Is there a moral decline in America? If you believe this, what do you think is behind it? Too much tv? A breakdown in communication within the family unit? A lack of spirituality? Or do you think we're doing alright and there's nothing wrong with the way America is heading...

"moral" is a vague term

I have to say that with the movement to remove religion from the government and to keep religion out of the government, we have increased the goodness of human action and character. We are removing intolerance and bigotry. Depending on your own definintion of "goodness and badness", this might or might not be a good thing.
The thing about a term like "moral" is that it has such religious undertones. If you believe that the problems in society are caused by some mystical power (the devil), and if you feel like the "blessings" in society are caused by some mystical power (god), you might feel that the only explanation for problems in our society are the reasons for which the god gets mad - "moral decline"

If you feel that society and people ought base their morals on the noble eightfold path - you feel differently about morals.

So moral is completely objective.

I personally believe that we are in moral incline. For myself personally, the more we move from bigotry and intolerance towards equality and truth, we move in the right direction.

Well, I've found the Answer (I particularly enjoyed the way that, along with Paedophile Priest, Dirty Tramp and Pinko Leftie, one of the heinous moral criminals undermining Mom, Applie Pie etc. is "Everyone under 50".)

But this is a very ancient malady. Cicero famously complained that moral decline among the youth of the Roman Empire was leading it on the fast track to collapse in size and power. The Roman Empire did indeed collapse, but it did so almost five centuries after the death of Cicero in 43BC. This didn't mean he was especially prescient, since the Empire more than doubled in size and power from Cicero's time to its height in the second and third centuries AD, thanks to the likes of Julius Caesar, Augustus and Marcus Aurelius. Cicero got it wrong.

But how useful is being "moral" anyway?

Compare the murder rates of, say, Victorian England (something like 60 per night in London alone, when it's population was around 1 million compared to its current 7), with modern Britain at about 800 per year (excluding the recently exposed mass murderer Dr Harold Shipman who hanged himself today, and who was attributed with over 200 in his own right).

Undoubtedly modern Britain is safer, cleaner, healthier and altogether a nicer place to live than Victorian Britain was, even for the very rich. Yet the Victorians wore their morals on their sleeves a great deal more ostentatiously than anyone outside the Democratic Unionist Party (scratch that, the Paisley family) would ever dare. (And many conservatives here hark back to it as the era we should try to recreate, morally if nothing else.)

As far as I can see, absolute levels of morality (determined by behaviour) are about the same as they ever have been, certainly since the industrial revolution. The standards of "public morality" that people pontificate about have simply been gently spiralling down to meet reality, which does have the huge advantage for us that there is a great deal less moral hypocrisy than there used to be, though of course it is still rampant in those we hold to higher standards than ourselves.

It's as if we all subconsciously conjugate to ourselves "I am human. You are weak. He is a hypocrite. We are beleaguered. They are in moral decline."

I think that this meeting of public and real standards of morality can only be a good thing. Once they converge, we can then think about nudging up real standards, without people thinking that there is a get-out caused by the hypocrisy of others. Clearly, all the contemplation and complaint of public morals just has not worked, so maybe it is time to try another tack.

I'm with perspective on this one: moral is relativistic, usually to some religious norm that has far outlived its usefulness.

Usually people complain about a "moral decline" when talking about what's on TV or in the movies or in the newspapers. That assumes that our media is on the cutting edge of that decline or leading us there.

The Catholic Church has lately railed hard against gay marriage and abortion, which is a pretty good distraction from their recent lack of moral integrity. Just a thought about that. No real reason for including it other than to be a pain in their behinds.

Anyway, back to the main point: I think we're probably experiencing an "ethics" crisis, but not really a decline. In every age there are people who will look to scam the system or introduce fraud and abuse into it, but it comes and goes in waves.

Same with a morals; it's more like we're having a crisis between the "old ways" and the "new ones". And that's why we have Conservatives: to keep us hoping that the old ways will come back soon, even if they weren't really as good as we remember them.

Ok, I'll stop rambling. Not sure what my point was other than to waste time instead of working

Yes I think it's all of the above. It's shameful that shows like Jerry Springer in which the guests deceive and/or fight each other, people like Eminem are getting awards when they sing songs that talk about killing homosexuals and raping women, video "games" like Manhunt encourage people to kill innocent people. I think two other aspects are behind it - one is that people think that freedom of speech, press, religion indicate unlimited freedom to the point where they should have no morals whatsoever. This is not so at all. President George Washington stated how morality are "indespensable supports". The other is a lack of trust in government officials. They say how important morality is and when people dislike government officials, then people dislike morality. So morality levels in the U.S. drops.

