Are morality and ethics dead in the US?

Morality is alive and well in the U.S. It has been an evolutionary process.

We have evolved to believe that slavery is wrong.

We have evolved to believe that women deserve equal rights.

We have evolved to believe that discrimination is wrong.

We have evolved to believe that people deserve to work in safe environments.

We have evolved to believe that homosexuals are not evil.

We can't thank religion for this evolutionary process. It has been in spite of, not because of religion that we have evolved.

Oh, anyone who thinks there wasn't a huge lack of morals and ethics going on the 1980's and 1990's wasn't paying any attention.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: grandmakdw

It's been proven in this tread again and again that morality doesn't need ONE source. You seem to not want to accept that. OK. What standard is needed to make everyone's morality valid in YOUR eyes?

Absolutely any standard
that has withstood the test of time
that society can agree upon
for a basis of logical discussion
of morality and ethics
from which can be derived a
consensus of what is moral and what is ethical.

However, I feel our country is too polarized anymore for that to ever happen again, at least not in our lifetimes.

a reply to: grandmakdw

just that we have differing morals and differing opinions.

What are the "differing morals" that we have?

Oh wait. You didn't want to "play that silly game" to see if our morals and opinions are similar.
Carry on then.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Morality is alive and well in the U.S. It has been an evolutionary process.

We have evolved to believe that slavery is wrong.

We have evolved to believe that women deserve equal rights.

We have evolved to believe that discrimination is wrong.

We have evolved to believe that people deserve to work in safe environments.

We have evolved to believe that homosexuals are not evil.

We can't thank religion for this evolutionary process. It has been in spite of, not because of religion that we have evolved.

Oh, anyone who thinks there wasn't a huge lack of morals and ethics going on the 1980's and 1990's wasn't paying any attention.

I am talking not about what people were doing,
people are always, as far back in time as one goes,
doing immoral things and unethical things,
and will continue on that path forever, it is inevitable.

I am talking about a standard or consensus by
which everyone can agree upon as a basis
for discussion of morality.
We don't have that anymore and will never again.

BTW, please see my post on the previous page at the end.
I think you need to see it.

a reply to: grandmakdw

I am talking about a standard or consensus by
which everyone can agree upon as a basis
for discussion of morality.
We don't have that anymore and will never again.

There was no time in the history of the US when this was true. The US was founded on "Freedom" and "Freedom" by it very nature ensures that there will be different points of view on what is and is not moral.

Further, there was no time in the history of the world, let alone the history of the Hebrews, where they all agreed on one moral standard. That's why they constantly had doom and gloom, corner prophets condemning them.

originally posted by: grandmakdw


I am talking about a standard or consensus by
which everyone can agree upon as a basis
for discussion of morality.
We don't have that anymore and will never again.

There has never been a TOTAL consensus of what is moral - even among religious people. No one is ever going to agree 100%. You can get ten religious people in a room and get 10 different interpretations of one verse of Bible scripture.

Abortion was legal in the 1980's and 1990's. Many agreed that it was a moral decision for the woman's right to her own body. There were many who disagreed and felt that was an immoral decision for the fetus' rights.

There has never been a time in America where there was a standard consensus by which everyone could agree upon as a basis for discussion of morality. That doesn't mean morality and ethics are dead. We've always just done the best we can, by using the Constitution when it applies, and amending it when necessary. I'd rather do that then go by any religious book.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Absolutely any standard
that has withstood the test of time
that society can agree upon
for a basis of logical discussion
of morality and ethics
from which can be derived a
consensus of what is moral and what is ethical.

THE GOLDEN RULE.

That was established way back in this thread. It's been around since as far as we know - it is a universal truth.
It is not being followed by the oligarchs and uber-rich, that's for sure. It is being fought tooth and claw, with much gnashing of self-righteous Any Randian teeth, by the hard right.

How you can share the moral belief that all people are entitled to food, clothing, housing, shelter and a decent standard of living and STILL think that Progressives are God-Hating heathens who want all Christians to die is BEYOND ME.

Again - please take a break from Limbaugh and FOX News. Please. Just, like, for two weeks. To help calm you down.
(I tried this same tactic with my rabidly Republican brother, but he failed to follow through)...... try reading and watching the sources that YOU despise -- to see what they are actually saying.

