LAW VS. MORAL VALUES

There you go destroying the credibility of the writer again....

I guess we will get the final answer when he writes

"Moral values vs Empathy"

Because we certainly wouldn't want to think "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" has any place in a democratic society.

I can assure you that dating in my day was neither structured nor arranged though there was certain protocol to follow. The young man was expected to come to the front door and meet the girls' parents, open the car door (and other doors) for her, and perform other niceties. Double dating or group dating was common as was just a couple going out. We went to movies, on hay rides, to barn dances, water melon stealing, to somebody's house to hang out on the porch, or we dragged Main. All the girls did have a curfew, but it was a gentler and more innocent time than it was even when my kids were in highschool

As Dr. Williams pointed out, there was a common morality to be obeyed and a civility and courtesy in language and behavior that hurt none of us in the least.

It is a curious thing why all of you seem to be so desperate to make my recollections untrue? Why is that do you think?

I disagree. This argument fails in nearly all accounts.

No evidence whatsoever is provided to back up the claim that society has become worse in general. For all we know, crime rates could in fact be done. As one member of this forum signs, "The plural of anecdote is not data.", and this is true. And if one was to give benefit of the doubt and consider the given anecdotes, the argument would be no stronger.

The arguer shows bias in the interpretation of what it is to be moral. Many philosophers agree that morals are not, in fact, concrete. They change with society and are relative, or they may not even exist at all. And most of those who do believe in concrete, perhaps religious morals, concede that their anscestors may have been wrong in their interpretations of religious texts and the morals implied by them. For example, (arguably) the moral that killing is wrong has always been firmly embedded in the Christian faith, but children adressing adults by their first names? At any rate, the arguer simply assumes such things as: a woman who allows a man to put his hand in her pocket is a slut; and that the physical punishment and beating of children is acceptable. I will not go into the finer details, but clearly these assumptions are debatable and cannot simply be accepted as fact as he intends us to.

Furthermore, one might consider, in rebuttal to the claim that the need for increased security indicates a decline in morals, the fact that crime happens more often in more populated settlements, and that the population of the world and almost every village, town and city has increased considerably over the past 50 years.

In addition, he also claims "Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we've become." I'm not even going to go into this. Apply the same type of analysis as I have done above and you will see how worthless this claim is.

Same for "The failure to fully transmit values and traditions to subsequent generations represents one of the failings of the so-called greatest generation."



Mr Williams should keep to economics, or at the very least take a philosophy course before making such unsupported and painfully fragile arguments as this.

aperson

No one is desperate, and no one is "making" your recollections untrue. As has been pointed out repeatedly to you, you selectively recollect that which supports the otherwise unsubstantiated thesis you have advanced. Your claim that crime has risen is not supported, and Walter has presented evidence that the murder rate as a proportionate function of population has declined. Your claim about teenage pregnancy in unsupported, and i have presented evidence that as a proportionate function of population, it was highest in the 1950s and has declined since then.

You are essentially left with whining about people not treating you with the courtesy to which you seem to think you are entitled, and which your abhorrence of bastardy. Little wonder that young people show you little respect when all they likely see is yet another censorious blue-hair who shows no respect for their values--little wonder that they have no interest in your values.

Holy crap Setanta I am in love with you. That signiture is pure brilliance.

Thank you, but don't tell The Girl.

In fact, credit where it is due, the signature line i am using i found on the image of one of the buses in the "atheist" bus advertising campaign. It was not original with me.

Good thing it wasn't structured, then.


Good lord. We can't disagree with you without being "desperate", eh?

Your recollections reflect your truth.

I am more interested, in this kind of thread, in learning about community/country/global truths/statistics.

An individual's memories/opinion pieces are interesting in their own way, but I don't consider them evidence of anything - other than perhaps an insight into how that ONE person developed their perspectives.

It think it is a curious thing that you are so desperate to have others agree that your recollections reflect the reality of an entire country.

No, I was just having a discussion about my recollections, which are much different than the way those who did not experience them are now attempting to define them, as I think my recollections are pertinent to Dr. Williams' essay. That does seem to be exceedingly threatening to a lot of people here though. I was just wondering why.

I think you're overvaluing the level of 'threat' you pose.

I find the whole idea of shaming women into innocence a bit distasteful (especially given the seminal role that men have in the matter), but no longer threatening. We live in a more modern society now and it is doubtful that Williams (or anyone else) will be able to drag us back.

No I don't think so. If what I said was not so 'threatening' to people, there wouldn't be such a horde of people descending on a thread or discussion with nothing more in mind than to discredit me and what I am saying. That suggests to me that I am hitting major nerves. I really do find that fascinating.

I suppose it depends on one's perspective. You see it as 'shaming'. Based on the way he presented it, I think I am safe in believing that Dr. Williams sees it as community values - a sense of right and wrong - i.e. virtue that was considered shameful to violate. Those virtues then were accepted as normal and good while many now see them as oppressive and wrong just as many from that era see many things that are mostly acceptable in modern times as horrifying.

There is a difference between 'shaming' and feeling ashamed when one does what one believes to be wrong. Kids could be cruel and unkind in our day, but there were certain lines that were not to be crossed. There was a kind of common restraint that came out of religious faith, expectations of propriety, civility, courtesy etc. that kept a whole lot of kids out of a whole lot of trouble while a mantle of security, sense of belonging, and acceptance was created.

Whether each point of that 'ancient' code was commendable or wrong is a valid subject for debate. David, for instance, took immediate issue with the requirement for children to respect and be courteous to their elders. I disagree with his opinion, but I respect it. That is the way I was raised.