I must agree with both Julian and AMF, I do not believe there is a moral decline in the United States, or North America. Certainly aspects of morality are changing, women can now wear bathing costumes that uncover their shoulders. But is this a decline?

The first question is who is the arbiter of morality? AMF already addressed the complete inadequacy of the church in this role, which is both out of date on critical moral issues, and has demonstrated some of the worst amorality to hit the media in recent times.

The government is not in the business of deciding upon morality, rather it tends to change its laws and norms to reflect the changes in the public’s views of morality.

The people would seem to be the best bet, but they are an irritatingly diversified lot, from hedonists to Amish, and norms and values change depending on where in the country you go.

The media can influence morality enormously of course, but the role of the media is to attract viewership from amongst the people, and the best way to do that is to show the unusual, the non-conformist, the leading edge. Thus the media tends to stretch public morality to its logical extremes due to its very nature.

In my opinion, morality is ever-shifting, and there will always be people who feel morals are getting too weak, just as there will be people who complain that society’s norms are too restrictive. Morality is not declining, it is simply changing to new times and new realities. Problems exist in the US, huge problems in fact, but to blame them on some kind of generalistic ‘moral decline’ is to put one’s head in the sand. Eminem is not responsable for rise in violence or spiralling of society, nor are video games or Mark Twain books. There has always been an element that wants to ban the game, edit the news, burn the books, but these elements tens to be regressive rather than progressive.

I guess my interpretation of morals is different. To me morals is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Very simply stated. And I do believe that morals and values are going down. To me, it's respect for elders, parernts, children, teachers, authority. It's being curtious and considerate. Thoughtful and tollerant. I think we're none of these. We're self consumed with our own interests and what's important to us.

For example: I'm gay, so gay issues are important to me. But intern I know many gay people who slight straight America for the values they hold dear.

Children are being unatended and letting outside influences develope their foundation, instead of the parent.

Road Rage.

Violent crimes.

Hate Crimes.

So the solution to this "moral decline" that you speak of is to shelter children from the big bad world, and only let their parents raise them? Parents who are sometimes racists, bigots, poor role models?

Road rage is a decline in morals? How about its an indication that something needs to be done about how we get around these days? Parents sitting in traffic for 3 hours a day (this is acceptable in today's society), and you wonder why children are left alone unattended so much. Legislatures need to see increased road rage for what it really is: a cry for help. Of course you're always gonna have imbalanced people losing their temper, but when otherwise calm people feel homicidal sitting in traffic - that is an indication that something needs to be done about our roadways or public transportation.

Hate crimes are the result of oppressed minorities speaking up and asking for equal rights. If those minorities were entitled to the rights in the first place, most hate crimes would not occur, because minorities would not be forced to get vocal about their differences with other people. Honestly, the personal business of others is not the public's business. (IE - abortion rights, homosexual rights, religious rights)

Violent crimes are increasing? I find that hard to believe. Like I said, during many of the most religious times of history, violent crimes were at peak levels due to wars, oppression, etc etc. Can you argue that violent crimes are a direct result of moving away from religious morals?

The golden rule is an excellent basis for morals, I'm glad you brought it up. I would not fight to put the noble eightfold path in the alabama supreme court - because i realize many of my fellow Americans don't hold that creed. I would never dream of lobbying to change our national motto to "In Buddha we trust". Why? Because Buddha has no place in the government of these states. DO UNTO OTHERS sounds like a great place to start.

I'm sorry, but the tone your taking with me in this discussion is a perfect example of what I mean.

First off, don't educate me on what hate crimes are. Being a member of the gay community, I know first hand.





I love how anti-religious people continue to throw this up. As I've told you before, I'm not going to defend the indefensable. DON'T classify me with murderers!



To me morals come down to RESPONSIBILITY. I'm sorry, but I don't care how busy the traffic gets or how upset I get over getting cut off, I'm NOT going to shoot someone. THAT is a lack of self control and morals. Sorry, people need to take responsibility for their actions and STOP making excuses.

