where have all the morals gone?

[vartemis]

http://www.startcast.com/shows/10/A0164/code/M/content_inner/fs_video/video_display.asp?id=20051118&item=9&format=asf&baud=high

Maybe, being Canadian, I have been somewhat sheltered when it comes to gun violence,  but seeing this in the news just pissed me off.  I can't believe that some young punks have the ordacity to open fire with semi-automatic weapons at a funeral with 300 mourners present.

At the rate things are going, especially this summer,... we may catch up to the US faster than we think.

j

edited due to unnessasary, ill-informed, and inappropriate comment.

[xrizzo]

Morals have been on the decline for a number of years now...

This is just in-line with what is going on everywhere.  One expecting morals will always be disappointed.

EDIT: Not that you implied this Klep, but violent crime is a single component of 'morales.'

[Klep]

I don't know about in Canada, but violent crime in the US has largely had a downward trend for the past 30 years (since abortion was legalized, and yes there is a connection).  You just hear about the tragedies that happen more because it's a better news story to say "14 Die in School Shooting!" than "Everyone Still Alive After Normal Day at School!."

[Juggernaut GO]

LoL, your sounding like a mini Bill Bennett, you can probably get your own radio show without a problem now.

[Klep]

EDIT: Not that you implied this Klep, but violent crime is a single component of 'morales.'

I know, but the link in question is about a shooting.  I just wanted to make the point that just because we hear about all the bad stuff that happens doesn't necessarily mean it's getting any worse (although that may in fact be the case in the US government right now).  This kind of thing tends to go in cycles, but it generally seems to ultimately be in favor of increased morals.  The corruption and cronyism in the US government now, for example, is nothing compared to the Grant administration of 140 years ago.

[Limbo]

I also think that it may seem like more and more people are behaving worse, but this is actually not the case. Although crimes, violant acts or even acts of idiotic stupidity are down, the media coverage on it is growing. Sex / nudity and violence sells. As sex is still not accepted (yet :S) at the moment, papers fill their pages with violance and the occasional picture of nudity if they think they can get away with it (all in the spirit of freedom of speech of course).

The grain of salt I take when reading the papers has been increasing over the years from a teaspoon to a regular diner spoon. Lets hope it doesn't get so far that I will need to swallow an entire pack of salt when reading the papers.

Btw, I am not implying that the freedom of speech should be restricted somehow, but I wish some people (not only some / the media, but other people using their freedom of speech to get attention to a certain subject) would use it in a more respectful way. The result they try to get by bashing of racial groups (black, brown, white, yellow, etc), religious groups (muslims, catholics, atheists, etc), gay / straight / bisexual people, foreigners, countries, people, etc etc is using freedom of speech in the wrong way in my opinion. And insulting someone usually is not the way to get him to do what you want him to do...

[Eandori]

Rules will never take the place of morals.  Period.

What America severly lacks today is a good foundation of morality, caring for others, and taking responsibility for one's self.  One must realise that it DOES still exist in the USA, news media skews reality any direction that makes them money.  So like the above poster said, take everything with a grain of salt.

Wondering what YOU can DO about making the world a better place?  Take responsibility for your actions, even when it's gonna hurt.  Spend time thinking about other people and figuring out how you can make a difference.  Accept people for who they are, but always try to encourage each other to grow.

[Dozer]

news media skews reality any direction that makes them money.

This is close, but not entirely true. Studying journalism and working in the field, my experience tells me that profit and viewer numbers are not the only motivation to skew reality. Media skew reality by selection (this just emphasizes the point that Klep made). Stories/ news items have to be interesting to be picked out for broadcasting, they have to cross a certain threshhold of a selection of criteria. These selection criteria are implemented in the education of journalists, not openly but sub-consciously transmitted from experienced journalists to their successors. Even we students, who reflect on these inherent selection criteria and processes, still use these criteria because they are known to work. (And "work" as in gluing viewers to the screen or making them pick up a newspaper.)

What I want to point out is that even the most responsible journalist will broadcast (almost) any story if it happens, and will always produce a news selection that shows much more bad news than good news. Life running smoothly isn't newsworthy unless it does so for an overly long time. A responsible journalist will, opposed to a responsible journalist, blow up the event and insert untruthful but spectacular details. This is very tempting, but journalists have to withstand that temptation. Also, presentation matters (a lot) as to how the event is perceived by the audience. But be aware that news will never cover life as peaceful as it is -- because then it wouldn't be news.

On the topic of morals, we live in a world where old-fashioned conventions are going faster out of date than new ones can be invented. Role models now show that it is entirely possible to chose your own role, "be like you want to be". If some youths think they want to be killers with sub-machine guns, what's going to stop them if they never learned that being friendly and polite can be as satisfying (and much less dangerous) as being brutal?

Dozer

[jpmeyer]

Ha.  Morals.  The concept of morals went away in la fin des grands récits.

I'm also not sure whether I'm more offended or amused by the fact that people seem to care more about the fact they disrupted a funeral than that they shot people.

