|
|
Post by tickingmask on Apr 13, 2017 12:53:37 GMT
Ok, I promised AJ I'd try to take up his challenge of one relevant thread a week, so here's this week's contribution. No penises at all in this one, so if it doesn't attract hundreds of replies, I'm taking my ball and going home! (Relax, AJ, I'm just kidding).
A few years ago, when I was clearing out my mother's house after she died, I found her old fur coat. She hadn't worn it for decades and it was completely moth-eaten, full of holes, in far too poor a condition even to take to a charity shop or homeless shelter (not that they would have taken it anyway, regardless of its condition!). The only thing I could do with it was to chuck it out.
I remember when my father bought her that coat for some special occasion. I was a teenager at the time (so we're talking mid 1970s here) and vaguely recall that the coat cost him a fortune and was her pride and joy - she wore it a lot. I can't remember when she stopped wearing it, but I did ask her about 20 years later why she never wore it any more and she said that it was because complete strangers had started coming up to her to scold her and tell her how immoral/sinful/whatever she was for wearing fur. She ignored them at first, but the attention was relentless. Whenever she wore that coat, she might as well have gone out with a 'Kick Me' sign pinned to her back.
Now the point of this story is not just to question the moral orthodoxy of wearing fur (but feel free to pitch in, if you feel like it, with a rational explanation why eating meat or wearing leather is ok, but wearing fur is not) but also whether Western society has become more upstanding and moralistic in recent times. Instinctively one would think the opposite was the case- that moralising was on the decline, the last refuge of the religious right, or of self-appointed Muslim moral arbitrators going around chiding people for drinking alcohol or displaying too much flesh in their Muslim areas, but had no place in our modern tolerant democratic society.
But I don't think that is true at all! We Westerners who pride ourselves on our freethinking and tolerant attitudes, have become frightfully moralistic about certain things which we never imposed our moral views on that much in the past. Wearing fur is just one example. Insensitive phrasing that even suggests racial stereotyping, even when obviously not intentionally racist, is another (remember all that fuss when somebody used the word 'niggardly' in some report)? Going against the orthodox viewpoint with regards to pretty much any environmental, medical or scientific issue you care to name - global warming, homeopathy, vaccinations, evolution, you name it - triggers huge outbursts of moralistic indignation and demands for logical'n'rational evidentiary discourse on why the person even questioning this orthodoxy has the right even to breathe the same air as the people striving to uphold it. Even voicing a belief in God triggers some Pavlovian reaction in certain people.
So what do you think? As Western society becomes more free and democratic, do people become less moralistic, or is the moralistic vacuum created by the general decline of the Religious Right being replaced by something that is equally distasteful?
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Apr 13, 2017 15:31:50 GMT
Ok, I promised AJ I'd try to take up his challenge of one relevant thread a week, so here's this week's contribution. No penises at all in this one, so if it doesn't attract hundreds of replies, I'm taking my ball and going home! (Relax, AJ, I'm just kidding).A few years ago, when I was clearing out my mother's house after she died, I found her old fur coat. She hadn't worn it for decades and it was completely moth-eaten, full of holes, in far too poor a condition even to take to a charity shop or homeless shelter (not that they would have taken it anyway, regardless of its condition!). The only thing I could do with it was to chuck it out. I remember when my father bought her that coat for some special occasion. I was a teenager at the time (so we're talking mid 1970s here) and vaguely recall that the coat cost him a fortune and was her pride and joy - she wore it a lot. I can't remember when she stopped wearing it, but I did ask her about 20 years later why she never wore it any more and she said that it was because complete strangers had started coming up to her to scold her and tell her how immoral/sinful/whatever she was for wearing fur. She ignored them at first, but the attention was