I think you are missing the point of the comment, both in this thread and the other. I dont think anyone is classifying you with murderers and inquisitioners at all, but the more general point is that historically the religious authorities have had pretty much a 100% failure when given moral control of the reigns of society.

By action or omission, perhaps we need to find our moral compass somewhere else.

I agree that we the Church isn't supposed to control morality, it's supposed to be a compass, a guide. That's why in my opinion, Organized powerful religions have failed and are now in a state of decline, because of the past and how they try to dictate "morality". I've said this MANY times a while back, I'm NOT your average Christian. Jesus has gotten a bad reputation because of his followers. Anyway, this isn't a religious debate, if you want to know what I believe pm me...



We don't need to get our moral compass somewhere else, but rather by taking the time and READING the Bible for ourselves instead of just listening to opinions and one sided doggy doo!

From what I understand most people would argue religious texts aren't to be taken literally. How would reading the bible help? The bible does condemn homosexuality - how can you say "follow the bible" if even you don't strictly adhere to it's preachings?

In particular the old testament. That thing is chock full of 'smite this' and 'slay that' and heads on platters and pillars of salt. Everything is prohibited from homosexuality to eating shellfish and wearing clothes made of more than one fabric. Heck, God himself disobeys 8 of his own 10 commandments.

I would suggest that perhaps the old testament would not be a very good moral compass for anyone.

Augh! I'm not going to get into an indepth religious conversation. If you don't understand what the Bible is, then reading the text literally is not going to do you much good. Plus, if you don't want to get anything out of it, you won't. Being condesending is the worst way to try to enlighten yourself.

The Old Testament is full of alot of good morals. Ruth, Creation, Proverbs, Songs of Solomon, Psalms. You must not read it very much....

But the New Testament, the words in RED... that's the good stuff!

We're not trying to be condescending - we're trying to understand how we can agree on what moral means. You made a statement above that said all one has to do is read the bible. But the bible was interpretted in so many different ways, even if I did believe there was an actual person Jesus Christ - I would not believe that the corrupted texts were his words.

I'm not trying to be bitter - I'm trying to point out to you that its not that simple - just read the bible.

In order to debate whether we are in "moral decline" we need to agree on some moral foundation.

The moral foundation to me, is God inside all of us that manifests itself in religious texts if we open our minds and hearts. Truth can be found, it's innate.

See, to me that takes me out of the debate, because my moral centre is somewhere completely different.

Even WITHIN the catholic church there is no agreement on many critical points of morality: birth control, tolerance, and so on. That is why most Christians in the US classify themselves as 'non-practicing'.

Now I am not religious, and have only read the old testament once. So given that religious text, how am I supposed to know what is a real moral lesson and what is not? Yes there is some good stuff in the old testament, there is also barbarity, massacre, revenge and destruction in God's name.

Leaving aside the book for a moment, I cannot personally accept religion as a moral compass given the actions of the church in the US in the last 4 years.

I agree that some of the principles of the church are wonderful, but to me, the historian, all those principles can be found outside the church as well.

I am afraid that, given an inability to come to a common definition, or even a common source for morality, the rest of this debate seems somewhat berift of value.

I'd have to agree.

Wow, BJ, four hours from inception to conclusion of debate??

Maybe if you let us know what you were trying to really debate here and what triggered your questions, we'd have a better chance of getting somewhere.

I would not say there is a moral decline in America, but I would also not say we are necessarily headed in the right direction either.

Personally, I really don't like using the term moral because it is far too subjective. Depending on the source of your "morality" what is one person's moral decline is progress to another.

So, is this more of a question of what is wrong with America or what?

Actually, I see an enormous decline in morality in the US, in the form of lack of personal responsibility and accountability. I had a late night wine induced "philosophy session" with a german and frenchman one night on a late night on a french island, and a good point was made, the frenchman said "you have taken "guilty until proven innocent" too far, to the point that unless you are thrown in jail, it is not wrong, and even then it is someone elses fault, with this innocence has come the lack of shame for your behavior towards others". This I agree with. It is not prayer in school, or religious artwork or any of this other peripheral crap, but our total lack of cultural responsibility that has caused a real decline in character in this country IMO.

Morality has allways been critical to having a civil culture. America has at best been a moral roller coaster and we seem to go from one extreme to another. I feel that there is a kind of a pendulum principle and the momentum will swing to the other extreme. People in authority, especially parents, have a profond influence on matters of conscience. Lets take for instance, the truth, how to you make someone love the truth to the point where a lie becomes repugnant. The key is to tell the truth and behave yourself in accordance with the truth you have embraced.