Others would certainly pooh pooh the idea that anybody would save sex for marriage, but in that 'ancient' time, the concept was neither scorned nor ridiculed. Does that mean there was no 'sin'? Of course not. But children were not sexualized at an early age, there was more innocence and a wonderful kind of freedom that came with that. Good thing? Bad thing? I'm sure people of different eras would answer that differently.

Dr. Williams raised some points that I think worth considering. It does require the intellectual/emotional ability to be able to focus on certain things from a given era and appreciating or criticizing them for what they are apart from non related things from the same era.

Five people is a horde? Alert Genghis Khan!

It really is rich to see you castigating others by inference for a lack of intellectual and emotional "ability" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). People have been criticizing that bullshit walk down memory lane for what it is--people have pointed out that the crime rate has decreased, not increased; that the rate of teenage pregnancy has decreased, not increased; people have pointed out the howling hypocrisy of calling for courtesy and consideration while racial minorities, women and homosexuals are the targets of abuse, assault, rape and murder, simply for having the temerity not to be white, Angl0-Saxon, heterosexual and male.

People have taken William's bullshit on in its own terms. As DD and so many others have pointed out, you can't be satisfied with the response because it doesn't agree with you.

Again... I raise the possibility that Foxfyre was odd even for her time. This would also indicate that shaming women didn't even work back then.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16287113/

Nope. I can assure you I was as average and ordinary as anybody was. I still stay in touch with many of my classmates from that era and we frequently discuss those times. Our 50th highschool reunion was not long ago and most of the class that is still living went. I went through my Sophomore year at Lovington NM and finished up highschool at Santa Fe that was a much more ethnically diverse and much tougher environment than Lovington, but the basic values enumerated by Williams (and me) were the same in both places. My classmates from both schools treat me as a member. We're having another mini reunion this summer.

(P.S. What that MSNBC article--which is likely not well researched--left out is that most pre-marital sex in the 40's and 50's involved a ring and a date if you exclude heavy 'petting'. Not all. But most. I'm guessing that more than a few, both men and women, had full intercourse for the first time on their wedding nights. But that's just a very good guess and opinion shared by most of my classmates from that era.)

But I'll let you guys go ahead and bash the era if that is what you prefer to do rather than discuss any possible virtues that might have existed at that time.

This sounds exactly the same as what I experienced growing up across the country, in a relatively urban area, twenty five or thirty years after you experienced it.
I can remember getting home from a date and sitting outside talking in the car (and we really were just talking) and my mom coming out and telling me to come inside and telling my date that it was inconsiderate of him and detrimental to my reputation for him to keep me out there talking in the car. 'Don't ever sit outside in a car with my daughter - if you want to talk- you bring her in this house and talk....'
I was so embarrassed. But he just nodded and said, 'Yes ma'am..' and that's what he did from then on.
And truthfully, I expect the same sort of respect for and from my daughter, Foxfyre.
So I don't think it's necessarily a matter of the times. It sounds like we were brought up by people who had similar ideas about behavior.
But I respect my parents and how they raised me, and I'm raising my daughter exactly the same way. The date and new millenium haven't changed that.
I guess if you'd acknowledge that it wasn't the overall reality of the truth of the time so much as it was the truth or overall reality for a very specific segment of the population in the culture- which actually does still exist- people would have less problem with your generalizations.

Because I do agree with you that promiscuity seems more acceptable today than it did in the past. And I do think that people are more aware at an earlier age about sex and its dangers and pleasures.
I know that I never really thought about the fact, or was even aware that children were molested when I was growing up. If someone had tried something on me, I'd not have known what they were doing-literally.
And I think it's the rare child today who hasn't had that talk with his or her parent probably by the time they start school - even if it's only for the parent to say, 'If someone touches you in a way that makes you uncomfortable, this is what you should do.'
I know I had that talk with my children, but my parents never had it with me.
So yes, something must have changed - if only perception and not reality.
Although I think it's disingenuous to say that pedophilia and promiscuity are not given more of a veneer of normality in our culture today. Promiscuity by the mainstream culture and pedophilia because the pedophile no longer has to satiate his urge in private and silence.
The internet has brought them out and together - provided a place for them to meet and interact together and I'm not stupid enough to believe that this has not had an effect on the numbers of abusers willing to indulge in what has become a less risky pasttime, and the number of children who are directly or indirectly affected by this.

I also think the teen pregnancy rate has dropped, not because people are having less sex and/or later, I think they're using more effective means of birth control. I also think they're having oral sex instead of intercoure. So just as teen pregnancy rates have dropped, the incidence in throat cancer has skyrocketed in people under the age of forty. Which highlights another cultural change. People my age and above probably view oral sex as something to be shared with the person you are MOST intimate with. Now its viewed as the opposite. Girls and boys have oral sex with whoever - it' s sort of the precursor to intercourse which is deemed to be the real deal - as far as that goes.

I do think manners have changed. People write fewer thank you notes - etc. etc.
Yes, I agree that there have been many losses of valuable and worthwhile cultural practices.
And as you say, that doesn't have to change or take away from all or any of the good changes that have happened.

I can admit that some things were better before. For sure. It doesn't threaten me at all. I do think that I had a definite set of guidelines and a strong direction laid out for me and I do think that all the choices available and different lifestyles that have become accepted do make making decisions about one's own life maybe a little more complicated and harder these days. I do think sometimes people have so many options and choices available that it makes it hard to know what to choose to do.
And this may result in what looks like floundering and bad choices.

Socially and morally, I fit with the generation I grew up in. In terms of a career - jeez- what I wouldn' give to have the opportunities and choices young people have today.
So I can see good things in each era.