relentless. Whenever she wore that coat, she might as well have gone out with a 'Kick Me' sign pinned to her back. Now the point of this story is not just to question the moral orthodoxy of wearing fur (but feel free to pitch in, if you feel like it, with a rational explanation why eating meat or wearing leather is ok, but wearing fur is not) but also whether Western society has become more upstanding and moralistic in recent times. Instinctively one would think the opposite was the case- that moralising was on the decline, the last refuge of the religious right, or of self-appointed Muslim moral arbitrators going around chiding people for drinking alcohol or displaying too much flesh in their Muslim areas, but had no place in our modern tolerant democratic society. But I don't think that is true at all! We Westerners who pride ourselves on our freethinking and tolerant attitudes, have become frightfully moralistic about certain things which we never imposed our moral views on that much in the past. Wearing fur is just one example. Insensitive phrasing that even suggests racial stereotyping, even when obviously not intentionally racist, is another (remember all that fuss when somebody used the word 'niggardly' in some report)? Going against the orthodox viewpoint with regards to pretty much any environmental, medical or scientific issue you care to name - global warming, homeopathy, vaccinations, evolution, you name it - triggers huge outbursts of moralistic indignation and demands for logical'n'rational evidentiary discourse on why the person even questioning this orthodoxy has the right even to breathe the same air as the people striving to uphold it. Even voicing a belief in God triggers some Pavlovian reaction in certain people. So what do you think? As Western society becomes more free and democratic, do people become less moralistic, or is the moralistic vacuum created by the general decline of the Religious Right being replaced by something that is equally distasteful? Interesting topic, ticking mask, and I'll chime in. I identify as an environmental activist, so here goes...
I don't know if the word 'moral' is the right word to use; I would say 'raising consciousness' instead. Back when your dad paid a small fortune for your mom's fur coat, no one really thought about how that fur coat came into being. Further back than that, wearing fur was an added benefit of killing game to eat, something people did to survive. Now that no one has to kill animals to eat - the slaughterhouse does that and the domestic animals they kill are raised for this purpose - the animals that are killed for their fur are killed only for their fur, not to eat or any other purpose. So if it's no longer a matter of survival, is it okay to do that?
I am vegetarian. I've posted about this topic earlier, so I'll be brief; I cannot kill an animal in order to eat it, so why should it be okay for someone else to do the killing for me? I simply don't eat meat, and ensure my health by eating all the plant amino acids in the right combination so that I eat complete protein. But I don't preach to others. I will explain my stance if asked, but ultimately it is everyone's choice whether or not to take this stance.
As we as a species continue to evolve, we become more aware of the entire environment and how our actions affect it. Our old perspective of humans being the masters of the earth to do with it as we please is being tempered by the knowledge that what we have been doing is harming the environment's ability to survive. Now that science has shown us the problems, we can act accordingly or just stay in that former mode of not understanding the consequences of our actions. And it is those people that the radicalized activists go after, trying to get them to understand how this behavior is harming the world we live in. And some take it too far, but they are trying to change the minds of those who are still firmly entrenched in the 'old ways'. I think that is the point you are trying to make; how radicalized and fervent the divides have become.
I think it is not replacing religion as something to fight about (though some people do have the fervor of an evangelical) but more about knowledge replacing ignorance. I don't even use the word 'moral' or 'immoral', I think only about what consequence will happen in the real world. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 17:56:06 GMT
I don't think it's a case of being more moralistic or less so, but rather that morals are changing and evolving over time.
