Are morality and ethics dead in the US?

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
You live in a capitalist society where morals and ethics are not really valued qualities. You can't blame the non believers for this. I'm not religious and have better morals than many Christians. Religious folk need to ask themselves if believing in God stops them committing immoral or unethical deeds.

How do you know your morals are superior to others?

Superior to some. Equal to others. We ALL know what's right and wrong:

It's the LIVING by what's right is the issue and I'll put my morals up against ANYONE any day.

No we do not all know what is right and what is wrong.

The society for man boy love says that pedophelia is right and correct and should be celebrated by society. Their morality is that there is nothing wrong with pedophelia, that it is normal and natural.

Look to the Islamic state, their version of right is to capture and abuse sex slaves, the Middle Eastern countries endorse slavery in the home and call it unpaid domestic help. Their version of right is to torture and kill all who disagree with them. Check with them and they feel they are the most moral and ethical people in the world.

You can put your morals up to anyones,
but why does that make your morals superior
to others?
Because you think so?
Because you say so?
There are plenty of people around the world who feel they are very ethical and moral who would probably blanch at your personal superior moral code.
I am not saying you don't have a good moral code in my eyes, but in the eyes of people around the world you may have a very bad moral code.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
The US has abandoned and often made illegal in the public arena all forms of
moral standards that have been the basis for moral discussion for thousands
and thousands of years.

OK, I get it now. It's YOUR morals that are dead. Biblical morals. Even though many live better lives than some Christians. Morality is alive and well. Religion? Not so much.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Your argument is NAMBLA? NO reasonable person accepts that. Wanna keep this in the realm of non-fiction?

a reply to: grandmakdw

Strangely, that's the first post you've written that I agree with.

Morals and ethics exist, but there is no concrete basis for which everyone agrees.

Welcome to the real word!

a reply to: grandmakdw

Therefore, I still posit that
there really is no longer any true morality or ethics in the US any longer.

Which means you are still deluded.

The morals and ethics are becoming more 'status quo'. Make sure nobody is being abused (emotionally, mentally, or physically) or neglected or left behind.

THOSE ARE MORALS AND ETHICS. Take care of everyone. Use the group's collective assets to ensure that everyone is taken care of to the best of our ability. Make sure that we use balance, and practice moderation, and stop destroying our planet. The only people who have problems with that are the "me-me-me-this-is-mine-get-away-from-my-stuff" people.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: grandmakdw

How do you know your morals are superior to others?

By what standard? Your own standard? Your own opinion?

I'll take this one, too - even though you aren't addressing me (which is fine, btw).

We know by OBSERVATION of how some people ACT.

Honestly Buzzy Wigs, I find your idea of what is right and what is wrong
as repugnant as you find my ideas.
Your actions match mine except in the opposite political leaning and
social construct leaning.

That does not mean your ethics or morals are better than mine.
It means we disagree regarding ethics and morals.

Which is what I have been saying, there is no consensus on morals and
ethics in the US, and our exchanges, with you giving me as harsh of
replies and arguments as I give you.

So this only proves,
morals and ethics are so far apart in the US that a consensus may
never be reached anymore rendering morals and ethics as defined
as a societal consensus dead.

a reply to: grandmakdw

How about this: we do a public exchange of opinions with me presenting simply "yes" or "no" questions.

I'll go first:

Do you think that all citizens should be cared for and ensured a decent standard of living?

Give that one a "yes" or "no", and then I'll make a longer set of questions. Of course, it's fine if you don't want to play. That way I won't understand what you really mean and you can continue to cry wolf.....I'd hate to steal your "persecution thunder" if it makes you so very happy, you know. That wouldn't be moral at ALL. First, I need to know that you need that "persecuted" feeling to get you out of bed every morning.

Deal?

a reply to: grandmakdw

We all know that all lives matter, but when blacks are more likely to be killed by cops than whites, the Black Lives Matter movement started to focus attention on that very issue. By putting that movement down, it's almost the same thing as saying that we shouldn't be focusing on the problem of blacks being killed by cops. It's like saying that the movement is worthless. Do you agree that it is a worthless movement?

Look at the women's rights movement. Focusing on women's rights doesn't mean that men don't deserve rights. It means that women weren't getting the same rights that men had, hence the purpose of the movement. If women held up signs or started chanting "women deserve equal rights", then men said "all people deserve equal rights" - it takes the focus away from what the movement is trying to achieve. It's like saying that the women's rights movement is worthless. Do you agree that the women's rights movement was a worthless one?

That's what movements do. They attempt to bring a focus to a specific situation that needs to be addressed. While technically true, the statement "all lives matter" is an attempt to remove the focus, which means the specific situation isn't being addressed. Hence the anger and frustration.

Do you get it now?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: grandmakdw

Therefore, I still posit that
there really is no longer any true morality or ethics in the US any longer.

