Are teenagers less moral today? (teens, activity, play, daughter)

[silkycoleman]

So to synthesize what's been posted so far, morality (or at least what is considered morality) is largely a cultural construct, and when a person accuses another of being immoral, it is because the latter person challenged the other person's values. Interesting.
Let me ask this: Is it better to have a kid who has never drank, tried drugs, or had sex, but only thinks of his or herself at all times, or a kid who drinks, takes drugs, has sex, yet cares for the wellbeing of every living being? Obviously, the two scenarios are not mutually exclusive, I'm just trying to guage what the majority on this forum thinks is more "moral."

[NJGOAT]

The first three items, alcohol, drugs and sex are essentially value driven, while caring about how others feel is a morality issue. In this case, I would define the person who drinks, uses drugs and engages in sex, but is otherwise concerned with the well being of others to be the more moral person.

If anything I think this is the perfect example where people confuse morals and values. I venture that many people would see the first person as having greater morals, when in reality, that person may simply share the values of the person making the observation, but is otherwise an immoral person. Likewise many people may see the second example as being immoral for engaging in activities that conflict with their values.

I think this is where religion plays an interesting part in capturing societal morality. It's no surprise that the vast majority of religions that are adhered to all share a similar moral foundation. For the most part they can be summed up in the final six of the "Ten Commadmants". Just as a note I am not stating that morality is inherently tied to religion or Christianity, just using this as a common example of normal societal morals:

1. Give honour to your father and to your mother, so that your life may be long in the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
2. Do not put anyone to death without cause.
3. Do not be false to the married relation.
4. Do not take the property of another.
5. Do not give false witness against your neighbour.
6. Let not your desire be turned to your neighbour's house, or his wife or his man-servant or his woman-servant or his ox or his ass or anything which is his.

1. Respect your parents and elders in general. Some texts include terms such as brother and I think respect for people in general is a good interpretation here.
2. Do not kill, unless it is justified in defense of your own life.
3. Respect your partner and your relationship with them.
4. Do not steal.
5. Do not lie even if it would serve you.
6. Do not be jealous and covetous of what others have.

I think that is a pretty good summation of general societal morality. Someone seen as violating those moral precepts would be seen as being immoral or engaging in immoral behavior.

Anything outside of those moral precepts tend to simply fall into the category of values and those vary between societies and generations. So, even if someone engaged in every behavior that is the anti-thesis of common societal values, they are still considered a moral person if they abide by the moral precepts. The problems begin when we attempt to use the argument of morality to justify our values. If you read the commadmants listed, there is nothing that would preclude a person from drinking, taking drugs and engaging in sex. You might be able to argue the sex one, but if we really think about it, as long as there is common respect between the parties, it isn't exactly immoral.

[FinsterRufus]

Originally Posted by silkycoleman

So to synthesize what's been posted so far, morality (or at least what is considered morality) is largely a cultural construct, and when a person accuses another of being immoral, it is because the latter person challenged the other person's values. Interesting.
Let me ask this: Is it better to have a kid who has never drank, tried drugs, or had sex, but only thinks of his or herself at all times, or a kid who drinks, takes drugs, has sex, yet cares for the wellbeing of every living being? Obviously, the two scenarios are not mutually exclusive, I'm just trying to guage what the majority on this forum thinks is more "moral."

I think the 2nd kid is more more moral than the first. Drinking, taking drugs and having sex I don't think are immoral in and of themselves. If you are doing undue harm to somebody in the commission of those acts, and cease to stop regardless, then it's the results of those actions which are questionable morally. And I mean undue harm as in robbing to support your habit, or passing on the HIV virus - not just hurting somebody's feelings because they would like you to behave differently.

I think most teenagers, once they start to have empathy for the world around them, try to behave morally. It would be somewhat normal to everyone who has a conscience - however it could be contingent on one's upbringing - some people who are immersed in a criminal lifestyle may see nothing morally wrong with drug dealing or stealing as long as their families and peers see nothing wrong with it either.

But I think generally people have an innate sense of right and wrong, which is why you can be a moral person without being religious, and even be one if your parents have taught you that it doesn't matter.

In that way, I doubt kids are any less moral than they've ever been.

[zebra66]

Excellent questions!

I believe Kohlberg was suggesting
that children need to be taught that morality is subjective rather than absolute; and that morality depends on peoples’ individual perception.
Using this theory as a model, he believed that teachers need to teach children to respect one another’s viewpoints. By appreciating the fact that morality is subjective, children will appreciate and respect other people’s definition of it, and therefore also respect other people’s viewpoints. In a roundabout way, this does teach the absolute moral values of respect, tolerance, and treating people right.

And material gain or enticements have no place in the equation; in my opinion.

[NJGOAT]

I actually thought of an interesting thing on the drive home last night. If we consider respect for parents/elders to be a moral issue, is it possible to respect and/or honor your elders if you do not share their values?

I think the answer is yes. I came to that conclusion by thinking of a situation where a child's parents have no issue with drinking, using drugs and engaging in sex. However, the child rejects those and doesn't drink, use drugs or engage in sex. They don't share their parents values, though they can still respect their parents similar to how people who are not related are able to respect each others person, opinions and values even if they are not the same.

[silkycoleman]

So if we agree that the teenager who expresses empathy for others is more "moral" than the teenager who doesn't drink, have sex, or use drugs, why do we put so much emphasis on teaching children about the latter issues but not the former? Obviously, children need to be educated about the dangers and risks that come with sex, drugs, and alcohol. Yet we push the values of abstinence more than the values of kindness, empathy, and being a well rounded person (and sex, drugs, and alcohol all have the potential to inhibit one from being a well-rounded and empathetic person). One issue that comes to mind when I think of this is bullying. Many schools have instituted a zero tolerance policy on bullying, but is zero tolerance really teaching children anything about why it is wrong to bully?

[bluemoon815]

I would doubt that the zero tolerance policy on bullying teaches children why it is wrong to bully. I would guess that schools expect parents to teach the morals so that they can focus on other aspects of education. Whether children who bully are not taught why it is wrong or are taught but just don't care may be difficult to determine -- and may relate back to your original question.

[Bluesmama]

I think the biggest problem with youth ~ and it gets worse with each generation ~ is that they are not taught to be accountable, and they do not respect or fear consequences. I blame this much on a society (began in schools, I think) that punishes the ones who "finish" a problem rather than the ones who start it. Which only contributes to bullying, as far as I'm concerned.

I do not think sexual morals are any worse than in prior generations, as far back as the 60's. I was in high school back then and sex was very active. The school I went to was notorious for the high number of girls who got pregnant. It certainly didn't improve in the 70's ~the decade of key-swapping at adult parties. (In fact, I consider the 70's to be the "loosest" decade of all.) But the 80's did bring us AIDS which prompted the need for more awareness.

Drugs. I don't think it's gotten any better or worse since the later-60's. Kids find trendy ways to get high, and the common harder drugs stick around. Personally, I've never understood why kids are so stupid with drugs ~ I didn't understand it when I was a teen.

I don't cut kids any slack where any of this is concerned. The education is out there, and often right in their faces. They know drugs are harmful, they know what makes babies, and they know full well when their behavior is wrong ~ they simply don't need to be held accountable when it isn't expected of them.

[syracusa]

The correct answer to the OP's question is:

:H*ll, yeah!!!".

[JohnHAdams]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

I think this quote puts the pressures into perspective:

Thats an interesting quote by John Adams. As we are dropping the arts while becoming more militaristic. Based on the principles displayed in their writing, our founding fathers seem to possess amazing moral certitude.



I think people have broadly differing moral compasses.