A hundred years ago nobody cared about fur coats, but people regarded homosexuality as immoral. Today it's the other way around.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 13, 2017 19:09:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 13, 2017 19:15:22 GMT
It depends on which moral standard being used.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 13, 2017 20:15:14 GMT
I think in the broadest, most general sense we're becoming more moralistic, and that can be traced to statistics on things like violent crime being at an all-time low. Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature is a great read on this subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Apr 13, 2017 23:40:21 GMT
Ok, I promised AJ I'd try to take up his challenge of one relevant thread a week, so here's this week's contribution. No penises at all in this one, so if it doesn't attract hundreds of replies, I'm taking my ball and going home! (Relax, AJ, I'm just kidding).A few years ago, when I was clearing out my mother's house after she died, I found her old fur coat. She hadn't worn it for decades and it was completely moth-eaten, full of holes, in far too poor a condition even to take to a charity shop or homeless shelter (not that they would have taken it anyway, regardless of its condition!). The only thing I could do with it was to chuck it out. I remember when my father bought her that coat for some special occasion. I was a teenager at the time (so we're talking mid 1970s here) and vaguely recall that the coat cost him a fortune and was her pride and joy - she wore it a lot. I can't remember when she stopped wearing it, but I did ask her about 20 years later why she never wore it any more and she said that it was because complete strangers had started coming up to her to scold her and tell her how immoral/sinful/whatever she was for wearing fur. She ignored them at first, but the attention was relentless. Whenever she wore that coat, she might as well have gone out with a 'Kick Me' sign pinned to her back. Now the point of this story is not just to question the moral orthodoxy of wearing fur (but feel free to pitch in, if you feel like it, with a rational explanation why eating meat or wearing leather is ok, but wearing fur is not) but also whether Western society has become more upstanding and moralistic in recent times. Instinctively one would think the opposite was the case- that moralising was on the decline, the last refuge of the religious right, or of self-appointed Muslim moral arbitrators going around chiding people for drinking alcohol or displaying too much flesh in their Muslim areas, but had no place in our modern tolerant democratic society. But I don't think that is true at all! We Westerners who pride ourselves on our freethinking and tolerant attitudes, have become frightfully moralistic about certain things which we never imposed our moral views on that much in the past. Wearing fur is just one example. Insensitive phrasing that even suggests racial stereotyping, even when obviously not intentionally racist, is another (remember all that fuss when somebody used the word 'niggardly' in some report)? Going against the orthodox viewpoint with regards to pretty much any environmental, medical or scientific issue you care to name - global warming, homeopathy, vaccinations, evolution, you name it - triggers huge outbursts of moralistic indignation and demands for logical'n'rational evidentiary discourse on why the person even questioning this orthodoxy has the right even to breathe the same air as the people striving to uphold it. Even voicing a belief in God triggers some Pavlovian reaction in certain people. So what do you think? As Western society becomes more free and democratic, do people become less moralistic, or is the moralistic vacuum created by the general decline of the Religious Right being replaced by something that is equally distasteful? Yes we have. See any university safe space policy, or the no platforming culture that has sprung up. See hate speech laws in Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 14, 2017 0:37:21 GMT
Ok, I promised AJ I'd try to take up his challenge of one relevant thread a week, so here's this week's contribution. No penises at all in this one, so if it doesn't attract hundreds of replies, I'm taking my ball and going home! (Relax, AJ, I'm just kidding).A few years ago, when I was clearing out my mother's house after she died, I found her old fur coat. She hadn't worn it for decades and it was completely moth-eaten, full of holes, in far too poor a condition even to take to a charity shop or homeless shelter (not that they would have taken it anyway, regardless of its condition!). The only thing I could do with it was to chuck it out. I remember when my father bought her that coat for some special occasion. I was a teenager at the time (so we're talking mid 1970s here) and vaguely recall that the coat cost him a fortune and was her pride and joy - she wore it a lot. I can't remember when she stopped wearing it, but I did ask her about 20 years later why she never wore it any more and she said that it was because complete strangers had started coming up to her to scold her and tell her how immoral/sinful/whatever she was for wearing fur. She ignored them at first, but the attention was relentless. Whenever she wore that coat, she might as well have gone out with a 'Kick Me' sign