[PacmanXSA]

Ha.  Morals.  The concept of morals went away in la fin des grands récits.

You're gonna let one little french opinion based book make you think that the concept of morality is dead? 

If anything, morality is more prevelent today than ever, however it's proving to be a whole lot more diverse, and extreme...

There inlies the problem.

Pac

[Klep]

JP's right, and I'm ashamed I didn't notice this myself earlier. 

Vartemis, when you start deciding that some people are more deserving of death than others, you devalue human life as a whole and end up becoming part of the problem.  If it is "okay" for us to say "well he was in a gang, so he shouldn't expect his life to be held sacred,"  then there's little to stop anyone from making such statements about other groups that they don't like (i.e., "Well he was an uppity black man, thinking he could marry a white girl.  It's no surprise he got lynched.").

[Dozer]

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.

[Machinus]

But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life. Hence the enlightened ruler is heedful, and the good general full of caution.

[knickers]

Their quotes are fine. -J

I'm really suprised this shocked you ...
Wasn't there worst going on 10 years back in Montreal?

[Jacob Orlove]

For thus we find in the case of Cain, who killed his brother, that it is written: 'The bloods of your brother cry unto Me' (Genesis 4:10) — that is, his blood and the blood of his potential descendants.... Therefore was the first man, Adam, created alone, to teach us that whoever destroys a single life, the Torah considers it as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a single life, the Torah considers it as if he saved an entire world. (Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5)

[jpmeyer]

Journalist: Monsieur Ben M'Hidi, don't you think it's a bit cowardly to use women's baskets and handbags to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people?

Ben M'Hidi: And doesn't it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets.

[vartemis]

JP's right, and I'm ashamed I didn't notice this myself earlier. 

Vartemis, when you start deciding that some people are more deserving of death than others, you devalue human life as a whole and end up becoming part of the problem.  If it is "okay" for us to say "well he was in a gang, so he shouldn't expect his life to be held sacred,"  then there's little to stop anyone from making such statements about other groups that they don't like (i.e., "Well he was an uppity black man, thinking he could marry a white girl.  It's no surprise he got lynched.").

I guess I should have worded my post better, and I'm regretting having created this thread.  I do feel bad for his family and I'm not saying the guy deserved to die (although I reallize the first post comes across that way).  To me, it's the same as new smokers who try and sue for damages, when it has been known for years to cause health problems.  When you get into something that has known repercussions, you should expect those things to happen, and can't really blame anyone else for your problem.

As for your example Klep,  I think that it is a whole lot more complicated than this gun problem.  Today, for someone  to lynch someone because of who they wanted to marry would be absolutely appauling, but unfortunately that kind of stuff actually used to happen.  Of course it isn't right, but that was just the way things used to be way back then.  If a black man wanted to marry a white woman, he was taking his life in his own hands.  I am sure there were alot of interracial couples back then that could and should have happened, but due to the circumstances at the time never did.  I don't want to change the direction of the thread to racism now, I just wanted to clear up what I think was a misunderstanding of my morals/views.

Ideally, what I would have liked to have done is have a thread on the extreme increase on gun violence in Canada, especially within the last couple of years.

j

[jpmeyer]

Yay, I get to be offended twice in one thread!

The difference between smoking and joining a gang is that you don't fear for your life if you don't smoke.

[Klep]

When you get into something that has known repercussions, you should expect those things to happen, and can't really blame anyone else for your problem.

This is where you're wrong.  No one should "expect" to die.  The death of the people at the funeral is the fault of no one but the person or persons who pulled the trigger(s).  Furthermore, as JP implied, getting out of a gang is nearly impossible, and in many places not joining a gang is not an option.  I remember reading a story about gang activity in I believe it was the LA area, in which a young boy (around 13) refused to join a gang.  A few days later he was presented with a VHS tape.  The content of the tape was gang members raping his sister.  He joined the gang.

[vartemis]

Yay, I get to be offended twice in one thread!

The difference between smoking and joining a gang is that you don't fear for your life if you don't smoke.

Bah, Sorry JP and everyone else I have offended.  I'm not trying to offend anyone.  The only comparison I was trying to draw between the two is that by committing to these activities that have known repercussions, you are aknowledging to take all the repercussions that come with this choice.  I was not talking about people who are not in the gangs, only the people who have made the choice to join, such as people who have made the choice to smoke.

I have come to realize that this topic is very complicated and I thank you all for giving me an excellent rebuttal to what I posted.  There are many factors that come into play that I did not even consider, such as JP and Klep pointed out, some people feel they have no choice but to join a gang for their own protection or are forced to.  As well, my social demographic is completely different than what these people have, and this has likely skewed my perspective.

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2005/11/17/1310420-sun.html

This is an article from my local paper.  If you look, we have only had 13 murders this year, but per capita, we are on par with Toronto, if not worse.  Even with our increase in police funding every year, we keep getting worse and worse, and it has really increases exponentially in the past couple of years.  

As I had said earlier...

