Are morality and ethics dead in the US?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: intrepid

you may think you know but you have no idea.

what is needed is a moral compass or all guidance is lost

No. I need no imaginary entity to tell me what is right and wrong. I know what is and I live pretty much by the tenets of Christ. Funny huh? He was right. Christians should actually read what he said.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: intrepid

you may think you know but you have no idea.

what is needed is a moral compass or all guidance is lost

No. I need no imaginary entity to tell me what is right and wrong. I know what is and I live pretty much by the tenets of Christ. Funny huh? He was right. Christians should actually read what he said.

So then you do have a compass to go by, Jesus Christ teachings perhaps?

For a second there I thought I read you didn't have need of an imaginary entity like Jesus to guide you in what is right and wrong.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

No. My personal code just happens to be similar to what Christ actually said. Buddhism is closer to what I believe.

The problem with this debate is there's no set standard on what "morality" is. It's dependent on both personal & societal views. It would be more correct to say the "traditional" American morals are simply changing, not getting worse. Remember, it was morally "right" to enslave people, beat women, and persecute gay people in America for most of its history. And it wasn't too long ago when "lynching postcards" were morally acceptable gifts to send to family members.

And America had policies like these during "The Great California Genocide". In 1852 alone, the State of California paid out more than $1.1 million to militias to hunt down & kill Native Americans. Prices ranged from 25 cents per scalp to $5 per severed head (each city had different prices). By 1860, that Sate had a standard price of $5 per Native scalp. From 1850 to the 1870s, California's estimated Native population was reduced from 150,000 to 30,000 people.

So I don't think it's right to say that America is morally dead now. I don't think America had any morals to begin with. We can't label our past "moral" when the country was literally founded through the genocide of millions of Natives, the enslavement of millions of Africans (including literal sex slaves), and the political disenfranchisement of half its population (all women). In those regards, we're far more moral now than we were. Even simple things like our treatment of animals is far more moral today, compared to the mass extinctions earlier Americans caused.

a reply to: intrepid

Whether you believe God is real or believe He is just a concept, I don't think negates "Put your faith in the Lord, not in man." My take away from that is that, ideally, your morality is personally concrete... If you believe something is wrong, DO NOT do it and you will remain true to your morality at all times. If you start looking at other men and allowing them to sway your morality, then you're doomed to failure.

So yeah, I agree based on the above, empathy is dead. I'm not going to put my neck or my morality on the line for somebody else, at least not some stranger on the street. As it relates to the pro-life/pro-choice argument, that is why those of us who are pro-life flat refuse to budget on the topic... and, when you get right down to it, it's a lack of empathy that keeps the pro-choice crowd from budging, too.

a reply to: Klassified

the golden rule is about as good as it gets, and predates Christianity.

Yes.
It way WAY WAY predates "Christianity"....

and it's really ALL that matters.

a reply to: intrepid

It is evident you don't believe all Jesus Christ spoke

And you are your own entity by which you set your morality. Just a man whom I would not trust to set my standard by as I said earlier that would include your heart as well.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Klassified

the golden rule is about as good as it gets, and predates Christianity.

Yes.
It way WAY WAY predates "Christianity"....

and it's really ALL that matters.

Mind quoting a source and possibly a link

What defines morals and ethics?

One culture's morals and ethics differ from another's, this is true all around the world and America is a melting pot of many cultures.

I don't think morality and ethics is dead in America, I do feel like it's declining from the standards that I myself grew up with. Example - two people beating the hell out of each other in a store or at the park. I was raised in such a way that I would interject because that's unacceptable, now people grab their phones and record.

Morality and ethics are influenced by a number factors imho. Why is one cultures, or persons, decisions or way of life ethically or morally wrong compared to our own morals/ethics? Who gets to decide that and why? It's a difficult discussion to have and there are thousand if those discussions happening all the time.

I think I've been long winded, no one but you can set your own morals and ethics, that in turn will place you in a specific place in society.

I mean, has America EVER agreed on a standard of ethics and morals? In the 1950's, females could be arrested for wearing bathing suits deemed to revealing. Do I agree with that now? No, would I have agreed with that back then? I don't know.
I enjoy posts like this, so much so that I feel compelled to log in and share my thoughts. Thank you OP!

a reply to: grandmakdw

This guy wants slavery in 2015!

a reply to: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Klassified

the golden rule is about as good as it gets, and predates Christianity.