pinned to her back. Now the point of this story is not just to question the moral orthodoxy of wearing fur (but feel free to pitch in, if you feel like it, with a rational explanation why eating meat or wearing leather is ok, but wearing fur is not) but also whether Western society has become more upstanding and moralistic in recent times. Instinctively one would think the opposite was the case- that moralising was on the decline, the last refuge of the religious right, or of self-appointed Muslim moral arbitrators going around chiding people for drinking alcohol or displaying too much flesh in their Muslim areas, but had no place in our modern tolerant democratic society. But I don't think that is true at all! We Westerners who pride ourselves on our freethinking and tolerant attitudes, have become frightfully moralistic about certain things which we never imposed our moral views on that much in the past. Wearing fur is just one example. Insensitive phrasing that even suggests racial stereotyping, even when obviously not intentionally racist, is another (remember all that fuss when somebody used the word 'niggardly' in some report)? Going against the orthodox viewpoint with regards to pretty much any environmental, medical or scientific issue you care to name - global warming, homeopathy, vaccinations, evolution, you name it - triggers huge outbursts of moralistic indignation and demands for logical'n'rational evidentiary discourse on why the person even questioning this orthodoxy has the right even to breathe the same air as the people striving to uphold it. Even voicing a belief in God triggers some Pavlovian reaction in certain people. So what do you think? As Western society becomes more free and democratic, do people become less moralistic, or is the moralistic vacuum created by the general decline of the Religious Right being replaced by something that is equally distasteful? Plants don't have eyes or ears, but then neither do worms. |
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Apr 14, 2017 1:06:42 GMT
Human beings are human beings and we haven't fundamentally changed as animals since we lived in caves. Yes, even without god, liberal atheists are as "moralistic" now as humans were in the dark ages or as fundamentalist Christians and Muzzies still are. And you used the right term "moralistic". That's generally regarded as a pejorative to describe self-righteousness, not true ethical behavior.
I was gonna say minks are glorified rats, but they're really glorified weasels. Sorry, weasels are weaselly, much like the members of PETA. Minks are raised for their fur, much as chickens are raised for my kung pao. Who gives a crap? And if you forego mink because you are an animal activist, I hope you don't wear leather shoes, same difference.
I bet the hypocrites who shamed your mom thought nothing of wearing leather belts and leather boots and leather jackets.
|
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Apr 14, 2017 1:22:45 GMT
You have a lot of affluent moral busybodies trying to regulate every little aspect of other people's lives down to how long they're allowed to spend in the shower. Even Science is debated in terms of morality. Ban race research. They want to put special anti-racism algorithms into robots.
|
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Apr 14, 2017 13:28:27 GMT
Interesting topic, ticking mask, and I'll chime in. I identify as an environmental activist, so here goes...
I don't know if the word 'moral' is the right word to use; I would say 'raising consciousness' instead. Back when your dad paid a small fortune for your mom's fur coat, no one really thought about how that fur coat came into being. Further back than that, wearing fur was an added benefit of killing game to eat, something people did to survive. Now that no one has to kill animals to eat - the slaughterhouse does that and the domestic animals they kill are raised for this purpose - the animals that are killed for their fur are killed only for their fur, not to eat or any other purpose. So if it's no longer a matter of survival, is it okay to do that?
I am vegetarian. I've posted about this topic earlier, so I'll be brief; I cannot kill an animal in order to eat it, so why should it be okay for someone else to do the killing for me? I simply don't eat meat, and ensure my health by eating all the plant amino acids in the right combination so that I eat complete protein. But I don't preach to others. I will explain my stance if asked, but ultimately it is everyone's choice whether or not to take this stance.
As we as a species continue to evolve, we become more aware of the entire environment and how our actions affect it. Our old perspective of humans being the masters of the earth to do with it as we please is being tempered by the knowledge that what we have been doing is harming the environment's ability to survive. Now that science has shown us the problems, we can act accordingly or just stay in that former mode of not understanding the consequences of our actions. And it is those people that the radicalized activists go after, trying to get them to understand how this behavior is harming the world we live in. And some take it too far, but they are trying to change the minds of those who are still firmly entrenched in the 'old ways'. I think that is the point you are trying to make; how radicalized and fervent the divides have become.