I'm a firm believer in free will and people must see the value of things like telling the truth, honoring commitment, and natural affection as opposed to sexually imorality. I'll never forget a dumb mistake I made once in attending a KKK rally on the statehouse steps, it was profondly depressing. While leaving I passed a memorial commemorating a speach Abraham Lincon made during his campaign for re-election and it qouted something I'll never forget. "The future of America resides with you, the people...". (I'm paraphrasing a little) Its not our government, our courts, our media, our parents, its our own moral choices. All politics are local and all morality is personal. The cure for a lie is the truth, the cure for sexual immorality is natural affection, the cure for infidelity is to honor commitments. You do not turn the tide of immorality by emphasising moral deficiency, you do it by demonstrating the power of a pure conscience. The power to do this resides with you alone.

At any rate, thats my two cents worth

I do not believe there is a moral decline in America. I am sure if you are religious you probably feel so but I feel we are experiencing more of an awakening of morality here. I figure we have so many people from so many places with viewpoints of every conceivable angle for any conceivable question that finding a common middleground or acceptable compromise is going to be a truly uncomfortable and confusing ride.
For the longest time the morality was "Do Nothing, Nothing IS Acceptable, You are going to HELL. Do as you are told, do not question our authority. Thinking for yourself is not allowed We are Borg you will be Assimilated"
then
We got "Do Everything, There are NO LIMITS, Did it once? Sorry you need to keep doing it, do not question our authority" Question ALL authority, Its Not YOUR Fault, it is NEVER your Fault. You can't be held responsible for your actions, Society made you do it. Just enjoy the ride its all relative its all point of veiw, We are Borg you will be Assimilated"

We have screwed it up so bad on both sides of the pendulum that I think we are at the stage of refinement. For all the talk of Liberal vs. Conservative the majority of us fall in the middle. Now like a script we are editing. But it is such a jumble we are having a hard time splicing it all together. Add to the fact there are hard truths we need to face about fear and prejudice with some heavy guilt and avoidance issues and you have a rats nest. To make it real fun we still have those who have the My way or a Beatdown kinda mentality. People who have no real substance to argue but will scream in your face to get you to back down or throw out veiled hints of violence to come.

I've read this post several times, Billy, and it seems to me that all of these real social problems could be explained just as easily by a decline in manners as they coud by a decline in morality.

As I and a few others have indicated, I think that real (i.e. applied) moral standards have stayed more or less the same, or even increased slightly, over the past few thousand years.

For example, the hate crimes which you cite would not generally have been seen as crimes at all (certainly not beyond the mechanical effects of a beating, a rape or a shooting) as recently as fifty or a hundred years ago. That they are now generally agreed to be somehow more reprehensible than the same crimes when committed within the same ethnic, cultural, sexual or religious groups is surely an advance in public morality? That being gay or black or Muslim does not automatically confer less-than-full legal and civil rights they way it did prior to the Sixties is surely a moral advance?

I'd say lack of respect for elders, teachers and so on; courtesy and consideration towards others; tolerance and thoughtfulness - to me, all of these things are more evidence of good manners than good moral character. Someone can be a complete moral vacuum but still be honest, polite, restrained and not beat up people they don't like at the drop of a hat, surely?

So, if these are the symptoms of what is wrong with modern Western society (and the same ills are much in evidence in the UK, and elsewhere, not just the USA) then I find myself in total agreement. But I think you've attributed them to the wrong cause.

Manners are the virtue that it in steep decline, not morality.

I guess I consider morals and manners to kind of go hand in hand. Two sides of the same coin. Manners are an outward expression of a persons character. And character to me is based on ones morals.

Manners have a direct correlation to the golden rule. We are polite to others because we would want them to be polite to us. Most of our manners are derived directly from the way we would want to be treated.

The reason that mannerly expectations become out of whack is that people begin to question the logic or reasoning behind some manners. For instance, saying "god bless you" after someone sneezes. The manners that brought that about were because people used to believe that when you sneezed, you were releasing evil spirits. Some people don't believe that, hence, they don't "bless you" when you sneeze. Someone else might see this as rude. But really, all it is is a changing of tradition. Neither way is right or wrong (as morals would suggest). Morals are different than manners. Manners set rules for the way you and others wish to be treated on a daily, trivial basis. Morals govern how you decide the difficult decisions in your life.

