Moral decay

[Metaphor]

Social conservatives today lament about the "moral decay" of liberal society - promiscuity, the breakup of nuclear families, drugs, homosexuality, abortion, etc. They might like to see a return to 1950s style social structures (the Australian PM has been accused of this).

The issue is that even in the 1950s in the West, calls of the moral decay of society could be heard. Teenagers were delinquents, comic books were corrupting minds, pornography was sold to interested adults. The 1950s also saw the birth of the neoconservative movement. Neconservatives believed, along with religious conservatives, that US society had fallen prey to decadent individualism and needed to be reformed. Unlike the religious conservatives, the neoconservatives didn't necessarily believe anything religious, but saw religion as a useful means of controlling the population.

In Victorian England, fears about the moral decay of society were ever-present. Earlier still, Puritans left England because of the moral decay they perceived.

Are social conservatives fighting a neverending battle? Not one that they will ever win, certainly, but one that they don't exactly lose, they just give up more and more ground? Apart from local, time-limited throwbacks (eg the election of a conservative government) is the general march of history against conservatives?

And in a separate question - which do you find scarier (that is, if you find the ideas scary at all). Religious conservatives who see moral decay as displeasing to God and therefore must be halted, or neoconservatives who may nor may not be personally religious, but who also lament moral decay and are happy to use religion as religious means to justify that end - religion being one of the myths that Strauss thought was necessary to restore America the Great.

[Don Alhambra]

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins has, alongside the obvious criticisms of the whole omnipotent deity thing, an interesting note about the rise of the 'progressive consensus'. There is a general trend towards rights for women, ethnic minorities and gay people, liberalisation of attitudes to abortion and sex, and the kind of casual violence which used to be commonplace even fifty years ago is now widely condemned.

[mac_philo]

The issue is that even in the 1950s in the West, calls of the moral decay of society could be heard. Teenagers were delinquents, comic books were corrupting minds, pornography was sold to interested adults. [...] Are social conservatives fighting a neverending battle?

Yes!

I had a quotation here about how the youth in ancient greece were problematic, but I think it was misattributed to Socrates.

[Metaphor]

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

-Socrates

Is that a genuine quote? Whilst I was reading it, I thought 'I'll be expected to think it is a quote from the 1950s, but it'll probably turn out to be from the 19th century.'

But I didn't expect that!

[mac_philo]

Looks like my edit was too slow! No, it is not genuine.

However I recall another, similar quote from antiquity. I'll try to find it.

[xunzian]

From Benedict in Brazil

Not at all. From the way I understand history, it seems quite progressive. Humans are always marching towards the next big thing and away from the past and the present. Gradually, gradually, gradually making the world a better place to live.

To continue with my recent trend of autoplagarization:
Quote:
In his introduction to the Daodejing, Wang Bi (a political commentator) wrote:

"Even if you could hurry by running with the speed of lightning, it would still not be fast enough to get there and back in a single instant. Even if you could travel by riding the wind, it would still not be fast enough to arrive in a single breath. Being good at making quick progress lies in not hurrying, and being good at reaching goals lies in not forcing one's way."

I think this idea of hurrying-by-not-hurrying is central to my idea of political progress and I think it is borne out by history. England has enjoyed a fairly slow march towards increasing the people's political access. The system that was produced has been stable. France, on the other hand, wanted democracy *now*, so they made the immediate shift from Absolutism to Republicanism then almost immediately back to a dictatorship then to a Constitutional Monarchy, then an Absolute Monarchy (more declared than actually experienced), then back to a Republic, then back to a dictatorship (or Empire, depending on your views of the situation), followed by a healthy dose of sabre-rattling (what Emperors do best!) then back to Republic, then to a puppet government, then back to republic (but one that allows fascists to have a dangerous amount of influence). I may have missed a few steps in the French progression.