Most of us on here pay attention to both extremes.....and call them out as extreme. But I honestly think you don't have a balanced idea of what "those repugnant Liberals and Democrats" actually want. Look, for example, into

BERNIE SANDERS.
I think you might like him. Maybe.
But even if it turns out you don't - PLEASE read his platform.
Or listen to some of his youtube vids (there are tons of them!) or just do a simple ATS search and look at all the recent stuff going on - this guy is the guy.

Take this quiz...take your time. Always click the "other stances" button. (There's even a 'write your own stance' option!)

Always do the slider (it's situated/placed on the left of the question) that indicates how much the particular issue matters to you.

And, at the end of the section, always do the "show more questions" at the bottom.
There is even a "learn more" section before EVERY question to help you with the topic at large.

You can post your result here, or not. You can PM it to me alone, or not. You can also just not do it. Or not. But I think it would be very productive for you, and especially to heal the communication gap between "your" side and "the other" side.

Personally, I would LOVE to know what your results come up with.






I sure hope you do this. Or anyone else who wants to know if morality and empathy are dead in the US. Yet. Because I don't think so.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: grandmakdw

Absolutely any standard
that has withstood the test of time
that society can agree upon
for a basis of logical discussion
of morality and ethics
from which can be derived a
consensus of what is moral and what is ethical.

THE GOLDEN RULE.

That was established way back in this thread. It's been around since as far as we know - it is a universal truth.
It is not being followed by the oligarchs and uber-rich, that's for sure. It is being fought tooth and claw, with much gnashing of self-righteous Any Randian teeth, by the hard right.

How you can share the moral belief that all people are entitled to food, clothing, housing, shelter and a decent standard of living and STILL think that Progressives are God-Hating heathens who want all Christians to die is BEYOND ME.

Again - please take a break from Limbaugh and FOX News. Please. Just, like, for two weeks. To help calm you down.
(I tried this same tactic with my rabidly Republican brother, but he failed to follow through)...... try reading and watching the sources that YOU despise -- to see what they are actually saying.

Most of us on here pay attention to both extremes.....and call them out as extreme. But I honestly think you don't have a balanced idea of what "those repugnant Liberals and Democrats" actually want. Look, for example, into

BERNIE SANDERS.
I think you might like him. Maybe.
But even if it turns out you don't - PLEASE read his platform.
Or listen to some of his youtube vids (there are tons of them!) or just do a simple ATS search and look at all the recent stuff going on - this guy is the guy.

You are way off base,
I don't think you are a repugnant God hating heathen

and I am really sad that you view yourself that way,
otherwise you would not project those thoughts onto me.


I certainly don't think you are a God hating heathen
who wants all Christians to die

and am really sad that you think that poorly of yourself
as to project those thoughts onto me.

You failed to read my earlier post all the way through where I said

I can separate your online persona and your ideas
from you as a person.

I don't think Progressives want Christians to die,
I think they want Christianity to die yes, but not Christians.

I think Progressives want Christians to give up religion,
yes I believe that.

I believe Progressives dislike Christians as a group intensely,
yes I believe that.

But want all Christians to die, sorry that is your own fantasy of what I think.

FYI, I don't watch FOX,

I have a mind and unlike people who live on MSNBC
and the NBC liars network and the ClintonNewsNetwork,

I read voraciously all kinds of things and rarely watch TV news at all.
So once again you are projecting something that does not exist, your fantasy of me.

Honestly, when I am not on ATS
I don't think about you at all, hope that makes you feel better.

When on ATS I know that you and I will clash,
we have very different political values,
and that is ok,
it doesn't mean you are worse than me
or I am better than you,

it means we disagree,
but I don't think you can handle that
from the things you are saying

we have very different social mores
but that too is ok
and I expect if I say a social or ethical more is green,
you will say the social or ethical more is red,
because we have diametrically opposite points of view,

and for me, THAT IS OK, YOU ARE OK in my opinion,
you don't have to agree with me,
I don't expect it at all and never will,
and THAT IS OK and I accept it
and don't think you are a bad person at all.

