Do you think there is a correlation between moral people and people who are easily scandalized?

Question

Is being quickly and easily scandalized by the sex lives of others the same thing as being moral?

The reason I ask: I notice in my life that people who are easily scandalized by the sex lives of others, don't always live the most moral lives themselves.

Most of my acquaintances who were shocked by the recent spate of "anti-gay" republicans'/preachers' gay sex scandals, were upset about the sex involved, but didn't give the hypocrisy of those actions a 2nd thought. These are folks whom I've noticed don't show a lot of moral fiber in general.

The people I see to be moral in their lives weren't shocked by the sex, but were very upset about the hypocrisy of a supposedly anti-gay republican conservative who secretly has gay sex when he thinks he can get away with it.

So in general, is there really a negative correlation between true morality and the easily scandalized?

Maurice has a good point: I'm tossing around terms like "scandalized" and "moral" assuming everybody knows what they mean. By 'easily scandalized' I basically mean titillated and shocked and ready to condemn somebody and feeling righteous in our moral indignation. Something like that. By "moral" I mean people in my life whose actions are pretty consistently loving, positive and affirming. Hope those very condensed definitions help.

Answer 1

I noticed this before too.

All the people I knew back in the Monica Lewensky ordeal, who were all in a tizzy about the sex going on between her and Bill, didn't give a hoot about the perjury. These in general were the people I knew who gossiped and cheated and lied as a way of life.

But they do love being scandalized. Maybe scandalizability is an easy substitute for real morality.

Answer 2

No
I think many people "cultivate" an attitude of easily being "scandalized."

Frequently these same people are also "easily'" "insulted."

Most of this type of behavior deliberately puts on an "air" of "ultra" modesty and "prim" behavior.

"Look at me, I am so "innicent" I am therefore "sensitive" to these things. Whether they are any more "Moral" than the next person is problematical.

Negative correlation? I will be generous and assume that they are merely "just like any one else."

The best I have been able to tell -- the incidents of illicit sex is prety much constant across the board.

Sure, I "enjoyed" talking up these latest scandals," but shocked, not really. I suspect that as a group they are pretty on par with the general population.

However, it get me upset when you see some of these guilty parties having been the pretending to take the moral high ground with their "family values" and typical "politicking." (read: Lying)

I know of no statistics concerning ministers, but the majority of the PRIESTS caught in the abuse scandal [by a slim margin] (whether with girls OR BOYS) were HETEROSEXUAL! (This still might sound like gay priest were much more likely to be guilty, BUT you need to understand that about 40% of the priest in the US are gay!!!

Thus statistically, a homosexual priest was no more apt to be an offender than his heterosexual counterpart.

It would be interesting to find any statistics on ministers.


[See: A. W. Richard Sipe "Celibacy in Crises," (1990, & 2003), and
D. Cozzens "The Changing Face of the Priesthood" (1998), G. Niebuhr (Apr 15, 1989) Atlanta Journal]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
HISGLORY. . .

wrote: "To be scandalized is to be shocked. Your question is hypocritical."
AND
"If you don't find immorality offensive then the statement I made above doesn't apply to you."

I CAN NOT LET THE FALSE LOGIC AND INHERENT LIES OF THESE STATEMENTS GO BY.

First of all "scandalized" and "scocked" are NOT equal terms. Get a dictionary! (Inherent lie #1)

Thus his conclusion (if based on this lie) is false! It is also false even if the above statement is true. (Inherent lie #2)

If you don't find immorality offensive . . .
(Inherent lie #3) Even with the use of the word "if" he is still intimating that "you-JohnM" DO not find immorality offensive.

then the statement I made above doesn't apply to you.)

False conclusion. since premise is false. What this person is REALLY trying to imply is that "YOU-JohnM" do not find immorality offensive.

Answer 3

I heard more about the hypocrisy than anything else, actually...

I think this a bit of a generalization - there are lots of good people, and lots of good people with important or public offices... you never hear about the good ones who are the vast majority, and go day in and day out without sex or any other scandals, while those may fairly be called hypocrites are on tv, in magazines, etc.
It is easy to focus on them, and their news because it sells, and not the good man or woman who is not perfect either, but lives their lives well and are responsible, moral. I think the ratio of "good" people to the ones who error is actually pretty high.
I have been close friends with a couple of Pastors who live under a microscope (their families included) and are on track, good leaders who can be trusted and love people. But the media would not promote that kind of person, the negative few get the media attention, and after years of such reprting people that that most of the Pastors are greedy, suspect, etc. when it simply isn't true, but no one would know that from the media, it takes life experience.
We have media-driven philosophies, all of us.
I guess a measure of behavior is... if you have to hide it, you probably should flee from it.