Yes.
It way WAY WAY predates "Christianity"....

and it's really ALL that matters.

Bene and Klassi,

Proof please that "the golden rule" existed outside of a religious context.

That includes god or goddess worship, Buddha, etc.

I don't think it can be found outside of a religious context of some kind. I could be wrong.

Many in the US believe that anything found in a religious context is automatically suspect and to be discarded as truth.

Also, I don't see any leader in the US saying that
we should have kindness and compassion for all people.
I don't see any proof that people in the US are using
that as a guiding principle of their lives.


For morality and ethics to exist in a country, the
principles must be shared and agreed upon.
Be they what we consider good today or what
we consider bad today, they must be shared
and agreed upon.

The Black Panthers and Farrakahn
for example believe all white
people should be killed.
The telling part is that no one challenges
them, even the justice department of the US,
even the President of the US remains silent
in their call for genocide of all white people.

There are many more examples in the US of
leaders who call for hatred and suspicion of
others, (of all political persuasions)
maybe not in those words, but
in effect that is the meaning.

So being kind and compassionate to all people
is not a shared value at all in the US and since
it comes from religious sources is thus rendered
suspect in the minds of those who hate religion
and religious people (and the numbers of
religion haters abound as is evident on ATS)

So to date no one has proved that morality
and ethics, a shared moral compass,
exists anymore in the US,
thus truly rendering morality and ethics
dead in the US.

Morality and ethics by definition can not
be personal, but must be shared -
and there is no shared set of morals or
ethics any longer in the US.

It used to be that the "non-religious"
part of the 10 Commandments were a
foundation for morality and ethics
that were shared in the US
(do not steal, lie, commit adultery,
murder, etc) but those have been literally
torn down and thrown away by the
people in the US thus rendering them
no longer shared moral values.

So looking at the true definition of morality and ethics
as having a compass, a basis upon which most agree
within a society;
well the US has failed utterly and miserably and
does not, and I think going forward can not, return
to any shared foundation of morality and ethics.

Thus, once again, rendering morals and ethics dead in the US.

a reply to: grandmakdw

"The Golden Rule" is merely a re-statement of the ethics of "reciprocity", that exists throughout nature.

Many social animals such as primates, dolphins and whales have shown to exhibit what Michael Shermer refers to as premoral sentiments. According to Shermer, the following characteristics are shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes:
attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group.

Shermer argues that these premoral sentiments evolved in primate societies as a method of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups. For any social species, the benefits of being part of an altruistic group should outweigh the benefits of individualism.
en.wikipedia.org...

History of The Golden Rule

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: grandmakdw

"The Golden Rule" is merely a re-statement of the ethics of "reciprocity", that exists throughout nature.

Many social animals such as primates, dolphins and whales have shown to exhibit what Michael Shermer refers to as premoral sentiments. According to Shermer, the following characteristics are shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes:
attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group.

Shermer argues that these premoral sentiments evolved in primate societies as a method of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups. For any social species, the benefits of being part of an altruistic group should outweigh the benefits of individualism.
en.wikipedia.org...

History of The Golden Rule

Reciprocity only applies within group, not to those outside of the group.

To apply the rule of reciprocity as it occurs in nature
(ie look to nature for ethics)
That means white people
need only be kind and compassionate with white people.
Democrats need only be
kind and compassionate with other Democrats.
Black people need only be
kind and compassionate with black people.
Republicans need only be
kind and compassionate with other Republicans.

We have no shared group in the US at this time,
none,
the country is deeply divided with
a great deal of suspicion and hatred
for those outside of the group.

Within group only reciprocity is what we find in nature,
rarely to never toward those outside the group.
I would not want to say that this is
the rule by which humans should live, would you?

However, in some ways you are right in that it is
how we are currently living in the US, with
people only being kind and compassionate within
group and suspicious and viciously attacking
those outside the group.


So still, the US is without a moral or ethical compass
as morals and ethics are defined as shared with the whole group.
But you could say the rule of reciprocity exists, but it is
far from the golden rule.

So in some ways we all agree
(looking to the rule of reciprocity within nature)

that it is moral that we are kind and compassionate to those
within our group (racial, age, political etc)

and to be
suspicious and vicious towards those outside our group.