Which means you are still deluded.

The morals and ethics are becoming more 'status quo'. Make sure nobody is being abused (emotionally, mentally, or physically) or neglected or left behind.

THOSE ARE MORALS AND ETHICS. Take care of everyone. Use the group's collective assets to ensure that everyone is taken care of to the best of our ability. Make sure that we use balance, and practice moderation, and stop destroying our planet. The only people who have problems with that are the "me-me-me-this-is-mine-get-away-from-my-stuff" people.

So you think that the collective and what is best for the collective
is the moral standard by which we should all live.

The collective in the Middle East says all women should
not be allowed to drive or go outside alone or choose their own spouse,
I for one do not want a collective to decide what is moral or ethical for me
or for my family.

Right now in the US
Obama, who is our leader
has not objected at all to
people saying Black Lives Matter
but All lives do not matter;
nor has he objected to Farrakan
and the Black Panthers calling for
the killing of all white people.

I see no consensus for the physical
safety of all lives in the US as
being important.
Ask the people rioting in Ferguson,
they do not feel the US (police) has their
safety or well being in mind.

What is emotional well being, how do you define it?
Is over medicating children into little zombies
in the schools as is common these days, looking
out for their emotional well being?
I don't think so, and most in the US are quick to
medicate problems away, especially with children.

Mental well being? We have closed far far to many mental health facilities,
we have a huge crises in the US in mental health. There are so
few places to help the mentally ill that they make up the majority
of the homeless and a huge number of the incarcerated. I do not
think the US cares at all about the mental well being, as
expressed in the closing of most of the facilities, clinics, etc
where people could once get help with their mental well being.

I asked you a simple, straightforward, "yes" or "no" question. Maybe I was too abstract for you (or you haven't gotten to it yet). But since it's not clear to me that you are able to answer it without further specifics, perhaps I'll try again:

Do you think that all US citizens should be cared for and ensured a decent standard of living?

originally posted by: grandmakdw
So you think that the collective and what is best for the collective
is the moral standard by which we should all live.

The collective in the Middle East says all women should
not be allowed to drive or go outside alone or choose their own spouse,
I for one do not want a collective to decide what is moral or ethical for me
or for my family.

Which might make sense if YOUR topic wasn't, "Are morality and ethics dead in the US?"

originally posted by: grandmakdw



Therefore, I still posit that
there really is no longer any true morality or ethics in the US any longer.

I am genuinely curious as to when you think there WAS true morality and ethics in the US.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: grandmakdw

We all know that all lives matter, but when blacks are more likely to be killed by cops than whites, the Black Lives Matter movement started to focus attention on that very issue. By putting that movement down, it's almost the same thing as saying that we shouldn't be focusing on the problem of blacks being killed by cops. It's like saying that the movement is worthless. Do you agree that it is a worthless movement?

Look at the women's rights movement. Focusing on women's rights doesn't mean that men don't deserve rights. It means that women weren't getting the same rights that men had, hence the purpose of the movement. If women held up signs or started chanting "women deserve equal rights", then men said "all people deserve equal rights" - it takes the focus away from what the movement is trying to achieve. It's like saying that the women's rights movement is worthless. Do you agree that the women's rights movement was a worthless one?

That's what movements do. They attempt to bring a focus to a specific situation that needs to be addressed. While technically true, the statement "all lives matter" is an attempt to remove the focus, which means the specific situation isn't being addressed. Hence the anger and frustration.

Do you get it now?

Actually more whites are killed by cops than blacks.

www.washingtontimes.com...

www.thefederalistpapers.org...

More whites are killed by blacks than blacks are killed by whites

downtrend.com...

a reply to: grandmakdw

What is emotional well being, how do you define it?
Is over medicating children into little zombies
in the schools as is common these days, looking
out for their emotional well being?
I don't think so, and most in the US are quick to
medicate problems away, especially with children.

Mental well being? We have closed far far to many mental health facilities,
we have a huge crises in the US in mental health. There are so
few places to help the mentally ill that they make up the majority
of the homeless and a huge number of the incarcerated. I do not
think the US cares at all about the mental well being, as
expressed in the closing of most of the facilities, clinics, etc
where people could once get help with their mental well being.

You sure you want to go there???

Because that, my dearest granny, is MY PROFESSION. And do you know why the mental health facilities closed? BECAUSE capitalism. It was Reagan.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: grandmakdw

We all know that all lives matter, but when blacks are more likely to be killed by cops than whites, the Black Lives Matter movement started to focus attention on that very issue. By putting that movement down, it's almost the same thing as saying that we shouldn't be focusing on the problem of blacks being killed by cops. It's like saying that the movement is worthless. Do you agree that it is a worthless movement?