Answer 4

Personally, i think there's a difference between claiming to represent a 'moral' position, and actually living a moral life. Big difference. I can go around telling people i have blue skin and six eyes. All they'd have to do is look at me to see if that were the case and then they could see whether i was telling the truth or just full of --it. Some people throw around 'morality' as a justification for condemning and condescending to others as a way of making themselves feel superior. If what i think is right, than anything anybody else thinks is wrong, that's the attitude. It's moral supremacism, just another load. Look at how a person lives their life and not what they claim to know what they're all about, i'd say.

Answer 5

This is a very good question, generated some very interesting responses. As a gay Christian, I particularly enjoyed reading Jon-Jon's and Spiffs exchange.

I can definitely relate to Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, et al - they are much older than me, but they grew up in a time very less accepting of the gay lifestyle. Even at my age, it was not all that easy for me to come out; but I think it gets easier every year and this next generation coming up will think it odd even, that people were ever so bigoted.

It is hard to talk about this sometimes - I was going to blog about how it is understandable that this hypocrisy is so prevalent in the Republican Party - but ironically I also share many conservative values so it can be difficult even painful for me to articulate an opinion on these matters.

At any rate - I mostly wanted to thank you for the question, it is very interesting!

Answer 6

I think the people who are "scandalized" are just reacting in a way they have been taught is "correct". They aren't actually expressing their own feelings on the issue - just "They had gay sex?! I'm supposed to think that's bad. They're going to hell!" or something of that sort (religious reaction or not). The people who actually think through the actions and why they are wrong will easily notice the hypocrisy and why it's bad that someone in power took these actions (for example). Those who do not actually think through the situation, just give the prescribed response, will focus on the surface issue.

Answer 7

Very good point. The funny thing is, both those groups think they are being moral. It's just a matter of opinion whether to judge the act or the hypocrisy. Personally I'm real tired of hypocrisy. But we are all judging in one way or another. So maybe we are all immoral hypocrites?

Answer 8

I think it's hard to say whether or not there's a correlation unless you have a strict definition of "moral behavior." Personally, I don't think you can have such a definition because of the vague and relativistic nature of morality. Some of the people who are scandalized by the sexuality of others behave in ways they consider to be moral, so I don't know if you can necessary say that they are immoral.

Answer 9

The morals of our society are all gone to heck anyway. I think politicians talk too much and get caught in a lot of lies because they aren't thinking fast enough.
I have yet to figure out why someone's sex life is anyone else's business anyway. It really has nothing to do with anyone but their partner.
It is all in the hands of the media who just like to dig up as much scandal they can find on people and it is really nobody's business.

Answer 10

Scandalized people aren't necessarily moral. "moral" people aren't necessarily loving. Instead of being scandalized by such things I think a true christian would just pray for the person involved, do their best not to judge them and continue living the christian example which is being Christlike. I wasn't scandalized by Larry Craig, I think he is a man who lives a sad life. He has homosexual inclinations which he has not accepted and is forced to live a double life and lie due to his political standing. He is probably profoundly unhappy.

One can disagree with homosexual acts and still deeply love a person whom has homosexual inclinations. I don't think homosexuality is a choice. I don't know what causes it, be it genetic factors or environmental factors (nurture) or both. All christians regardless of sexual inclination are called to chastity prior to marriage. Sex is not like oxygen, we CAN live without it, despite what our culture is constantly shoving in our faces. It is absurd that our society looks upon straight pre-marital sex as more acceptable than homosexual sex. That is hypocrisy to the core and is so very sad. Too much hate has been projected towards homosexuals and I'm disgusted by it. I think if all christians were to show the loving, merciful example of Christ to them (and to all) they would not have so much animosity towards christianity.

Jon M and Jon Jon, I may disagree with your moral conclusions about sexuality, but I do not by any means despise or hate you in any way. I pray that by God's good Grace all of us make it to heaven.

Peace.

^.^