Why you insist I think you are a bad person is beyond me.

People can disagree about everything
and both still be good people at heart

People can hold diametrically opposing viewpoints
and still be good people at heart

People can disagree on every subject under the earth
and still be good people at heart.

If you want to hate me, I'm ok with that

If you want to think I am awful, I'm ok with that too.

However, I refuse to hate you
or think that in real life you are an awful person,
because I don't.

I simply think we hold entirely different views
on almost everything in life,
which doesn't make you bad
or make me better than you in my eyes.

I'm not going to indulge you in any tests
to "prove" my morality or to "prove" your morality.
That is not what this thread is about
and you don't have to prove your morality to me anyway.



I still think that even the Golden rule is not
consensus thinking for the majority of Americans

look at all the racists (all racists in the US)
they are only kind and caring within group
and openly hate and revile all other groups;

look at the political parties; kindness and
compassion are nowhere to be seen between
political parties.

I still think there is no longer any consensus
in the US for morality and ethics;
and therefore since a consensus is not found
morality and ethics as a society as a country
are dead.

This is not personal, nor directed at you, please get that.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Nono, sweetie.
Don't be sad.

I'm not sad at all - I don't feel at all "badly" about myself. I know exactly what my morals are.

On the other hand: Do you know how many times you have accused ATS members of "hating God" and "hating Christians"? How many times you have demonized the "left" and "progressives"? How many threads you have made alleging that you poor, pitiful, persecuted "Christians" are being bullied and that everyone wants to eradicate you?

DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA how many times you have accused other members of that?




It doesn't matter, anyway.
All water under the bridge.....

so......


Did you take the quiz???
I sure hope you did. But, if you didn't, don't worry. I won't be shocked or surprised.

Have a great night.
I have to get up early. To take care of my family. And it's not "playing with the grandchildren" - it's taking my hard-working husband for an outpatient surgery.

a reply to: grandmakdw

I have a mind and unlike people who live on MSNBC

I don't watch MSNBC. I don't ever watch television unless it's something like "Bob's Burgers" or "Hoarders".....

So - there's another 'misconception' cleared up.

Now - anyway - about that quiz........
I triple dog dare you to take it and post your results RIGHT HERE.

I search the bible and no where could I find the term "the golden rule". It just doesn't exist.

Treat people the way you want to be treated. Follow the laws of the land.

Paul points out what the works of the flesh are so I by the power of the Holy Ghost in me try to avoid them.

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

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.

Man looking to himself for moral absolution is circular logic. It's the equivalent of saying we are right because we say we're right. The message is that secular humanist tenets are right because we are human and so they must be. The irony is that "humanity" then takes on an abstract significance- a bit of spirituality is involved in it, I think. Regardless, humanism is a nihilistic sham at it's core, just like most bastard ideologies spawned from the modern era.

Also, to clarify a few things for some obviously confused individuals posting in this thread: morality is objective. It is not relative; by defintion, it can't be "fluid" and changeable. If it is, then you're not talking about morality, you're talking about something else. It follows that ideology is often confused with morality these days. Humanism and things of that ilk are ideological, not moral. Most people cling to ideology more so than morality, I find.

Your gods are the people who have successfully convinced you of this crap. It's all garbage philosophy, everything you'd learn in school and university is best discarded if you value free thought and agency.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

87% Rand Paul, 75% Rubio, 74% Ted Cruz. "Other Stances" was a good call, it certainly weeded out my list since the last time I took this. It also moved me up into almost the very top of the Libertarian scale. I'm a right-libertarian.

It also told me that 8% of ATS sides with me and I match them on zero major issues. #SighOfRelief

I'm at 25% with Bernie, FYI. He shouldn't feel too bad, though, Hillary scores a 13% and O'Malley scores a whopping 5% on my chart.