I think it is not replacing religion as something to fight about (though some people do have the fervor of an evangelical) but more about knowledge replacing ignorance. I don't even use the word 'moral' or 'immoral', I think only about what consequence will happen in the real world. Thank you for the endorsement! I think 'raising consciousness' and being excessively moralistic are the same thing. In fact the very phrase 'raising consciousness' makes my flesh crawl! Show me somebody who wants to raise my consciousness and I'll show you somebody who wants me to stop thinking for myself and devote all of my attention to whatever pet subject he wants to go on about. He doesn't know (or care) what I already know about the subject, he just wants to lecture me on his very one-sided take on the matter and ask me rhetorical questions (e.g. "Did you know that sinners like yourself who don't repent go straight to hell?"). I give to a homeless charity every Christmas and sure as certain they give me the follow-up consciousness-raising phone call the next month with the usual questions ("Did you know that homelessness has increase by x% in the past ten years? Did you know that y% of homeless people are children? etc.). When I finally ask them to get to the point, it always ends up being "we think we can get more money out of you than you already give us". But still, so long as they are raising my consciousness, eh?  I don't really think people in the 1970s were ignorant about how fur coats were made, do you? At least not as far as the killing of small furry little animals is concerned. What they would have been ignorant of is the hugely one-sided diatribes easily found on the internet (I pick a random one here) by animal rights groups with a crystal clear agenda and special interest in painting the worst picture possible and lying when they have to. Of course they aren't going to mention any good practices of these fur farms! They don't want to improve conditions there, they just want you not to buy fur. These rants don't even bother to try and explain why fur farms have any interest in keeping their animals in such poor and squalid conditions - wouldn't that completely spoil the fur and make their produce unsaleable anyway? Animal rights groups obviously don't credit fur farmers with much business sense. |
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Apr 14, 2017 13:43:04 GMT
I think in the broadest, most general sense we're becoming more moralistic, and that can be traced to statistics on things like violent crime being at an all-time low. Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature is a great read on this subject. So because there are fewer major things to be outraged about, we get more outraged about the minor things instead? That actually sounds plausible. I might well give that book a read. |
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Apr 14, 2017 13:57:14 GMT
I don't think it's a case of being more moralistic or less so, but rather that morals are changing and evolving over time. A hundred years ago nobody cared about fur coats, but people regarded homosexuality as immoral. Today it's the other way around. You are definitely right that moral standards have changed - people considered different things immoral a hundred years ago, but they still considered things immoral - but I would argue that the level of moralising has increased and we westerners are far less tolerant now than we were then. Did people vilify homosexuality that much 100 years ago? I thought it just used to be quietly brushed under the carpet - none of those strident "God hates fags" rallies or anything like that - but I suppose the fact that it was a criminal offense makes any kind of comparison moot. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 14, 2017 14:04:38 GMT
Moral standards have only really changed based on the standard being used.
There is more than one version of morality and they have different purposes and different levels of standards.
In relation to Scripture, morals have gotten more lax even among those who follow the Bible. That doesn't mean God actually changed those standards of morality.
On the other hand, societal moral standards have changed to be less discriminating and without regard to Godly standards. Since the bar is lower and ever evolving then it could be argued that societal morality is becoming more moral based on its standards.
Most normal people recognize this dual standard which is why the notion of religious freedom coexists with the notion of faith in a particular religion and its doctrines.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 14:08:23 GMT
I don't think it's a case of being more moralistic or less so, but rather that morals are changing and evolving over time. A hundred years ago nobody cared about fur coats, but people regarded homosexuality as immoral. Today it's the other way around. You are definitely right that moral standards have changed - people considered different things immoral a hundred years ago, but they still considered things immoral - but I would argue that the level of moralising has increased and we westerners are far less tolerant now than we were then. Did people vilify homosexuality that much 100 years ago? I thought it just used to be quietly brushed under the carpet - none of those strident "God hates fags" rallies or anything like that - but I suppose the fact that it was a criminal offense makes any kind of comparison moot. I'd say the fact that it was illegal shows that they vilified it far more than we do today. I don't think we moralise as much today as a century or so back. But probably more than we did fifty or sixty years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Apr 14, 2017 15:00:59 GMT
IMO it's becoming less moral.
