John Adams and our societal immorality

[Backpacker]

Do you think the gov will fall in your lifetime?

I am 62 years old. I doubt it will happen before I die. It could happen if we go to war with the other super powers.

 

[Jludo]

Do you think the gov will fall in your lifetime?

I'd be curious to see how it happens, I would hope we would aim for a slow managed decline but it looks like we're going to bankrupt ourselves clinging to empire until the bitter end.

 

[NKBJ]

Talking about government by and for the people or what replaced it?

 

[ATOMonkey]

Western Society has been in decline since about the 1930s. It began in Germany, made it's way into Russia, and eventually spread through all of Europe. The ideals of post-truth society have leached into America as well. We will follow the same course.

Western Post-truth idealism won't be strong enough to stand against Communism or Islam or Hinduism. I don't think we'll see the full decline of America in my lifetime (I'm 40), but I do think that I will see the destruction of Western Europe as Islam and Communism continue to squeeze out the last bastions of freedom in those countries. Once that happens it will probably take 40 years or so to fully manifest in America. It will just take that long to burn through everything that was built in the last 400 years. It may be faster though. Things are accelerating...

We are definitely on that road, and I don't see anyone talking about slowing down, much less turning around.

Read "Hope of Nations" by John S. Dickerson. He did his homework.

 

[NKBJ]

Look at what happened in German society in the end of the 1800's. By the time WWI was over they were having their gay lib thing crank up. By the end of the twenties they'd schismed into two competing political wings of dis-hetero-ism, the girlie men and the dominant masculine* types.

*Who later donned uniforms, some brown, some black, and had such really great fashion sense.

 

[T.Lex]

Look at what happened in German society in the end of the 1800's. By the time WWI was over they were having their gay lib thing crank up. By the end of the twenties they'd schismed into two competing political wings of dis-hetero-ism, the girlie men and the dominant masculine* types.

*Who later donned uniforms, some brown, some black, and had such really great fashion sense.

But didn't totally abandon their... softer... tendencies.

 

[abnk]

I consider myself moral, yet I'm an atheist.
I don't require a god to tell me taking a life needlessly is wrong.

I don't want to take my queues from a god that finds it moral or just to waste entire cities, or dash a babies upon rocks, or genocide an entire planet.

While it appears to be a contradiction at face value, I believe that one can moral and atheist. Natural law supports that we're all intelligently wired to be moral. It is a necessity for natural harmony. The paradox in the moral atheist though is that his atheism undermines the very basis for his conviction of morality. If we're just a concoction of chemicals with no intelligent design for morality and natural order, our decisions and actions become random or at best relative. In that case, morality becomes either relative or nothing at all.

Morals must be objective, but the atheist has no objective source for them.

 

[Jludo]

While it appears to be a contradiction at face value, I believe that one can moral and atheist. Natural law supports that we're all intelligently wired to be moral. It is a necessity for natural harmony. The paradox in the moral atheist though is that his atheism undermines the very basis for his conviction of morality. If we're just a concoction of chemicals with no intelligent design for morality and natural order, our decisions and actions become random or at best relative. In that case, morality becomes either relative or nothing at all.

Morals must be objective, but the atheist has no objective source for them.

Why must they be objective? Morality is like a social contract, we like being treated well so we all agree to treat each other well. No jealous, genocidal God necessary. Better than that we dont have to trust normal people telling us they know what God wants.

 

[abnk]

Our constitution was made for moral and religious people? It wasn't even made by particularly religious or moral peoples.

Very astute of your, sir. The founders were enlightenment thinkers and/or protestants. The former did not believe in natural law, and the latter believed in the bondage of will. How can a people self-govern if individuals are inherently destined to be wrong?

 

[abnk]

Why must they be objective? Morality is like a social contract, we like being treated well so we all agree to treat each other well. No jealous, genocidal God necessary. Better than that we dont have to trust normal people telling us they know what God wants.

They must be objective because truth is. Right is right, wrong is wrong, black is black, and white is white. Essentially, moral relativism concludes that there is no objective truth, which is in itself an objective statement; thus, self-defeating.

 

[abnk]

Western Society has been in decline since about the 1930s. It began in Germany, made it's way into Russia, and eventually spread through all of Europe. The ideals of post-truth society have leached into America as well. We will follow the same course.

Western Post-truth idealism won't be strong enough to stand against Communism or Islam or Hinduism. I don't think we'll see the full decline of America in my lifetime (I'm 40), but I do think that I will see the destruction of Western Europe as Islam and Communism continue to squeeze out the last bastions of freedom in those countries. Once that happens it will probably take 40 years or so to fully manifest in America. It will just take that long to burn through everything that was built in the last 400 years. It may be faster though. Things are accelerating...