I agree with your sentiment that manners, as the practical application of the Golden Rule that smooths the path of all interaction, are not the same thing as morals, though I'm not sure that active questioning of the underlying logic is the reason that manners decline.

While that certainly can be a reason for ill manners, I think a far more important reaon is that we don't really teach manners any more, or if we do, it is seen as the exclusice preserve or parents to do so.

Not so long ago, the manners of children, especially, were inculcated by everyone and done so in public. Hands up how many people remember being told off as children for ill behaviour by your parents' friends, teachers, neighbours, policemen, and total strangers by passers by, with the indulgence or even approval of parents? Nowadays, this seems to have been turned on it's head. Not only does it happen infrequently, but if it ever does and modern parents find out about it, the chances are that parents will loudly argue the toss with the intervening adult - "How dare you criticise my parenting ability?" seems to be the underlying thread. Today's parents bridle at the slightest criticism of their little angels, often by teachers(!), and the innocent intervention of strangers is more likely to draw suspicions of child molestation than grateful thanks.

This, coupled with a PC sense that we aren't allowed to criticise the behaviour of anyone unless they are a politician or a celebrity, means that the available pool of teachers of manners shrinks from the population of the planet to one's immediate family. And increasingly, they never really saw the need for manners because they didn't get taught properly either, for the same reasons.

Billy Jean I can see your point, but I think you're wrong. Morality and manners should certainly go hand in hand, and be two sides of the same coin, but they clearly are not. It is possible to be, or at least claim to be, highly moral yet insufferably rude - think of a loudly proselytising preacher who doen't appreciate the right of other people to politely ask to be left alone. It is also possible to have perfect manners but be a- or im-moral (though not very common, I admit).

Julian, I see what you mean, it SHOULD go hand and hand and it doesn't and I think that's where we're seeing a slip in manors and morality because people don't see the connection. The way we interact with each other is sort of like the ripple effect, or a cause and effect. People claim to be sensitive to diversity, but then aren't sensitive to the every day humdrum that honestly have more of an effect on our emotional state. Not saying "excuse me" or just being obviously rude in public in many forms and fashions. People know this, people just don't care. It's the looks and the vibes we send each other, it's this bubble we live in and dare not venture out to help someone in need because of the god of convenience. We're selfish and self consumed...

As I see it, there is a horrible moral decline in America.

http://www.utopia-politics.com/forums/inde...?showtopic=8083

I started that topic; it basically says to what degree I realized this moral decline is. It frankly scares me how magazines like that, and TV shows of similar attitude towards personal actions, have been the determining influences in many lives. Fortunately, I don't know many people like that, but it is because I choose not to when I can.

To combine what Billy Jean just said with this post, it really is about convenience and imprudent selfishness (selfishness can be moral if you are accountable for your own actions, in my eyes).

Again, Billy Jean is right on target. I hire a lot of young people and I see their lack of respect and responsibility. Parents have less time in this busy world to instill good morals and the school system fails miserably there. Single parented children have even less of a chance. A lot of the problem is work ethic. When a person adjusting your brakes one day decides to skip a few procedures, you'll wish they had better upbringing. In recent years we have had several plane crashes due to poor maintenance. That used to be a rarity. There was even a stealth military plane that was repaired with duct tape. Fast food places serving food not properly cooked. A lot of ways a bad work ethic can effect your life. Daycares with child abusers and neglectors. Pedophiles are on the rise definitely. So is child molestation and rape. Yes, I'd definitely say it has been in decline for some time. From what I've seen from the media most teens do not regard oral sex as sex nor do they consider it dangerous. Children pregnant at 12 and 13 years old? This is in incline?

I definitely believe there is a great moral decline.

There have been a lot of good suggestions mentioned already and I agree with them and won't waste anyones time repeating them.

My greatest concern in the moral decline is the growth of greed in the marketplace. Years ago a company was satisfied with making a reasonable profit and the CEO or President and the workers shared in it. Now companies aren't satisfied with making reasonable profits,but want more and more profits. WHY??? Because the CEO or President of the companies get most of their money from stock options. How do stock options became valuable? The stock goes up and millions of dollars are made. How does the stock go up? Jobs are cut or outsourced to make a greater profit which mades the stock price goes up. So in essence a worker losts his or her job so the CEO can make more money.

