Ethical standards in decline

Blatham

Then I take it you don't agree when I say Society as a collective determines the ethical standards of the day. While the general code of morality remains more or less static, ethical behavior seems to swing from side to side reflecting the general whims and mood of particular generations.

Concerning Eisenhower, it was with great disappointment while reading his biography that I suddenly realized that he was the one who should have adoped the "Doctrine of Pre-emptive Strike". He was the last President who had the power to stop the spread of neuclear terror and perhaps the extinction of the world. This is a topic for another thread and I will start one. Warning---this is an explosive topic so enter with fear and trepidation as I will.

Mark Twain knew what he was doing when he created "white washing!" The politicians have their trusty brushes out and there's no Aunt around to scold them.

Yes, S, why can't they do what might be considered the ethical thing to do if one is a sociopath -- become a serial killer...

or, an agent.

Oops, I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out, Hazlitt.

Jes, that's okay. What are friends for, anyway.

Blatham, Somehow I posted this message earlier on the wrong thread. Must be crackin' up. I've enjoyed your comments about the difference in outlook between the young and us slightly older ones. Thought you might enjoy this quote from Robert Louis Stevenson. It's from his essay "Crabbed Old Age."

"It is held to be a good taunt, and somehow or other to clinch the question logically, when and old gentleman waggles his head and says: 'Ah, so I thought when I was your age.' It is not thought an answer at all, if the young man retorts: 'My venerable sir, so I shall most probably think when I am yours.'"

Incidentally, I fear I may have left you with the impression that I think morality and ethics a relic of the past. Far from it. I think strong corporate ethical codes ought to be enacted into law and that violators ought to be punished. My only point is that corporate executives, raised on the shifting sands of cultural change, may struggle with sticking to the letter of the law. It just won't seem natural to them.

Personally, I like moral codes based on utilitarianism or pragmatism. I know all systems have their short comings. There will never be general agreement on what the underlying substructure of morals and ethics. It is enough that we agree on the tenets themselves.

Perception, I cannot agree that morality remains constant in the society. I think it changes, especially within certain groups. But even very conservative groups that think they espouse a morality going back thousands of years would find things quite different if they were to actually find them selves, via time machine, in those old societies. Also I think the pendelum theory has its limitations. Change is constant and getting ever more rapid. Social change tends to beget moral and ethical change. Think: what kind of a pendelum swing would it take to get us back to the middle ages. Would it be desirable. Most people only crave a tiny little swing back to what ever decade they imagine was most perfect.

I would like to point out two hoary old themes which have been around for centuries--the first is this "moral decay" issue, which refers to alleged failings in the individual; the second is the "Fall of the Roman Empire" thesis, which refers to alleged failings in the polity. Both are predicated on an unsubstantiated assumption of virtue in earlier times and generations, which is contentious and inadmissable of proof--that is, in terms of individual behavior. But the whole "Fall of the Roman Empire" scam can be be examined in the light of available evidence. The virtue ascribed to earlier, republican times is simply not there in the available historical record. Read your Livy, and you'll find that the struggle between the Patres and the Plebs goes back to the earliest days of the Roman Republic, and continued unabated up to the destruction of the Republic by Sulla--not Julius Ceasar, but Sulla. The English of the early 18th century were just starting to get a clue about ancient history, and Roman history in particular, and by some twisted logic, considered themselves a virtuous republic to be compared to the Roman Republic. Enter Gibbon, whose work The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was first-rate scholarship in the "go-into-the-library-and-exhaustively-review-the-literature" class, but makes for lousy interpretive history. Gibbon was projecting very narrow Christian values back onto Roman history, and was either selectively ignoring that which might not support or actually contradict his thesis (most likely) or had huge areas of ignorance of Roman history (not too bloody likely). He ignores that the sack of Rome in 410 C.E. by Alaric by no means spelt the "fall" of the empire; he ignores the civial strife and bitter class resentments that permeate Livy's picture of political relations in the Republic; he ignores that the empire endured, essentially unchanged, if much mutatated in detail for more than a 1000 years after Alaric sacked Rome; he ignores that the Gauls sacked Rome in c. 390 B.C.E., without significantly impeding the progress of Rome toward empire; he ignores the economic impact which the latifundia on the western portion of the empire. As for this last point, he may well be excused, as concepts of political economy were murky at best in his times, and economy meant no more than thriftiness to his generation. It is possible that he turned a blind eye to slavery, the disease which caused an inevitably fatal wasting sickness in every great society of the ancient world--after all, the English were in the business of slavery up to their ears in those days. Basically, Gibbon had a moralistic agenda to push, he impressed that stamp violently on his historical researches, and the public were delighted to follow after, dancing to that sorry tune. The theme has been very popular ever since, in this country as well as in England.

