interested in instant gratification and entertainment, and convenience, and we are not looking where we are headed.

[sbw]

an f from me as well, sexual prudes, racism, sexism, hangings still common in south of US, gay bashing, death penalty, wars of aggression started , etc

if these hangings remain so "common", how come I never hear about them? I LIVE down here!

Scott

[kuranes]

C Minus.

[iponjs]

Since I started this thread I may as well weigh in...

We have no way to measure "morality" that is not relative to something. I chose the 1950's because it's a time America romanticizes. This is probably because so many Baby-boomers were in or approaching thier teen years - they have fond memories of drive-in movies, hot rods, rock & roll... Mom stayed home and dad went to work. It's all very nice on the surface. I should have known no self-respecting INTP would take the bait :blush:

We aren't any better at holding ourselves to high moral standards than we were at any other point in time. We prioritize our values differently now - the values stay pretty constant but the way we prioritize them changes.

Of course, you are more likely to be held accountable for some crimes now (ie - beating your spouse) but then again we've lost some freedom in that process (your kid mentions a "fight" at home while in school, social services opens a case file). So in this case we've placed privacy lower and justice higher than it was in the past.

In essence, our world is smaller. Technology allows us to communicate globally, very quickly. Add to that the fact that we have a much higher population density (so you contact more people more often) we know about more stuff than we ever did. This forces us to be more tolerant of certain behaviours that we could either ignore or condem not too long ago (ie - conservative? want groceries? You may just have to check-out with the lesbian cashier who has pink hair and multiple piercings.).

We bitch an moan about the decay of society but our personal actions contradict our arguments when things hit close to home. "society" is not to blame for your kid's porn additction - you need to get off your ass and raise them! Don't ask for new laws - they only make for more crime!

So I give us an A for awareness but a C- for personal responsibility. In my math that averages out to a B- :)

[euterpenc]

Not that according to these catholics Jung was the best person to judge on christianity: Catholic Culture: The Scary Side of Jung (http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=246)


He was a pro-nazi, blah blah blah: a spiritualist, blah blah; an adulterer, blah blah...


Evidence of his 'pro-nazism':





Neither of these statements are in the least pro-nazi, but why let such facts get in the way of propaganda ? And ignore his concern after the death of Hitler that the manner of his going was sufficiently an archetypal heroic suicide to add to the heroic myth of nazism for future ages.


***



I do not know enough to judge a report card. Earlier ages had enough horrible things, both in daily life and as positive acts, to vie with most of our atrocities: then again the weakness of a democratised world and the exultation of the trivial and base seems to add a further unique degradation to the 20th & 21st centuries. And having democracy as an ideal, replacing God with the Mass of people, is depraved beyond belief: at least in the past they could only hope for it to come to pass, now we live with it as a reality.


If past ages had slaves, so do we today, except we don't acknowledge them as such; if past ages had massacres, we burn people alive by bombing them for freedom; if past ages slaughtered animals gruesomely, we now do it a million times as much due in part to the increase in population, but also due to a direct decision to avoid thought for their plight.



Probably F. ( If it goes from A - H, I don't know the scale for American school reports --- and I don't get the reference to the 1950s in the first post. )





Claverhouse :ph34r:

Apparently Jung liked chirstianity, and was raised a christian. He didn't like protestanism as much though, from what I hear.

[Spartan26]

Good post, iponjs.

I think we do have better awareness now. Although it's easy to roll up the windows to the SUV and turn up the volume on the Lion King DVD and ignore what's going on in the immediate outside world.

I think, I don't know the right word is here, true or better or stronger morality comes from self sacrifice and I don't think society is doing well at being less comfortable for "the greater good."

[iponjs]

I agree.

Self-Sacrifice is to easily rationalized away. The "higher moral road" is often the most difficult - our society does nothing to ease that journey. Hence, the path is often overgrown and hard to find...

I don't believe we do this out of moral depravity, it's more of an apathetic acceptance thing. Most folks don't even weigh such topics - those that do can easily say "Well, nobody else cares, so why bother."

Then there are the folks who confuse morality with conformity - they cite pierced kids in high-school as evidence of declining morality. What the Hell is so immoral about piercings? Such superficiality makes it hard to find common moral-ground between people. Hence, discussions are fraught with landmines, bruised egos, etc...