But the same situation has played out in Russia. Capitalism NOW reforms fail for a variety of reasons, so rather than some progress, nearly no progress is made. Russia gets trounced in war and you get demands for Democracy and, capitalism NOW. That quickly segues into Communism NOW, a system that managed to, within a generation, re-create many of the problems that were rebelled against in the first place! But, say what you will about the USSR, it invested heavily in infrastructure. Not necessarily quality infrastructure, but that is neither here-nor-there. So, you get a gradual increase in the standard of living for the average person living there and (post-Stalin) and gradual drift towards more democracy and more capitalism within a rigid system. Russia is still playing with that balance, but it is doing a fairly good job at marching towards the future.

Gradual change is better than quick change because it allows for the shift in conciousness and infrastructure necessary for true movement forward. Quick changes make history stutter, with the steps backwards often nearly outweighing the steps forward!

In this march, religion is one of the things that keeps it from going too fast, from spinning out of control and becoming non-functional. People want fast change, we want a perfect world now, and a world that is perfect according to our perceptions. However, these perceptions tend to be overly simplistic and can have many unfortunate results because of that. Religion stands there like an old nagging mother saying, "Not so fast, not so fast." and like that old nagging mother, it can often help prevent unnecessary injury -- but it can likewise be a burden.

And I would argue about the cyclical nature of things, but that is another thread. We are spiraling towards the future.


I think that Benedict represents what I am talking about here. I certainly oppose most of his policies, but I think that the dynamic tension between the world he is working on reclaiming and the world we are trying to build will create both a different world for us and for him.

The conservatives are always fighting to reclaim yesterday -- indeed, they are often fighting to reclaim a yesterday that never was.

[Metaphor]

Yes!

I had a quotation here about how the youth in ancient greece were problematic, but I think it was misattributed to Socrates.

You edited your post whilst I was composing a reply....the original quote is posted in my reply.

Does anyone know the origin of the quote?

[Alethias]

You edited your post whilst I was composing a reply....the original quote is posted in my reply.

Does anyone know the origin of the quote?Well, it was supposedly attributed to Socrates by Plato, but this is in dispute.
http://www.bartleby.com/73/195.html

[Metaphor]

Well, it was supposedly attributed to Socrates by Plato, but this is in dispute.
http://www.bartleby.com/73/195.html

Actually the quote illustrates my point in a slightly different way anyway: even if the quote was completely fabricated,the quote has been around since at least the 1950s, and demonstrates that even then people were concerned about social and moral decay.

I imagine that if we were to time-transport a run of the mill person from the 40s/50s to any Western nation today, including the US, they would be utterly astonished by the amount of individual freedom and social liberalness.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Moral decay, my ass.

All that happens is that the goalposts move.

In the 50s, out-group discrimination was widespread and institutionalised, maintaining gender roles was considered crucial, self-determination was unimportant, and sexual promiscuity was considered unthinkable.

These days, sexual promiscuity is widespread and institutionalised, self-determination is crucial, maintaining gender roles is unimportant, and out-group discrimination is unthinkable.

Just as much of each goes on regardless, of course - but shifting things round gives old people something to complain about.

[Heurismus]

Yes!

I had a quotation here about how the youth in ancient greece were problematic, but I think it was misattributed to Socrates.

As is evident, every age had its 'Old Oligarchs' bemoaning the fact that things were better in earlier times and that their contemporary worlds were going to pot. What's new? Nothing; these are merely the ill educated, immature musings of 'old children' that never grew up and never accepted their mortalities.

As to Socrates, it probably was a misquote considering one of the charges which drew his death penalty was the fact that he was leading youth astray.

[coloradoatheist]

I agree with others that I think every generation has claimed that there was a moral decline. And when they say moral decline they should say Christian moral decline.

Mike

[untermensche]

As it gets more difficult for religious leaders to hold onto their flocks of sheep they sometimes make more and more drastic calls of impending doom that only the religious leader can safely steer through.

This is a technique of control.

