Do you believe that some societies were/are more moral than others? READ DETAILS PLEASE?

Question

Can a society itself be regarded as moral or immoral? If so, should we or should we not accept the idea that if society does wrong, it is because it does not know better- as Socrates believed was the case in morality of an individual - i.e. a person does wrong out of ignorance, not malice. For instance, in Elizabethan England, one method of abortion was simply to wait until the infant was born, and then to smash him/her against a wall. Remember how Victorian England used little boys as chimney sweeps- they would be burned, become deformed, break bones, and often die. Shall we fault Germany of the 1930s and 40s and call it an immoral society? Not to make the question too politically charged, but shall the 20th/21st century Western World be looked down upon for its tolerance of modern-day abortion?
What do you have to say about all this. Please give a thoughtful response, if you do respond. Thank you.

Daniel, I disagree. Morality can be regarded as inter-subjective, and not some totally didactic objective entity, and this discussion still be both valid and interesting.

"Who Knew," some interesting thoughts....I suppose that again there are answers like the following:
The existentialist (not saying you are, and if you were, nothing wrong with it) will find the question somehwhat non-sensical, as the subjective freedom of the agent is what determines morality or lack of it/or whether it is even a consideration.....
The utilitarian might say that the answer is as easy as the first poster deems it (and perhaps it is, not knocking the first poster)...
AM I happy? Part of what spurred this question is the news I heard about a father spearing his infant son with a knife, and another man literally grilling his dead girlfriend.

I just wanted to add, before I respond to more thoughts (I'm ready to retire for the night)- that I am not thumbing anyone down here unless the answer is disrespectful, abusive, in very bad taste, etc. Ciao- some good thoughts tochew on so far.

i.e. I have not given any thumbs down yet, and I don't think I will by the looks of it....

Juba, thank you for thinking about the issue. I as well wish you health and happiness.

wussupma, let's just suspend the concept of revealed religion for a moment. The abortion phenomenon can be argued against using the personhood argument or one of potentiality, namely any number of variations of the trajectory argument. Even if one has concluded that abortion is immoral after all this ethical consideration, "pro-choice" is not synonymous with "pro-abortion." I would wager even many ardent pro-choicers, which I happen to be one of (I have considered there to be a good possibility of women reverting back to back alley abortions if the procedure is banned by males) are also heavily against abortion. Also, why is other-than-genital to genital sex something you equate with just homosexuality? In addition, even if heterosexual couples didn't engage in sodomy, and only gay couples did, what is wrong with being gay or bisexual, etc. - again I am asking you to suspend your belief in revealed religion. Even with your belief, defend your characterization of gays as immoral.

Craig, I like the fact that you bring up the idea of moral courage, just as Juba does in her way as well. But indeed Craig, the fact that a part of the society knew it was wrong and stood up for the right was the catalyst for change/reform. I wonder what kind of issues may be looked at as something to be courageous about- the anti-death penalty movement perhaps?

Answer 1

Can a society itself be regarded as moral or immoral? Probably not -- morality is an individual concern. I once heard a definition of a "moral" society, which is one that makes it easy for individuals to act rightly (by laws, mores, etc.). That seems to me the crux of your question: "Can socities make it easier for their citizens to act morally and/or justly?" Nazi Germany produced some incredibly moral /just citizens -- people who were willing to risk their lives to hides Jews -- and the laws were only an impediment to those actions. The bottom line must be that morality is a strictly individual pursuit -- one between a person and his/her God and/or conscience (depending on what you believe).

Like you, I believe that abortion is fundamentally wrong, but the ultimate responsibility for that choice is/are on the parent(s) of the child. When a society tries to legislate morailty, the end result is a real misdirection -- such as trying to ban trans-fats in NY state (which is NOT a moral issue).

Society is made up of people -- its component parts. Either the people are moral or not, but to ask if a society is moral is painting with too broad a brush -- societies won't be judged: Individuals will.

Answer 2

Using children as chimney sweeps or indeed any form of labour is viewed as immoral by our standards today because morality is subjective across cultures and history. The argument that one generation didn't know any better is fallacious. Obviously some of them knew better, because such practices no longer exist. That is to say, there was a shift in attitude by some segment of the population to the entire population over the course of a generation or two.

The same cannot be said for 1930's Germany, as most of the attrocities committed were hidden from the rest of the world. This indicates an understanding by the participants that their actions were indeed wrong at that time. That is not to say that the world was not anti-semetic at the time. Many other countries and individuals had similar attitudes towards Jews. The difference is how the German military acted based on those attitudes.