We are definitely on that road, and I don't see anyone talking about slowing down, much less turning around.

Read "Hope of Nations" by John S. Dickerson. He did his homework.

With respect, I would go much farther back. I'm certain I'm not the first or only person to suggest this, but I believe it started with the "you're not my supervisor movement" against the Church in the XVI century (i.e.: protestant revolution... weakening of Europe... enlightenment... french revolution... communism... and so on). I do agree that it will take a long time to recovery.

 

[chipbennett]

Why must they be objective? Morality is like a social contract, we like being treated well so we all agree to treat each other well. No jealous, genocidal God necessary. Better than that we dont have to trust normal people telling us they know what God wants.

Why?

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...

130,000,000 deaths in the 20th century alone, resulting from atheistic/humanistic ideologies.

That's why.

 

[Jludo]

With respect, I would go much farther back. I'm certain I'm not the first or only person to suggest this, but I believe it started with the "you're not my supervisor movement" against the Church in the XVI century (i.e.: protestant revolution... weakening of Europe... enlightenment... french revolution... communism... and so on). I do agree that it will take a long time to recovery.

Decline started around the time of the protestant revolution and enlightenment? Not a big Steven Pinker fan I'm gathering?

 

[Jludo]

They must be objective because truth is. Right is right, wrong is wrong, black is black, and white is white. Essentially, moral relativism concludes that there is no objective truth, which is in itself an objective statement; thus, self-defeating.

Where is it written that morality and truth must be bound together? There are a lot of things true in the state of nature that wouldn't coincide with what we've decided is moral.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

While it appears to be a contradiction at face value, I believe that one can moral and atheist. Natural law supports that we're all intelligently wired to be moral. It is a necessity for natural harmony. The paradox in the moral atheist though is that his atheism undermines the very basis for his conviction of morality. If we're just a concoction of chemicals with no intelligent design for morality and natural order, our decisions and actions become random or at best relative. In that case, morality becomes either relative or nothing at all.

Morals must be objective, but the atheist has no objective source for them.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you.
If we can agree that morality is very basically 'whats right' as in the 'right' thing to do.

A god(s) is not required to know right from wrong.

My 'right' to swing my arms wildly about ends at where my hand meets your body.

I personally feel it's unacceptable to needlessly kill a person. (Most) religion teaches the same.

This is no coincidence, society and religion are often reflections of each other. And has society evolves or changes often so does religion.

Example:
Morman church stance on black people


Religion can be a source of morality but it's not the only source.

Morality though is a part of religion, it isn't dependant on it.

Your belief in God and my lack of belief does not define our morality.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you.
If we can agree that morality is very basically 'whats right' as in the 'right' thing to do.

A god(s) is not required to know right from wrong.

My 'right' to swing my arms wildly about ends at where my hand meets your body.

I personally feel it's unacceptable to needlessly kill a person. (Most) religion teaches the same.

This is no coincidence, society and religion are often reflections of each other. And has society evolves or changes often so does religion.

Example:
Morman church stance on black people


Religion can be a source of morality but it's not the only source.

Morality though is a part of religion, it isn't dependant on it.

Your belief in God and my lack of belief does not define our morality.

Y'all should join us over in the "where do rights come from?" thread.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

Y'all should join us over in the "where do rights come from?" thread.

I try to stay out of these religious threads, they. Can get contentious. For some reason this one pulled me in. Of it gets too hairy I'll pull the rip cord and excuse myself from the thread. Especially since I'm the minority around here in my religious views.

 

[Backpacker]

The great thing about our government is we can express our opinions and beliefs freely and be civil about. I might disagree with you, but I will fight for right to express yourself.

 

[abnk]

Where is it written that morality and truth must be bound together? There are a lot of things true in the state of nature that wouldn't coincide with what we've decided is moral.

Where is it written that it must be written? Where's it written that only what's written is true? I'll stop here before getting too silly, but writing is only an expression of a preconceived thought.

I agree with your second sentence. What we decide is moral is not necessarily so. Morality transcends us. We can discover it, not create it.

 

[abnk]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you.
If we can agree that morality is very basically 'whats right' as in the 'right' thing to do.

A god(s) is not required to know right from wrong.

My 'right' to swing my arms wildly about ends at where my hand meets your body.

I personally feel it's unacceptable to needlessly kill a person. (Most) religion teaches the same.

This is no coincidence, society and religion are often reflections of each other. And has society evolves or changes often so does religion.

Example:
Morman church stance on black people


Religion can be a source of morality but it's not the only source.

Morality though is a part of religion, it isn't dependant on it.

Your belief in God and my lack of belief does not define our morality.

No need to be sorry. Brother chipbennett provided an excellent, historical exhibit of what happens when morals are relative to our feelings, passions, and ideas.