It is the exact same technique used by the current US administration to get people to follow them to war.

[Selsaral]

Yes, slavery abolition, civil rights, women's sufferage, what a moral decline.

[Hubble head]

It falls under the 'for every action there is an unequal and opposite reaction' in social order.

It's difficult to explain my whole thought process here in a few words, but when I look at the most repressed people and cultures in the world I also find the most violent and backward humans, all mixed up on what is truly good and bad, most often by a religion but absolutist political dogmas often acheive the same results.

When I look at the world's 'live and let live' societies, I find the most peaceful people.

[Trout]

Difficult to define moral behavior in general and in any age but generally speaking, social conservatives tend to believe in often ceremonial, codified absolutes to define morality as opposed to thinking about the complexities of decisions and activities and developing a flexible "rule" or opinion to be applied where it can be. It's certainly easier if lazy.

"Morality" as some sort of rock solid, behavioral code along the lines of "Thou shalt not...." is pretty useless in my book and I have a difficult time imagining how any intelligent person could willingly adopt something like it.

[Neo-Nietzschean]

The conservatives are always fighting to reclaim yesterday -- indeed, they are often fighting to reclaim a yesterday that never was.

I agree. The reason why social conservatives seem to be fighting a never ending battle is because their enemies or advasaries are basically faceless. Because of that, they can therefore rail against almost anything they disagree with by simply inventing their own definitions of words or recharacterize certain notions and worldviews

[Neo-Nietzschean]

Yes, slavery abolition, civil rights, women's sufferage, what a moral decline.

Whenever I hear people say that America is losing its position of moral authority, I ask them, "when has it ever had it?"

[Loren Pechtel]

Moral decay, my ass.

All that happens is that the goalposts move.

In the 50s, out-group discrimination was widespread and institutionalised, maintaining gender roles was considered crucial, self-determination was unimportant, and sexual promiscuity was considered unthinkable.

Exactly. 50 years ago there were places I wouldn't have been able to marry the woman I did.

[James Madison]

Social conservatives today lament about the "moral decay" of liberal society - promiscuity, the breakup of nuclear families, drugs, homosexuality, abortion, etc. They might like to see a return to 1950s style social structures (the Australian PM has been accused of this).

The issue is that even in the 1950s in the West, calls of the moral decay of society could be heard. Teenagers were delinquents, comic books were corrupting minds, pornography was sold to interested adults. The 1950s also saw the birth of the neoconservative movement. Neconservatives believed, along with religious conservatives, that US society had fallen prey to decadent individualism and needed to be reformed. Unlike the religious conservatives, the neoconservatives didn't necessarily believe anything religious, but saw religion as a useful means of controlling the population.

In Victorian England, fears about the moral decay of society were ever-present. Earlier still, Puritans left England because of the moral decay they perceived.

Are social conservatives fighting a neverending battle? Not one that they will ever win, certainly, but one that they don't exactly lose, they just give up more and more ground? Apart from local, time-limited throwbacks (eg the election of a conservative government) is the general march of history against conservatives?

And in a separate question - which do you find scarier (that is, if you find the ideas scary at all). Religious conservatives who see moral decay as displeasing to God and therefore must be halted, or neoconservatives who may nor may not be personally religious, but who also lament moral decay and are happy to use religion as religious means to justify that end - religion being one of the myths that Strauss thought was necessary to restore America the Great.

Are social conservatives fighting a neverending battle?

Perhaps but not necessarily for the reasons suggested here. The great difficulty in asserting a society has ventured into the realm of "moral decay" is determining when moral decay begins! Does it start with one deviant or a thousand?

Furthermore, a greater difficulty is in labelling some conduct as "immoral." Is homosexuality immoral? Is abortion immoral? Is promiscuity immoral? It is one thing to say some behaviors, when engaged in with excees, are detrimental to society in some specified manner, but it is rather more difficult to quantify and measure "moral decay."