With regards to our modern practice of abortion, I doubt that the 22nd century will look down on us for how we perform abortions. Throughout history there have been unwanted pregnancies. Every culture has some way of dealing with unwanted pregnancy which is acceptable to them. I don't think our culture will ever move in the direction where abortion is thought of as altogether immoral. I think the current system in use in the West is perhaps as moral as it can possibly get. When a chemical pill is prescribed within days of getting pregnant and the embryo's growth is halted while it is still a blastocyst, goes a long way from smashing a newborn's head against the wall. Don't you agree?

Answer 3

Can a society be regarded as moral or immoral? Certainly. Why bother?
You are certainly into abstractions and worrying about stuff beyond your control. Can a person asking questions about a sick world that is beyond his control be a happy guy?

Answer 4

Ignorance is closer to malice than you might think. The bible tells of times when God ordered the Jews to wipe out the Canaanites because they had gotten so bad, killing each other, that it was God's mercy to put them out their misery. These people were not just throwing their children into a pit, but a pit of fire thinking that it was a sacrifice to the gods for a greater harvest. Don't we do that in America. We justify burning our unborn children (with saline solution) with the hope of having better finances later on. Every society is immoral, some more than others. We try to mask it by replacing bad words with good: Abortion is "pro-choice", sodomy is "gay", etc. The most immoral society is one that claims to be the moral one and judge other by their own standard. Putting yourself in the place of God is the greatest sin, the sin of Satan.

Answer 5

Societies can only be judged as moral or immoral if there is an absolute moral standard. If there is none, then why this discussion?

Answer 6

Be gay. I mean, real gay. A merciful god won't toss away such a good person simply because they were born different from an obsolete ideal. Only unmerciful people or bigots will begrudge you your own natural way.

Answer 7

Excellent question.
Moral is a mental switch know only to human nature, morality to answer or recapitulate is extremely hard in 2-3 words, because social, geographical, historical and other earthly barriers can specify is something moral or immoral.
Good point with some of the historical fragments or is in our complexity, the point is as well in our timely matter to solve thing easier if the time barrier is longer and all momentum presented moral or immoral problems are to be left behind for some future heads to solve.
First of all I would like to state famous: Historiam est madre studiorum, History is mother of learning or knowledge, whatever you find closer to your heart, can be, we are learning from our mistakes or mostly we do not.
Morality in Africa is a controversy in Sweden, morality in America is immorality and hypocrisy in Arabian world, to find answer each of social clusters and group, let call them countries will have their own.
To be a moral man from the main stream of western humanity now, does not mean you are on good way, as society it self, the question of moral is unstable and versatile and can get you nowhere in our frantic world.
To gain morality from higher spheres we just have to take peak in any of holly books.
Morality that can not be changed is basically in that tiny but powerful 10 commandments of Bible or Buddhist mythology, jing jang theory battle between god and evil constant creative chaos, or in idea that all that live have right to exist and live further, and that all of us is equal, on the end our Muslim brothers and sisters have its powerful note to love creator, Allah because he is the only god and true god. Our religions can in these main moments be universal guidance if it does not go into the lows made by human beings, read imperfect creations, especially lows that make us punishing ourselves or others not making us better, does it means aborts is illegal in our days or immoral, I think that mother to be or not to be have to decide, of course if future mother can not decide that it means it have no capability to take care of the kid, what I wan to say is it worst not to have baby or to have it but if baby is unwelcome, what kind of being will this baby be, on the other side killing a creature that is breathing and living and already on light of our world, sorry big NO, as I said morality have lot of faces and it is hard to make good stand.
Now morality suppose to be an ideal mixture of self control and criticism to our self when eyes of the lows are not open, the justice is blind and imperfect as all human made regulation so people knowing that remodulate morality on base of their own imperfection.
To be moral person it means in first to love the nature, other people, to help the sick and poor people or animal, to be understandable and to know to make things better, now does our morality keep us going in that direction, I have strong disbelief again because we do not take care of our spiritual progress or well being, we are much more orientated to earthly pleasures and sins, packed in moral proverbs and regulations.
Simple way of double morality or hypocrisy, we can find in our self’s.
For example if I decide to cheat my husband I will think that I did not do nothing wrong, it happened only once, but If I find my best friends husband is cheating on his wife my friend I will tell her immediately to make divorce and grab all his money.
Double morality, modern world, low barriers of social justice, I think I gave you an answer for all times.

I wish you love, health and happiness

Answer 8

1