U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 04-11-2009, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,763,873 times
Reputation: 4539

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by leaana View Post

Oh yeah, it's so much more responsible (yeah right!) and easier for parents to just beat the crap out of their kids like they did in the past.

trying to be your child's friend is the best way to teach them real respect, self-respect and not a vague sense of being a prisoner or slave to society and whoever uses the iron hand.

What i mean is, though you certainly are right about these things too, you are not seeing or acknowledging what was equally wrong and irresponsible in the past. So this 'everything was good and right in the good ol' day' is a fraud.
No. You can be your kids' friend once they are about 22/23 years old. NOT BEFORE.

"Beating the crap out of" your kids is not appropriate....spanking is. A parent is in charge, a child is NOT in charge.

This attitude of "let's be their friend" has gotten society into the crapper more than anything else IMO. Baby boomer parents started it. Generation X parents are making it worse.

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 04-11-2009 at 03:29 PM..

 
Old 04-11-2009, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,763,873 times
Reputation: 4539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roaddog View Post
I'll agree with that and add the selfish attitude of people are part of the cause, they only think of themselves to the point where they forget to teach their children of values in life but teach them the value of greed and material posessions as generations pass it only declines the value of morals and common sense..
The selfishness is taught by the parents' focus on material possessions in large part IMO. It's easier to show you "love" your children by flooding them with material things rather than to actually spend time with them, hug them, TALK to them, and show you value them as human beings.
 
Old 04-11-2009, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,763,873 times
Reputation: 4539
Does anyone remember the days when people were FRIENDLY? When complete strangers would actually wave at you and say hello?

When children were actually respectful of their elders and would never think of calling one by their first name? When adults would even call other adults by "Mr./Mrs./Ms" and their last name if they didn't know them very well?

What happened to common courtesy and respect?

I'm not talking about the 50's either (I wasn't even alive then)...more like the 70's/80's. Things have changed significantly since then IMO.

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 04-11-2009 at 03:43 PM..
 
Old 04-11-2009, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
3,088 posts, read 4,543,187 times
Reputation: 1598
A different take on the original question. . .

Society is going "downhill", if, in fact, it is (and I'm really not too sure about that), not because of a lack of "morals", but because of a lifestyle that encourages us to think that we are independent and self-sufficient. No tribal society would think nor act in the way that modern western peoples do, and no tribal society would have the "problems", that we do!
 
Old 04-11-2009, 03:35 PM
 
5,532 posts, read 5,714,122 times
Reputation: 3146
1) There is no such thing as "lack of morals".
2) Every society defines its moral code.
3) Codes change with time as societies change. Nothing is static.
4) What the OP probably means is that the current moral code (that guides people's behavior) has changed, and he, the OP doesn't like the new code.
 
Old 04-11-2009, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,763,873 times
Reputation: 4539
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1 View Post
1) There is no such thing as "lack of morals".
2) Every society defines its moral code.
3) Codes change with time as societies change. Nothing is static.
4) What the OP probably means is that the current moral code (that guides people's behavior) has changed, and he, the OP doesn't like the new code.
No I don't like the new code. That's not the point however.

This isn't about religion...but rather about common courtesy, respect, young teen sex and pregnancies, compassion and caring, selfishness, and irresponsibility/laziness/mooching.
 
Old 04-11-2009, 03:45 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,302 posts, read 3,755,085 times
Reputation: 2524
I think a way to compare generations is to have numbers like crime rates. How about theft? Is theft more common among younger kids?
How about cheating in business? How about spousal abuse? How about child abuse?
How can we come up with numbers on personal accountability as the OP states?

Helping each other? That is a good one. How can you compare helping each other in the past as compared with today?

Even if we had numbers, how can we compare. We must keep in mind that generations ago a lot those things were kept as a very hidden secret in communities and law enforcement agencies at local level did not consider much a problem as spousal abuse because a husband slapped his wife.

So to the original OP. What can I can't say I it is worse in the sense that we do not have data to compare.

13 or 14 year old girlst having sex? That is one I had to think about looking at how opposing sides responded to it.
My comment on that is that environment may be a way to measure whether that may be OK or not.
Example: Thousands of years ago societies were much different. In those days girls at the time the stated to menstruate were ready to be mothers. They were trained to cook and do other duties expected of women those days.

Today? In our society, I will not say everybody but I believe most people do not think any 13 years old is ready for marriage, motherhood, and to support any family in any way shape or form. They are not mentally financially ready to take that responsiblity. Societies have change to the point that we do not train our kids to be responsible to handle those life responsibilies. Our social norms or call it morals if you may have changed. We have become more lenient on young girls to have sex and do what they want withoug being able to account for their actions. So are we more morally responsible with our kids on how to handle sex today than our ancestor? Mabye be we are not. Our kids behaviors and problems in today's society seem to show that as far as I am concerned. I do not think having sex at that age per say is wrong. After all nature or God, you choose, says that woman is ready to have children.

So what makes something moral or imoral? I guess the norms that society sets are the standard for behavior like this.

You have a great day.
El Amigo
 
Old 04-11-2009, 04:39 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,091 posts, read 10,487,344 times
Reputation: 4104
The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
 
Old 04-11-2009, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,556,197 times
Reputation: 35864
No, Morality is universal and immutable. It does not change with social evolution. Morality is, broadly, behavior which is mindful of the consequences that might fall on another person or people. The consequences can be physical, economic, or emotional. However society changes, it never absolves a person from behaving in a way that minimizes harm to others.

By saying that Morality changes as Society changes shows that you are talking about Obedience, not Morality. Society makes rules that you are expected to obey, whether they are moral or not. This reaches critical mass in times of unjust wars. It may be moral to refuse to bomb Iraqi villages, while it is obedient to bomb Iraqi villages.

Teenagers who have sex are not being immoral---they are being disobedient. It was moral in Samoa and it is moral in Pittsburgh. Only in Pittsburgh they are told not to.
 
Old 04-11-2009, 05:11 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,086,025 times
Reputation: 948
Christianity teaches that if you have two coats, you must give one away to someone who has none.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top