Look at the women's rights movement. Focusing on women's rights doesn't mean that men don't deserve rights. It means that women weren't getting the same rights that men had, hence the purpose of the movement. If women held up signs or started chanting "women deserve equal rights", then men said "all people deserve equal rights" - it takes the focus away from what the movement is trying to achieve. It's like saying that the women's rights movement is worthless. Do you agree that the women's rights movement was a worthless one?

That's what movements do. They attempt to bring a focus to a specific situation that needs to be addressed. While technically true, the statement "all lives matter" is an attempt to remove the focus, which means the specific situation isn't being addressed. Hence the anger and frustration.

Do you get it now?

I am not putting the Black Lives Matter movement down at all.
I was simply appalled when a politician said All Lives matter and the
country went into an uproar and feeding frenzy until the politician
recanted.
But this is my subjective morality, with absolutely
no moral foundation and really therefore worthless in this discussion.

I firmly believe in the women's rights movement and
think we have neglected mens rights especially when
it comes to the custody and care of children. I think
boys are punished for behaving like the boys they are
and taught that being feminized is the highest goal
a man can achieve. That goes against the hormones
raging through the male body and penalizes the male
for being male.
But this is my subjective morality, with absolutely
no moral foundation and really therefore worthless in this discussion.

Bringing a focus on what someone feels is an injustice is wonderful
and good. But it is again subjective morality, what they feel is an
injustice and what they convince others is an injustice. It may or
may not be an injustice, who are we to judge? Are we to accept
that an injustice has been done to people who truly feel they
are another race and then when it is proven they are not
(ie Elizabeth Warren, Doezel, Shaun) we should treat them as
fairly as we are fighting to treat transsexuals who believe they
are different from what they were biologically born? Must we
accept this as an equal injustice that we question the race of
Doezel, Shaun, and Warren? I think that soon it will become a
cause and be seen as an injustice to question the identity they
feel they hold.
Is this moral? Is this ethical? It is all completely subjective and
will change as fast as the wind blows.
But this is my subjective morality, with absolutely
no moral foundation and really therefore worthless in this discussion.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: grandmakdw

What is emotional well being, how do you define it?
Is over medicating children into little zombies
in the schools as is common these days, looking
out for their emotional well being?
I don't think so, and most in the US are quick to
medicate problems away, especially with children.

Mental well being? We have closed far far to many mental health facilities,
we have a huge crises in the US in mental health. There are so
few places to help the mentally ill that they make up the majority
of the homeless and a huge number of the incarcerated. I do not
think the US cares at all about the mental well being, as
expressed in the closing of most of the facilities, clinics, etc
where people could once get help with their mental well being.

You sure you want to go there???

Because that, my dearest granny, is MY PROFESSION. And do you know why the mental health facilities closed? BECAUSE capitalism. It was Reagan.

I am not disagreeing with you, it is what it is,
the US doesn't care about mental health
and there is a huge lack of available
mental health care in the US.
A moral problem for sure, regardless of who is responsible.

a reply to: grandmakdw

I am not disagreeing with you, it is what it is,
the US doesn't care about mental health
and there is a huge lack of available
mental health care in the US.
A moral problem for sure, regardless of who is responsible.

Fine. We agree....
so - the problem with our inability to communicate effectively becomes obvious.

You said "regardless of who is responsible". But see....

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE is the problem. The answer is CAPITALIST "Republican" conservatives.

It is what it is....and why? Because of those people. Not the Progressives, not the Democratic Socialists, not the Liberals. The capitalist conservative Republican right-wing. That's who.
Fact.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

Actually more whites are killed by cops than blacks.

Not when you take into account that there are 5 times more whites then there are blacks.

Medved said that police kill more whites than blacks. In absolute terms, that is accurate. However, the statement ignores that there are more than five times more whites than blacks in America. When comparing death rates, blacks are about three times more likely than whites to die in a confrontation with police.

www.politifact.com...

And whites are killed more by other whites then they are by blacks. (Just like blacks are killed more by other blacks then they are by whites).

www.vox.com...

a reply to: grandmakdw

Thanks for the gentle reply

The issue I have is what the heck is an "objective" moral anyway? I know the definition...but the idea is wrong to me. The problem with objective standards is that fascism follows shortly after. Either side (atheist or theist) shouldn't be the end all be all of ethics and morals. More importantly, the fact is that situational ethics can and should exist. Not everything should be a single concrete idea. Not every idea of ethics and morals should be unable to budge or change. What if the idea is wrong? It used to be a moral standard that blacks were unequal. That was wrong. It should never be one objective standard

We need flexibility and we need to get away from using one system of thought as the basis for every bit of our concept and application of morality.

My question to you wold be...what is the objective yardstick and if it no longer exists...what SHOULD the yardstick be? should it be the bible? Koran? inner ideas of morality?

a reply to: kaylaluv

What those stats don't tell you is that there are far less white criminals than black.

Per capa there are more black criminals.

put the criminal stats side by side and then see that whites still get killed more by cops than blacks