It really really riles me when a companies cuts a lot of jobs and WALL STREET applauds this. This is so insensitive. How much profit does it take to satisfy the companies GREED. There are times when a job may have to be terminated but the jobs cuts lately are in excess. The average S&P 500 companys profits was up 20% from last year but very little or no wage increase for the worker or his or her job is gone forever.

If this is allowed to continue where is the company going to sell their product, if a large number of employees lose their jobs. I am sure people from India or China or Mexico will be able to buy these products.

My suggestion is that the CEO,President and the Board of Directors have their jobs outsourced too. Then maybe some sanity would prevail.

Oooh, sex is so dangerous. I'm sure it's right up there with oh, say, being in the front line in an army on the march to the battlefield Please. There are risks associated with anything and everything. God knows any teen who dares to have sex has no morals, because having sex while 19 and 364 days is positively outrageous. How dare they act out on their desire for sexual pleasure!

Anyways.
I believe there have been great improvements in some aspects of society with regard to morals - i.e. blacks are no longer considered property, and women generally no longer considered genetically inferior to men - and so I believe that when it comes to the issue of treating people equally (notice I did not say "with respect") society has taken great steps forward from where it was even fifty years ago.

Respect for each other has dropped tremendously. A lot of people think they are right, and that they can impose their beliefs and *morals* on others without any regard for that person's feelings. There is practically no respect to allow someone to make their own decisions and choices if it conflicts with one's own. Then again, I could argue that it's been because there are so few people in society today actually worthy of respect.

Considering how one's "morals" are all but completely subjective, there's really no way one could effectively evaluate the alleged decline of morals in America... my morals are probably very different from many members of AD, and while someone may think that an increase in oh, say, sexual activity amongst teens is a signal of moral decline, my morals dictate that it's perfectly okay, so I would not see that as being a factor. But I guess IMO only, there hasn't been an across-the-board increase or decrease in America's morals as according to my own, but progress in some aspects of society and ten steps backward in others.

(... I think observations about sex and immorality is my "button", so to speak )

People should also remember take the numbers on a lot of those studies for who is doing what and reverse the way the numbers are read.
Quite often you instead get
the majority of people do not do drugs or have teen sex and on and on

The media is too negative. We are too negative. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy after a while. It poisons the mind and everything begins to look ominous.

Well, I would say that is a direct result of living in a capitalist society with a free market economy. Businesses exist to make money, and over the years they have become exceedingly efficient at it. This really is no different than say 50 years ago except that there are more businesses and the wealth is concentrated in new areas.

Morality doesn't really have anything to do with it, if you don't consistently try and stay up with your competitors then you are going to be out of business eventually. If one competitor innovates by outsourcing to India thus cutting their costs by 20% then you had better follow suit or you'll be out of business soon. Moral or not, this is the way capitalism works.

While its almost impossible to measure the change in so-called "immoral behavior" between now and in the past generations, I'd guess that the perception of immoral behavior changes with age.

Teenagers, 20-somethings don't see the "disrespect" that the older folks do. So I'd be willing to guess that the older folks, when they were teenagers and 20-somethings didn't see the "disrespect" that THEIR elders percieved. It's all perspective, and my guess is that morals are not in decline - just that people are getting older and with age comes lots of different negative feelings towards new youth.


And I'd bet that if you scaled it down to percentages, today's CEOs aren't any more greedy than the CEOs of Henry Ford's day.

Yeah, things are just fine. It all equals out in my opinion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3966895/

I think THIS is a clear sign that manors and politeness have wained in America. When you have to write a BOOK for parents on how NOT to pass on their rude tendencies to their children, there's something wrong...


50 years ago this wouldn't have been an issue and would have been laughed at.

Forgive me Billy, but i'm just curious--is your taking of Jackson's song as a moniker a joke? Or do you think the guy is a fine, moral, upstanding indivdiual. Just curious.

Well actually, I'm a HUGE Michael Jackson fan and I think he's a wonderful, beautiful, decent human being. I'm also a professional Michael Jackson impersonator and Billy Jean is my stage name. I'm quite proud to be supporting Michael against the LIES. Does that answer your question?

I'm sorry nebraska29 , is this apart of this discussion somehow?