Ideally, what I would have liked to have done is have a thread on the extreme increase on gun violence in Canada, especially within the last couple of years.

.. but due to my choice of words it has changes ideas... but hey... it's a public forum and this happens.


With that, I tip my hat and bid adieu, because I must go find a pry-bar to remove my knee-cap from my mouth.

j

[Sagath]

The difference between smoking and joining a gang is that you don't fear for your life if you don't smoke.

Sure you do, its called second hand smoke. And smokers dont give two shits about who breathes their dirty air. 

[Shock Wave]

The difference between smoking and joining a gang is that you don't fear for your life if you don't smoke.

Sure you do, its called second hand smoke. And smokers dont give two shits about who breathes their dirty air. 

I believe I have a new hero.

[Saucemaster]

The difference between smoking and joining a gang is that you don't fear for your life if you don't smoke.

Sure you do, its called second hand smoke. And smokers dont give two shits about who breathes their dirty air. 

And I believe I  have a new someone on the ignore list!

I'm waiting for kl0wn to go ballistic here.

[dandan]

I suspect that the number of shootings has a very high correlation with the number of guns, just as the number of shootings almost certainly has a high correlation with the number of people who think that having a gun prevents shootings. 

Sure, morality would be better but without guns, you'd get more fist damage than fatalities.

(substitute nuclear weapons above, and see how safe you'd fear if every a**hole near you had a nuke).

Personally I blame the lack of morality on the taught link between morality and religion. Then if religion is rejected, often morals are too. Not killing people actually has little to do with God, atheists are pretty against dying too (indeed death brings the atheist either nothing or an afterlife full of people pointing out how wrong you were).

[Klep]

Personally I blame the lack of morality on the taught link between morality and religion. Then if religion is rejected, often morals are too.

So what you're saying is that an immoral person is more likely to be an atheist or agnostic than someone who is devout.  I would like to see some statistics backing up that claim.

If you were to read Kant or Singer or most any philosopher of the modern era, you would find that morality is considered to be quite independent of religion.  In fact, it is not difficult to show that religion has been directly responsible for some of the worst acts in history (i.e., the Crusades, the Inquisition).  Even today, religious fundamentalism is the root cause of most terrorism in the world and other things like the campaign to make gays second-class citizens here in the US.  With such things as common throughout history as they are, I refuse to believe that atheists and agnostics are somehow inherently less moral than the devout.

[Jacob Orlove]

Personally I blame the lack of morality on the taught link between morality and religion. Then if religion is rejected, often morals are too.

So what you're saying is that an immoral person is more likely to be an atheist or agnostic than someone who is devout.  I would like to see some statistics backing up that claim.

Technically, he's saying that an atheist or an agnostic is more likely to be immoral, not vice-versa. I don't think that's really the case, though; an immoral person is going to be immoral whether or not they're religious, and likewise for a moral person.

On your second point, I'm not going to defend everything done in the name of religion, but it's worth noting that there are many terrible things that have been done for nonreligious reasons--slavery is a particularly apropos example, because most abolitionists were themselves religious. Give enough people enough time, and terrible things will happen.

[Klep]

So what you're saying is that an immoral person is more likely to be an atheist or agnostic than someone who is devout.  I would like to see some statistics backing up that claim.

Technically, he's saying that an atheist or an agnostic is more likely to be immoral, not vice-versa. I don't think that's really the case, though; an immoral person is going to be immoral whether or not they're religious, and likewise for a moral person.

You're right, oops.  My point stands, in that I don't believe it either way.

On your second point, I'm not going to defend everything done in the name of religion, but it's worth noting that there are many terrible things that have been done for nonreligious reasons--slavery is a particularly apropos example, because most abolitionists were themselves religious. Give enough people enough time, and terrible things will happen.

My point was not to say that non-religious people aren't capable of evil, just that morality and religion don't go hand-in-hand.

[Jacob Orlove]

Yeah, I was just correcting for the sake of accuracy, not because it had any effect on your arguments.

[The Atog Lord]

Some very terrible people have used religion to justify their deeds. Bin Laden, the Popes who launched the Crusades, the president...

But at the same time, plenty of villains didn't need any excuse. Stalin comes to mind.

The fact of the matter is that religon is fire. It can cook your food and keep you warm, or it can burn down your village.

[Limbo]

My thought has always been : There is no fanatical Religion, there are only fanatical believers.

There may be some people that call themselfs muslims that blow up some shit, but the huge majority of muslims are nice people. Same is true for christians. You have some nice people, but then there is the Pope (whom is indirectly responsible for millions more deaths then Bin Laden himself) or this little gem that Matt just recently brought to our attention.

As far as religion goes, people should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they stick to two basic rules:
- Don't try to sell it to me / somebody even after I / he / she said no.
- Don't consider non-believers (i.e. people that do not believe the same thing as you do) as people that should die / suffer / whatever.

On a sidenote, I myself am an atheist (after being baptised and receiving communion and stuff when I was young), but I consider myself to be somebody with very good morals.