Lying has become normalized, the truth can be discarded if it doesn't fit a persons narrative.
When you have world leaders who not only blatantly lie but are sometimes celebrated for it, that kind of sucks.
Honesty and empathy can be seen as weakness in a society that celebrates and worships consumerism and materialism.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 14, 2017 16:37:16 GMT
My two cents.
I believe it's human nature to want to be part of an "in" group, to look down on others while self-elevating yourself, and to cultivate an "us vs. them" mentality.
In countries that are more or less homogenous regarding faith or nationality, the "others" are the foreigners, or non-adherents of the faith. I don't think it's a coincidence that xenophobic parties in Europe seem to thrive in places that have the least percentage of foreigners.
In pluralistic places, like big cities or universities, there is a market of ideas, and there's no clear right or wrong. So maybe people who pick a cause and get emotionally invested in this cause tend to be extremely intolerant of differing viewpoints. It can be religious zealots, or animal rights activists, or activists for any cause deemed worthy.
I believe that a huge part of zealotry stems from insecurity. In places where your views are not routinely challenged, you don't have to carry them like a banner. But when your views are exposed to differing opinions, you feel a need to defend them, which comes around aggressively.
On the other hand, maybe people will shut up if they know that they are a minority. In earlier times (before the hippies came around), nobody would have challenged a person wearing a fur coat. But when some prominent voices started to speak for animal rights, maybe some zealots felt more comfortable in harassing people who are wearing fur coats...
So I don't know. I'm not a psychologist or sociologist, and like all humans, I only believe what I want to believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 14, 2017 17:09:40 GMT
I disagree.
I think it is human nature to fall into camps of like minded individuals, but it is not necessary to think of oneself as better unless other camps provide ample evidence that makes that assumption true.
Zealotry is a relative term, but let's assume the minimum and say it is proselytizing. In that case, there isn't an insecurity as much as there is an invitation. A person who is devout in whatever ideology they hold, including atheism and whatnot, is pretty secure in the notion that there's no reason to change.
Their hope should actually be that others are less secure than they are since that's how persuasion works.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 14, 2017 17:30:10 GMT
Zealotry is a relative term, but let's assume the minimum and say it is proselytizing. In that case, there isn't an insecurity as much as there is an invitation. A person who is devout in whatever ideology they hold, including atheism and whatnot, is pretty secure in the notion that there's no reason to change. Their hope should actually be that others are less secure than they are since that's how persuasion works. I'm not sure. If the zealots were really secure in their beliefs: Why would they care that others don't share their beliefs? Let's assume they think "I am a human being, and I have strong beliefs". In this case, if they thought "Other people are human beings too, and they also have beliefs", then trying to pry away others from their beliefs would be a sign of lack of empathy, or insecurity. A really secure person would think: "You have your beliefs, I have mine. My beliefs work for me, so I assume that your beliefs work for you." Therefore, in my opinion, secure people don't actively proselytize. They may offer advice to people who ask for it; but that's not zealotry. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 14, 2017 18:07:07 GMT
@phuludowin
Because they are sharing their view which is not an unusual human endeavor.
Of course, some zealots, like PETA for example, treat it as a doomsday message, but the point remains the same. They are spreading their gospel because the firmly believe in it rather than doubting it.
of course they could be dishonest too, but I don't believe any majority of a group holding to an ideology can be dishonest about their purpose.
I can get that if I were non-religious or someone on the outside of an ideology looking in. there's a tendency to clump all religion together since in free societies, they all are afforded the same rights. However, their beliefs are no where near the same which is why some religions are heavier in proselytizing than others.
In Christianity, the doctrine involves ministering to strangers, and assuming ones who do that also care about the people. That has little to do with whether people have their own beliefs, only the assumption that the other person's belief is equal to the preacher's.
I would never think that another belief was the equal of mine. Otherwise, I think human nature would be to go to the easier option.
|
|