I don't know, Billy Jean, I think it's too simplistic to say there is a moral decline. While I agree with you about manners and our sense of personal responsibility, I do think that our social, or collective, morals have been generally increasing.

You forgot to mention in your paean to 50 years ago: the way the majority in this country generally regarded blacks, Jews, women, Asians of all stripes, homosexuals... Our sense of human rights and of what constitutes justice have been on a steadily improving trend.

On the other hand, today more than ever, people feel fragmented, isolated and lonely. Our faster world is less stable and reliable. Men and women don't materially need each other in the same ways that they used to. We move more; our extended families disintegrate. Our increasing orientation towards consumerism as a (perceived) part of our fundamental fabric makes us feel and behave more selfishly. The much needed, and probably evolutionarily inevitable "self-esteem" movement has done a lot of good for large groups of previously disenfranchised people, but it also has adverse side effects. We seem so focused on "me." People think in terms of My goals, My wants, My needs. We have trouble committing, and staying committed. Our standards of living have risen, so in place of struggling to meet survival needs, we find (or create) other ways to suffer.

These problems are only exacerbated by the fact that we mistakenly seek solutions and answers outside of ourselves. Confronting the enormity of the change we must make to truly confront the problem of suffering, we seek outside authorities who will tell us, "it's ok." Or worse, authorities who will use metaphysical language to justify and rationalize all those causes of suffering. Look at the phenomenal rise in the "New Age" philosophies. I'm OK, you're OK.

I think that to get to the root of your question we need to jump approximately five rough levels:

morals
manners
behaviour
desires
fear

And no, I'm not on drugs.

Wow quarkhead, that was actually very beautifully written. You pretty much captured almost exactly what I was trying to say...

Although popularity of therapy and reporting of depression and anxiety was much less and therefore not a good barometer of the well being of earlier times, the suicide rates, in particular of teens, would be a good place to see the decline of our society over the years along with the statistics on drug and alcohol abuse, rape and violent crime. I believe you can find a direct correlation between these numbers and the factors for decline.

You're being vague here. Perhaps you could tie these things a little more clearly to "morals?" In any case, let's take a closer look at what you said:

• Teen suicide rates.

According the Center for Disease Control, the suicide rate for people age 15-24 reached its peak in 1990, at 13.2 deaths per 100,000 people. It has gone down since then, and in 2002 was 9.9/100,000. The rate for 1950 was 4.5/100,000, so yes, this has increased. But let's look at this even closer. The highest rate was 13.2 suicides per 100,000 people aged 15-24.

According the US Census Bureau, in 2000 there were approximately 40,000,000 people in this age group (15-24). This breaks down to 400 groups of 100,000. Though the population in 1990 was slightly less, this gives us a ballpark. 400*13.2=5280 suicides.

Is that a high enough number to indicate moral degradation of society as a whole? Perhaps, but it would indicate to me, that such a leap is at the very least debatable. And, since the rate has been dropping over the last decade, perhaps the point is moot?

• Drug and Alcohol Abuse.

National Survey on Drug Use and Health

For every category of drug, use has increased, sometimes dramatically, from 1965 to the present. But how to link drug and alcohol use to morality? Both drugs and alcohol have been a part of our history for as far back as we can see into the past. I would certainly be interested to hear your argument linking drug and alcohol use to morality.

• Rape and Violent Crime.

According to the Justice Department, The violent crime rate in 1973 was 48.5 victims per 1000 people age 12 and up. In 2002, the rate was 23.1. So rates have gone down - almost cut in half, in fact. So this would indicate a decline in morals exactly how?

If we grant that your chosen issues are indeed corollaries to morality (which I do not), your still 1 for 3 on this one - indeed, using your own indicators, it would be easier to conclude morals are rising, not declining.

You cannot answer this question without a Starting point. Declined from where, 1950, 1960, thats a laugh, but seriously from what point.

And I have to wonder ,is it not just a matter of more publicity for what is considered immoral behavior. Sensationalism on T V and Newspapers.

Someone mention Pedhifile priest, but have they not always been here but hidden, didn't the Catholic Church once Castrate Choir boys, what do you suppose happened with those man made eunuchs.

Drug use, hell up until 1937 or near that date, drugs were not even illegal, and the group who was most addicted was little old ladies who lived out in the country sipping patent medicine. Opium Dens were common place everywhere you found a few Chinese.

The roaring 1920's , Bootlegging, Gangsters, lynchings, free sex, its all happened before.