That is a shared moral value in the US, so maybe in some
ways you are right.

a reply to: windword

Yes, the Golden Rule is also prevalent among several philosophies like Confucianism, existentialism and humanism.

In the view of Greg M. Epstein, a Humanist chaplain at Harvard University, " 'do unto others' ... is a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely. But not a single one of these versions of the golden rule requires a God".

en.wikipedia.org...

You absolutely do not need religion to have morals and ethics. You do not have to worship any god to have morals and ethics.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: windword

Yes, the Golden Rule is also prevalent among several philosophies like Confucianism, existentialism and humanism.

In the view of Greg M. Epstein, a Humanist chaplain at Harvard University, " 'do unto others' ... is a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely. But not a single one of these versions of the golden rule requires a God".

en.wikipedia.org...

You absolutely do not need religion to have morals and ethics. You do not have to worship any god to have morals and ethics.

So you are saying it is a basic tenant of all religions.

In the minds of many on ATS and in the US
that makes it automatically suspect,
null and void. Because many many on ATS
say all religious concepts and ideas
are inherently bad, oppressive, and
should never be followed.

Because it is found in ALL religion,
that proves to many in the US,
that it must not be followed at any
cost because it is deeply and
undeniably intertwined with religion.

We do in the US however follow the
rule of reciprocity as found in nature,
I agree with Windword on that one.
(see my post above)

originally posted by: grandmakdw


Also, I don't see any leader in the US saying that
we should have kindness and compassion for all people.
I don't see any proof that people in the US are using
that as a guiding principle of their lives.

So looking at the true definition of morality and ethics
as having a compass, a basis upon which most agree
within a society;
well the US has failed utterly and miserably and
does not, and I think going forward can not, return
to any shared foundation of morality and ethics.

Thus, once again, rendering morals and ethics dead in the US.

The true definition of ethics and morality are as subjective as the

many diverse religious ethnic and varied nationalities, that a

multi cultural society can engulf.

As an example the west has succeeded fairly well in 'equality of

the sexes, but that is not the case with many emigratee cultures.

The strong deeply ingrained religious beliefs of the very many

different religions are too diverse to intergrate, so how can there

ever be a shared foundation of morality and ethics?


eg. Either you or some one else mentioned adultery?.... With

some it is a case for divorce, with others it is a case of stoning

the *sinner*(however that alwaysappears to be the

woman never the man LOL!) and then there

are the others that can have up to four wives?


A case of one persons morals/ethics is not the same as another's?


I personally find that .... *Do unto others as you would they

should do unto you* a decent standard to live by...

a reply to: ChesterJohn

1 Antiquity
1.1 Ancient Babylon
1.2 Ancient China
1.3 Ancient Egypt
1.4 Ancient Greece
1.5 Ancient Rome
1.6 India
1.6.1 Sanskrit tradition
1.6.2 Tamil tradition
2 Religion and philosophy
2.1 Global ethic
2.2 Bahá'í Faith
2.3 Buddhism
2.4 Christianity
2.5 Confucianism
2.6 Existentialism
2.7 Hinduism
2.8 Humanism
2.9 Islam
2.10 Jainism
2.11 Judaism
2.11.1 Context
2.11.2 Sources
2.12 Mohism
2.13 Platonism
2.14 Satanism
2.15 Scientology
2.16 Sikhism
2.17 Taoism
2.18 The Way to Happiness
2.19 Wicca
3 Other contexts
3.1 Human rights
3.2 Economics
3.3 Psychology
3.4 Children's stories

Golden Rule

Not a "Christian" original. Sorry to burst your bubble.

a reply to: grandmakdw

No. When people are against religion, they are against the dogmas that discriminate against a race, a gender, a sexual orientation or another religion.

I think the Golden Rule was stolen by religions away from the ancient philosophers. The Golden Rule cares not what race you are, what gender you are, what religion you are, or what sexual orientation you are, or what you wear or what kind of music you listen to. The Golden Rule really has nothing to do with religion or with any kind of god. That was the point of my post.

a reply to: grandmakdw

What an absolute load of rubbish.

Try listening to someone other than Rush Limbaugh. PLENTY of people call for kindness, compassion, and caring for everyone so no one suffers needlessly. Those people are progressives.

Jesus your worldview is so negative!

a reply to: grandmakdw

Your still confusing morals and ethics with the LAWS and STATUTES that govern us.

One is abstract, the other is concrete.