How could morality be in decline when civilization has past to the "age of enlightement" and on?

Question

As we progress so should our understanding of each other and nature so how then could morality be on the decline ?
Life now is more structured and organized then before
laws ( civilized ones ) are everywhere cept for a few exceptions...

how then could we say morality is on the decline ?

if it is then the thought that morality was developed over time is not true ?
which leaves the fact that someone created morality or imposed it on us ?

or is morals relative ?

Answer 1

i do not think morality has declined,,,, while yes there are still immoral people who do immoral acts, that has always been true , for the most part people are more thinking, more moral then ever before. its just that often all the negative gets the publicity

Answer 2

Morality is relative--it depends on which relatives adopt which morals.

Morality is not like the pyramids or the Wall of China, a set of blocks that once put in place they will always be there. Each person, whether admitting it or not, picks and chooses between what he or she accepts, gives lip service to, and outright rejects. The socialization and enculturation of a people is more of a stew with a mix of flavors than a uniform product. Each generation adds its own flavors by what it keeps, invents, or discards. Historically, there are various periods when some cultural fad shines brighter than others.

As for imposition of morals, we have very few innate behaviors, so society has mechanisms to perpetuate their standards. To the learner, that is an imposition to be sure. Still, as C. S. Lewis observed, which human alive, who is at all able to communicate, will immediately come to the obvious judgment that you have done something wrong if you were to snatch food from their fingers as they ate or dumped their sleeping bodies out of their beds in the night. This, going back to your Enlightenment example, is what John Locke determined as a sense of oughtness. Some things simply ought to be, or ought not. Mothers ought to protect their young. Fathers ought not have sex with them or kill or batteringly injure them. Even nature nurtures by corrective snaps, snarls, and slaps. But if the male crocodile eats their young when they are too numerous, how is it that MOST, but unfortunately not all, humans innately find that wrong? Defining those lines of distinction is the role of morality. Some societies obviously have done better jobs, as a whole, than others.

Answer 3

Unfortunately, enlightenment has nothing to do with morals. Morals are developed within us as we grow from childhood to adulthood. However, there was a study, that proved that children who watched violent or immoral programs, incessantly, developed a very lax sense of right and wrong. Morality was not created. It is some knowledge that is instilled in each one of us. Just like we can "feel" that it is wrong to take away Tiny Tim's crutch just to watch him struggle down the road. They are not imposed upon us. Even those who have had no formal training of what is right and wrong, instinctively knows the difference. Good Luck!!!

Answer 4

I trust you - that's no longer that morality has declined, yet really, that we are a strategies extra likely to study about immoral decadence and moves than we were 40 years in the past. the creation of the web, 24 hr information media and verbal substitute everywhere, anytime, helps the distribution of undesirable information swifter and extra effectively than replaced into conceivable a era in the past. Take the Tuscon capturing on Saturday - 40 years in the past, it would not make the newspaper till Monday, and purely the front web page information in important Newspapers and native papers. The Wisconsin Chronicle would not headline the tale. There should be something extra interior sight and on the spot to be worried with. get admission to to information creates the fable that issues are worse than they are surely. Take a web page from Jon Stewart, who suggested the different nighttime, "study all you are able to about the victims of Saturday's capturing. See the nameless good they did widely used, and comprehend that evil is uncommon."

Answer 5

Moral codes evolved over a period of time with the twin objectives of maximising collective security and longer term benefits to society.

As we progressed, we have got obsessed with the value of time that is so scarce. This has led to a short term approach that has diluted the morals. Secondly, we are getting more and more obsessed with individual freedom assuming sum total for the society would also be improved.... but on the contrary, maximising individual freedom compromises collective security in the society.

This phase of progress can not last and the turnaround will have to come sacrificing individual freedom and short term goals for the sake of collective security and long term benefits....... morals would again acquire the priority they had previously!!

Answer 6

I think when people say morals are on the decline they just mean that not as many people are adhering to the teachings of the Bible. Remember a few years ago whipping someone to teach them religion was okay? I don't belive criminality is no more abundant now than it was 20 or 30 years ago and if it is then we can only blame it on Capitalism and the division of wealth.

Answer 7

Morals are relative rather than absolute. It is also fair to say that although they can be developed and society improved, they can just as easily slide backwards.

Humans are naturally selfish creatures. Morality and actions without personal gain often require effort rather than being the basic, normal way of life.

Answer 8

Morality is relative and I'm all for that, not being a absolutist. But i don't see how capitalism should be the sole scapegoat, economic systems merely shapes the forms and types of immoral acts throughout history but in no way is the root cause for it. Only in extreme cases can social structures chip away at our individual/ collective values

If you ask me, it is shame which is the decisive factor in determining one's capacity for ethical living. When you feel shame, it is a powerful deterrant. Shame is the beleive that innocence can be maintained, that goodness (god) is your highest nature. This beleive is sadly lacking-- do unto others.That's why.

Answer 9

The term "age of enlightenment" does not describe enlightenment in an absolute value. It merely describes an age where the quantity of knowledge gained surpassed that in any other time period.

We have not arrived. We went faster on a road in that period. We are yet to reach "the state" we should be looking for.

In fact, I'm afraid... we many never.

Answer 10

Being enlightened (unfortunately) doesn't necessarily mean being moral. You can be aware and know right from wrong & still make the wrong choice. Especially when (in this day & age) there are myriad opportunities & temptations to do the wrong thing.