Go back to the 1800, genocide, human bondage, slavery, starvation, forced prositution, to eat, child labor, hell we worked 10 year old boys 10 hours a day in coal mines.

Go back further and we burned people at the stake, tortured them, banned them, starved them, because they acted "funny" We put people in Prison for owing money and sold poor people into bondage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do agree certain things have slipped, manners, respect, honesty and integrity, but hell who do people learn it from , our leaders both in Politics and business.

-----------------------------------------
Then came the Birth Control pill and Womens Rights, I loved it, lol

Yes, it has everything to do with this topic. If the issue is the status of morality in common society, then how is it not relevant to discuss one of the most recognizable and popular figures in our conemtporary culture who thinks it's o.k. to sleep with children?? If you disagree with this assertion, then can't we agree that what is currently going on with him is a moral question?? It certainly isn't an economic, political, or religious one. Then what kind of question is it?-it would be a moral question, and hence, is subject to discussion. People point out flaws in other peoples arguments all the time on this website, and I fail to see how a simple question regarding the contradiction between your concern for morality and admiration for a man who allegedly has no concern for it, is irrelevant-or at worst, a personal attack. By no means was I trying to make such an implication, but rather, I was curious as to how you reconcile the two points that in my opinion, stand in such a stark contrast to one another.

There is no need for reconciliation at this point because he hasn't been proven guilty of anything yet. Yes, I don't think he puts himself in a good situation my admitting to having kids sleep in his bed. I personally think it's an innocent interaction and until it's proven otherwise in a court of law, I'll continue to stand up for Michael Jackson. I think it's more moral to stand behind someone when they're at the worst of times, then when their at the best of times. It's called loyalty. If he's found guilty, that will change for me, but until then I don't deserve to be slandered openly on this board.

I look at the record and what it says is that Michael Jackson is an extremely compassionate, sensitive, giving and charitable man, who's music has always been uplifting, with a good message and a standard that everyone can listen too.

If you want to discuss Michael Jackson, start a thread on him.

I agree with many others on this thread....though many things have changed for the worse (in my opinion), it's hard to link that to a drop in morality. To ask the elders in the board...were the majority of children in the 70's/60's/50's/40's/etc devoid of intelligence? I've been very quixotic for a while(according to someone else, though I agree as well), I admit, and as I see no problem with being so, I will continue to be so.

The major example of what I'm trying to say here is that the word "family" is a foreign term among today's youth. Kids are usually raised by the one that works, or they raise themselves. It seems fair to connect lack of morality with the way children are raised these days.

I am in agreement with both perspective and amf in their almost immediate response to the subjective nature of morality. And while I don't mean to leave out the insightful and informative posts of other members who have participated in this debate, I also found Julian's first post to be particularly useful in reaching my own conclusions as to whether there is or isn't a moral decline in the United States.

By what standard should any of us choose to measure the resolve or degradation or morality in our country? Certainly if we were to operate by the standards of Victorian era England (as mentioned previously by Julian) morality would be in sharp decline. And as I believe Calvinists tend to look down on ways of intoxicating the body, among other things, we might also be in decline. Similar declines might also be noted by those who feel the ascension of homosexuals and the "homosexual lifestyle" are a moral disgrace to both the country and to the species.

Of course those comfortable with their sexuality, those comfortable with particular vices and those with bi- or homosexual orientation would have a considerably different view than those adhering to the previously mentioned groups. But who is right and who are any of us to say any one of them is right?

There doesn't seem to me any way in which to truly measure the social position of morality when it can clearly mean so many different things to so many different people. The moral landscape depends on where you choose to view it from.

Maybe we should be discusing your morals, because it would seem to be more relevant to this discussion.

You are quick to link having kids in your bed as sexual and using a public figure to substantiate a problem you seem to be having. In other words (as related to this topic), moral standards are highly subjective. How can that ever be measured? Morals declining? By what measuring stick? Yours? Or Billy Jeans?

MJ claims sex has nothing to do with allowing kids to sleep in his bed. How is that not possible? You seem to infer it's not, and that's simply disingenuous. It's entirely possible, and so far (via past interviews and investigations), probable.

Would I let my kids sleep in MJ's bed? No. I don't let them sleep in my bed and it has nothing to do with sex. How about laying off MJ until all the evidence is available and concentrate on the things we actually know. Just a suggestion...