I strongly suspect that if the same standards of evidence could be applied to the issue of personal ethics now and throughout the past, a similar conclusion could be reached. Those who would have us believe in the decline of our society, the decay of personal standards, have a hidden agenda, and it is not designed to advance your personal freedom of choice.

Hazlitt and Setanta

I find I have no disagreements with either post.

Hazlitt...to clarify and underscore...I also consider that there is a real and consequential divergence of interest, potentially and often actually, between the community at large and the corporate entity as presently constituted. The examples are legion, but one need only look at the behavior of Union Carbide regarding Bhopal.

perception

One might say that collective society determines ethical or moral norms. After all, let's assume God isn't doing it. But the claim I think is far too general to be of much use. The French 'collective' made a trajectory correction with their guillotines, but how long a period preceded this where a tiny few held power and wealth (and owned effective control over notions of right/wrong) while all the rest had to hand over their daughters to a rutting prince?

To all

Maybe we should look at the entire world society as having segments and it is in these segments where moral and ethical standards are decided. Take for example in America up until the end of the civil war slavery was "accepted" by that segment of society. After 600,000 good men died, society no longer accepted it. I could give hundreds of examples of this but nothing further would be gained. It seems a logical conclusion to me but perhaps I'm wrong.

I'm too lazy to read this whole topic but let me just say that I think that the assumption that ethics are in decline is simply a myth propagated since the dawn of time by reminiscent old-timers who resist change.

Craven, I think you nailed it.


timber

Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book.
- Cicero

"The youth of today dress and behave immodestly, show no respect for their elders, and have no concern for their own future"
Socrates

(there are varying renditions of that, I know, but the message is all the same)


timber

Craven

Who can argue with a seasoned member who wears a "Santa" cap-------lafs)))))))))))))))

In earliest times human beings somehow fell into the habit of modifying their aggressive behavior in order that they might have the benefit of living together. We've been doing it ever since. Some of the rules are more enduring than othersbecause they are more basic and necessary. There has been constant change, but we've kept on doing what we've always done: adapting our morals and ethics to new conditions of life, society, and culture in order that we might continue to live together and enjoy the obvious benefits of doing so. We will continue to do this because we must.

Perhaps it is the expectations of a higher standard by the people that is in decline and not ethics.

I loved this quote! I've long said the same in a far less eloquent manner.

<Cross posting to the philosophy and debate board.>

perception,

Anyone can argue with me. My hat doesn't bite. ;-)

JoanneDorrel

I think you should receive the prize for the most accurate and concise orignal thought of the day. Bravo

Hazlitt

You have also summed it up very concisely---We will because we must.

OK, I must catch up here. Will do so tomorrow.

I'm only going to make one more comment here.

There is a recurring theme (and not just in this thread..) that somehow there is some difference between "individuals" , "society" and "corporations" (or "Businesses" if you prefer..). The difference is artifical. It's something that has been entirely created in people's minds. "Corporations" don't do ANYTHING on their own. "Corporations" are a group of people, "individuals"... Those people are Corporate officers, stockholders, employees etc.. "Corportaions" don't make ANY decisions, ethical or unethical, moral or immoral, it matters not.

INDIVIDUALS within corporations make decisions. Those same individuals comprise "society".

I realize that beating up nameless, faceless "Corporations" is the curent popular thing to do but it's nonsense.