I don't think we can so easily separate the two. Both (manners and morals) rest on the same underlying principles of empathy and consideration for others...ignoring the conventional and arbitrary aspects of each, of course. The person who is rude to the waiter, but nice to you is not a good person.

Of course, morals are relative so to say whether there is or isn't a decline cannot be more than an opinion. That being said, I'll give mine, based on my own personal morals.

In many aspects, our society is becoming more moral. As many have already mentioned, issues like racism, sexism, etc. are less prevalent. How many parents here have taught their 12 year old son to use a broadsword to fight off brigands?

In some other aspects, I think "moral decline" needs to happen faster. An example of this would be our attitudes towards sex. Many people still believe that there is something wrong with someone who has had 100 sex partners, or somebody who has sex with people they barely know. Or how terrified and ashamed we are of our own bodies. This is a perfect example of morals being nothing more than chains. One purpose could be that as long as sex is "the forbidden fruit" it can be sold to us in small doses. But I would really like for hedonism to stop being a dirty word.

And now the big part. The one where I see a disturbing trend. You always here people talk about how "the kids these days" have no responsibility, no integrity, no honor, whatever. Well, for many of them, how could they? Many parents do everything they can to make sure of this. We live in a society where it is perfectly acceptable for parents to call the cops on their kids. Then the parents wonder why the kids have no loyalty. This was actually one of the biggest culture shocks to my family right after we moved to the U.S. Parents encourage siblings to rat each other out (to the parents), and then they wonder why the kids have no integrity or responsibility. This was one of the biggest culture shocks to my family right after we moved to the U.S. So many parents constantly use the "I'm your parent, I don't have to explain myself to you, do what you're told" line and then complain that their kids don't respect their elders. Well, maybe said elders should ask themselves what THEY have done to earn respect.

As a man who places the highest possible value on family, I do not understand how a mother can call the cops on her child, even if he is a mass murderer, even at the risk of being an accomplice. An equal mystery to me is how somebody raised like that would be able to place high value on family.

And this kind of attitude permeates every part of life. I can honestly say that the vast majority of the people I meet think that a friend is somebody you go and drink beer with after work. That's friendship.

Honor? Well, let's see. So many people are taught (definitely with help from the Zero Tolerance laws) that there is nothing you should ever fight for. I've actually seen 3rd graders threaten each other with lawsuits. The flip side of this is once again personal responsibility. Some people never learn the logical connection between being obnoxious and receiving a beating. And if you do something REALLY terrible, you can always blame it on a game or a movie.

The list can go on and on, but you get the idea.

But it's my case that the arbitrary conventions of manners - the little things that you do automatically because you just do, without giving any thought to them - are both the social oil that makes life more pleasant for everyone, and the social currency that has really noticably declined in the past fifty years or so.

Moral issues may stem from a superficially similar golden-rule-related reasoning - "be nice to others so they'll be nice to you" - but I think manners are the habit of daily practical application of this thinking (and hibits, good or bad, as easy to start and hard to shake).

Everyone in a particular culture has a pretty good idea of what manners are or should be, even if they do not practise them.

I think morals are more subjective - as Abs points out - and are not nearly as fluid as we think. Just as an example, let's look at a long-standing moral battleground: abortion. This issue isn't really about whether or not it should happen, but about whether or not it should happen legally and safely. Abortion is a very old practice - much older than the religions that are usually the wellspring of the fiercest opposition to it. It is not going to go away. Before it was legally available, moral crusaders made heavy arguments on liberty and control over one's own body. Now it is legal, moral crusaders on the other side make heavy arguments about murdering babies and the medicalisation of responsible sexual behaviour. Both sides have some good points, but (and bear in mind the impossibility of knowing how many illegal abortions have ever taken place) do we really have any sense that abortion rates have changed at all?

Let's look at another "moral" issue - drugs. Aside from health problems and the family impact of any addictive or obsessive behaviours (like workaholism, which is actively encouraged in today's business climate), what drug-related problems are not directly related to their illegality? I.E. You can't buy them from anyone who isn't, by definition, a criminal. We often see drugs talked about as evidence of some moral decline, but at root, the morality that sees drug use as such "a bad thing" to warrant illegality cause many of the problems by driving the industry underground.

Let me put it another way. I think the only thing that certainly has changed in the moral context is that we know are in no doubt that there are a great many different moral viewpoints, where in times past a single group imposed their own on everyone else, at least publicly. I also think that arguing against things because they are "(morally) wrong" is not persuasive to people who do not share your moral viewpoint.

It is far more effective to personalise things by taking a "you wouldn't like it if they did it to you" line - a shift of emphasis from "ends" to "means", and in motivation from "others" to "self".