I don't need a god in my life to be moral. I know the difference between right and wrong without religious guidebooks. I still don't know if the Christian God has morals?
How moral is it for a god who is all loving and powerful that allows 4 children to die of hunger every minute? Or 9 million children under the age of 5 to die a year? How moral is that? If he is all loving and all powerful. What type of morality is that? Tell me

originally posted by: woodwardjnr

I don't need a god in my life to be moral. I know the difference between right and wrong without religious guidebooks. I still don't know if the Christian God has morals? How moral is it for a god who is all loving and powerful that allows 4 children to die of hunger every minute? Or 9 million children under the age of 5 to die a year? How moral is that? If he is all loving and all powerful. What type of morality is that? Tell me

God gives people free will, if He didn't we would all be his slaves.
Would you rather God treated us like puppets, pets and slaves
and we lived lives of comfort like a pampered dog or let us make
our own choices and be responsible for the results of our choices.
Let us live free to make mistakes as well as to be moral and ethical?

God doesn't do anything to those children, their parents and their country, their society, human beings let them die of hunger.

Everyone has to die at sometime, children,
youth, adults, and old people it is the way it is.

Even if you blame God, is nature or mankind any different?

Nature kills children through mutations in DNA, disease
and infection given to us by animals and the very dirt in the ground.
Mankind lets children starve to death.

Nature kills through disease carried by mice, fleas, etc and by
contaminants that have developed in the soil, and by mutations
through evolution. So if you don't believe in God, ok by me.
then getting your morals from nature is not any better.
The moral code of nature
(which people on ATS have said should be the new moral
code for society, thinking kittens and rainbows)
is eat before you are eaten,
kill before you are killed, only my group is worth kindness
and compassion - all others are to be chased away or killed.

Mankind does things like rape children
and make slaves out of people who
think differently than they do,
just look at ISIS and look at the Nazi's,
I could go on and on.

Mankind itself is to blame for most of the problems in the world.
The choices made by mankind cause the majority of "evils" in the
world, choices made by mankind who each thought that their
self defined moral code was right and their personal ethics the best.

So by extension if you don't believe in God, ok by me.
If you think everything in religion is evil, ok by me.
Then you are left with blaming
Mother Nature and Mankind itself for all the evils in the world.

Where do you think people should get their morals and ethics from?
Themselves? People know right from wrong?
That is a fallacy at the core and leads to groups like ISIS
thinking that they are the most moral people on the planet.
That leads to things like the holocaust and what Mengle did to
advance medicine and for the good of the collective society.

If I have to choose between
nature (kill or be killed, eat or be eaten)
or mankind (ISIS and the Nazi's prove what mankind can think is moral)

I choose at a minimum:
the last 4 of the 10 Commandments
(do not kill, lie, steal, spend time wanting what someone else has,
kill the soul of your mate/lover by cheating on them)
and Jesus words,
love your neighbor as yourself.

You can choose mankind or yourself if you want, but
self morality leads ultimately to things like ISIS to
get what you want.

You can choose to hate God because people let children starve.

You can choose to blame God for death, without death the world
would be standing room only and most likely the immortals would
have had to stop reproducing long before you and me. Never
giving you or me a chance to live and experience life.

God treats us as adults, and as one would a good friend, he told us what
would lead to healthy productive and good lives, if humans
choose to ignore those things and do what they want. God
lets them and treats humans with respect and let's the consequences
of their choices happen, as one does with people they respect.

If you don't believe in God, I'm ok with that.
But discarding the last 4 Ten Commandments
as the US has done literally.
Has thrown away what I consider the basics
of true morality and ethics that have withstood
thousands of years.

One doesn't have to believe in God to see those
commandments as worthwhile and worth
preserving.

But people in the US today
are so phobic about religion,

they have thrown
out the baby with the bathwater.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I think your reply was meant to be in another thread. Ooops.
I have done that before and recognize the common mistake.
Please blip me as off topic once you read this, thanks.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Last time I checked, murder was still against the law, as is stealing. Lying too, in the form of fraud, is illegal.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: grandmakdw

Last time I checked, murder was still against the law, as is stealing. Lying too, in the form of fraud, is illegal.

I am not talking about the law,
that is different than morals and ethics
and the morals and ethics of the collective society as a whole.

The US has chosen to literally throw away
those commandments as a basis for future moral decisions
or for their own personal morality,
and time will show the results of that decision
to disregard any and all ideas that come from
religion.

But thanks for the contribution.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I am sorry about your husband.

I hope he recovers quickly and everything will be ok.

Glad you have grandkids who love you!

Chin up!