So we end up in a situation where we do things because they are effective, and effective because they are polite. Life runs smoothly, not only because everyone stays happily insulated, but because morality is essentially confrontational. If you do something out of manners and I don't like it, my manners might allow me to ignore it or point it out, in both cases politely. Both you or I can put the disagreement down to manners, which neither of us will really believe are a core part of our being, and we'll carry on politely going about our business.

If our disagreement is based on morality, that is such a personal and emotive issue for both of us that, without impeccable manners form both of us, it can only inflate in size and seriousness - our morality is not just a superficial lubricant, but a fundamental part of our being. Nothing either of us can say is going to change each other mind, unless we are on our best behaviour (i.e. we remember our manners!).

So, if we all have (even slightly) different moral frameworks, and I do not believe that there is anyone in good mental health that has no morals, we cannot easily and productively interact with people unless we also have manners. But in an imaginary world with no morals at all, we could all still interact productively and smoothly if we were all careful about our manners.

I therefore think that any social breakdown there is will be repaired either by morals + manners, or even by manners alone, but morals alone will make no difference, and might even be counter-productive. (Phew!)

I have really enjoyed reading most of these responses to the "GREAT MORALITY" question. Out of all of these replies, the one by Christopher seems to have said it best for me.



I also tend to agree that a timeline needs to be set. Based on modern morals, we have definitely increased from the times when raped women were common, dead children in coal mines were just a conversation starter, and slavery was a measure of clout among landowners.

But back to the above quote (I believe it was on page 2). Every generation tends to think that the following generation has less morals, less respect, and more problems. I think it is just a way of older people expressing that "things aren't the way they used to be".

Jazz and 60s rock was considered immoral at one time. So was short hair by women. But how many people feel immoral today when they see Meg Ryan, or when they hear James Brown.

I have so much more to say after reading all those posts, but I love to keep my postings short (I hate reading long posts), so I will end with this note: morality is a judgment created by the greatest number of people in agreement. But if I had to choose which generation was more moral - the ones who listen to that "bad rap" music or the ones who hung biracial couples - I would have to vote for today's generation.

Fair point, however: I've read somewhere (trying to find it right now...grr) that approximately 2/3 of highschool juniors have smoked marijuana at least once.

That may be true, but is it evidence of a decline in morals, or evidence of marijuana supply chain improvements?

I mean, if the halcyon age from which morals have declined had the same availability and relative price of marijuana (or abortion or violence or any other moral yardstick), do we really think that the noble inhabitants would have loftily declined on moral grounds? Or did they just not have the opportunities that people of today have to debauch themselves - indicating no moral decline at all?

Plus, let's not forget the "Reefer Madness" panic-stirring of the 40s and 50s, and era that it often used as the standard against which today's morality is found wanting.

Which leads me to another point on this issue that makes me think moral decline is at best a chimera - not only is today's morality selectively viewed to show it in a harsh light, but past times are often viewed through rose-tinted spectacles. We've already covered the Victorian era, but even during WW2 - at time everyone today likes to think saw everyone pulling together for the moral betterment of humanity - there were riots and crimes and general low morals.

Oh, and sorry for the long post last time. I can tend to get werbose when I'm tired or enthusiastic.

That's very true. I wasn't really advocating that there is a heavy moral decline in this age..more that morals have never really been very high. who knows? Maybe when every teen becomes a geezer they'll look back on this time as a golden age, cursing the devilishness of the new group of kids.

IMO having 100 sex partners, and having partners who we barely know is wrong! This is why STD's are on the rise. If everyone lived the way you think they should we'd be extinct in a matter of decades.

Don't you think that whatever people do at home is their own thing? Let them be gay, weird, promiscuous, it is none of your business.
I for one like to have one girlfriend whom I can cherish and love and spend my life but it is not my right to force others to behave the same way.

If there is a rise in STD's, then maybe you should not promote your own sense of morality but the use of condoms which would incidently reduce the number of all those knocked-up girls who were not taught about sexuality in school because that would have been immoral. I may find it immoral to ruin someone's life like that.

Did I say I wanted to force them to stop being gay, weird, or promiscuous?? No I just said I thought it was wrong and led to the spread of STD's. Theres no way to stop them in a free society. As for the condoms unless people live in a box in this country they know that condoms reduce the spread of SOME STD's, however they choose not to use them for whatever reason. Now do you propose we force them to use them? I would venture to guess you wouldn't and we can't.

*promote* the use of condoms. Infomercials and ads will eventually change the children's minds.

Besides, if you think its wrong, your argument may imply that you would want a change in the sexual behaviour of people. I just automatically assumed you did try to imply that, excuse me if you were not, I didn't want to put words in your mouth.