The Advent of Ethical/Moral Decay

[Lady tehMa]

This thread is about lines drawn in the sand, "this far and no farther". It is about right and wrong, and about how the lines between right and wrong are becoming blurred.

There was a time when people generally agreed on what was right and what was wrong. They used the tenets of their faith as the yardstick. This is one thing that faith (note I did not say religion, I do not believe they are the same - religion is a construct, faith is a relationship) has over atheism. Atheism is based on science, cold hard facts. And the lines atheism draws move.

50 years ago people said that allowing homosexuality would lead to a decline in moral values, that if this became commonplace soon bestiality and pedophilia would as well. The thin edge of the wedge as it were. This thread is not about homosexuality, it is about defining right and wrong. 50, a hundred years ago most people felt that it was wrong.

Now we have bestiality starting to come into the media. The movie that prompted this thread is being discussed here http://forums.castanet.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=45307. In this thread, the people who disagree that the movie be shown are called "small minded and ignorent". The word "intolerent" is thrown around a lot. "Free Speech" seems to be the card played often.

How many years before this becomes as mainstream as homosexuality? And then what? On page four was this quote, and it disturbed me:

I'm going to assume those of you who think this is freedom of speech, "don't go see it if you don't like it", etc. will feel the same way about child abuse? In some cultures it's okay for an adult to rape a child. So if someone was going to document that and want to show it in Kelowna, you're okay with that I'd be safe to assume.

There's documentaries about that, too. Saw one on TV a few weeks ago, actually.

There was no comment about how pedophilia is wrong. There was no comment about how they would not choose to support it. Just an affirmation that it is already out there in documentary format.

It seems to me that there is an implied assumption that as soon as something makes documentary status, that the road to it being okay, just an other expression for some people has begun.

Perversion seems to have become the order of the day. Where do we draw lines? Can we even do that anymore in this "politically correct" society of mob rule? It appears the mob is seeking the lowest common denominator as it's yardstick (as evidenced by reality television).

The larger picture that virginity, and purity as a whole are becoming mocked and devalued. I don't see this as a good thing.

Thoughts?

[Nebula]

You're completely off base and reading far too much into what people post.

If I post, "There is a documentary that involves pedophilia," I do not have to append that sentence with, "By the way, I in no way condone pedophilia." If you have a problem with just the first sentence, that's your problem, not mine. I need not qualify everything I say in order to make sure that anyone who reads what I post knows that I am somehow morally pure.

As for the 'advent of ethical/moral decay', it began whenever humans started walking the Earth, I'm sure. What our society now considers child sexual abuse was at times commonplace in ancient Greece and Rome. That didn't make it right, but I chuckle at the thought that somehow things are getting worse these days when this stuff went out a couple of thousand years ago.

You said, "It seems to me that there is an implied assumption that as soon as something makes documentary status, that the road to it being okay, just an other expression for some people has begun." This shows me that you have a real problem in differentiating between imparting information and condoning the subject matter.

Lastly, you said, "Perversion seems to have become the order of the day." Only when you're on the other end of the donkey.

[JLives]

I believe morals began as part of memetic evolution. We used to live in smaller groups and it was necessary for survival for everyone to contribute and not to take more than others or kill each other. This has been passed through the generations through shared culture to what we see today.

My line is drawn at as long as it doesn't harm others do what you would like. Bestiality is wrong because there is no consent, pedophilia for the same reason. It covers murder, theft, assault, abuse and everything else that should be considered a hard don't. Homosexuality is not, and has never been, wrong because there is adult consent and is causing no harm. The belief that it did came from religion. I can't think of a civil rights issue to come after this one is finally settled world wide.

If anything can be seen as contributing to moral decay I believe it is the compartmentalization of society. Even though we are living in larger groups we are still removed from our place in it and are losing the connection with a community and nature. People are spending more time on TV, computers and mobile devices that is taking away from the face to face interaction we used to have. When we have people who lose their way we turn to outside agencies such as police and recovery agencies to fix them. We spend far more time fighting over our differences than celebrating our similarities. We see an us vs. them mentality all over the place from sports to politics to the economy. I don't know how we will see us move to a more connected group of people, an asteroid coming maybe?

[steven lloyd]

50 years ago people said that allowing homosexuality would lead to a decline in moral values, that if this became commonplace soon bestiality and pedophilia would as well. The thin edge of the wedge as it were. This thread is not about homosexuality, it is about defining right and wrong. 50, a hundred years ago most people felt that it was wrong.

No one allowed homosexuality. It has existed since before the dawn of civilization, first among the animal population and since earliest man. Evolutionary scientists have many theories but one thing most intelligent and informed people accept today is that homosexuality is not a choice. It is not something to be allowed or not. You say this thread is not about homosexuality, but then you go on to link it to pedophilia (something we know is not associated with homosexuality) and the decline in ethics and morals. That could be an interesting discussion (the advent of ethical/moral decay), but it is going to being starting from a confusing place if we associate morality with ignorance and intolerance.

[fluffy]

I see a lot of sense in want jennylives says about compartmentalization, especially at the individual level. We are increasingly becoming an it's-all-about-me society. People engage in logical justification of actions that they know in their hearts to be wrong, yet go ahead and do them anyways. Classic example: "You were a dink to me so I am justified in being a dink to you" when it doesn't take a math major to see that the bottom line of that equation is not right and wrong, but two dinks. Religion has given us some great rules of thumb, but religion does not have a monopoly on conscience, and conscience is where much of the solution can be found. I think for the most part right and wrong are hard-wired into each of us, the challenge is to get ourselves out of the way long enough to get in touch with those feelings.

[Captain Awesome]

Now we have bestiality starting to come into the media. The movie that prompted this thread is being discussed here http://forums.castanet.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=45307. In this thread, the people who disagree that the movie be shown are called "small minded and ignorent". The word "intolerent" is thrown around a lot. "Free Speech" seems to be the card played often.

I think it's a sign of time.

See, humans are funny creatures this way. We have the ability to respond to immediate danger with ingenuity. When things get tough for us, we regroup, respond, and think of the ways to better the situation for ourselves. When pre-historic people were fighting for survival based on simply instincts, they didn't have time for anything else. When our ancestors were fighting off barbarians or another nation of people wearing funny hats - they didn't have time to question their existence. Just few decades ago, when life was still tough and dim, nobody was preoccupied with things like donkey love.

We live in a different time now - our existence is so easy, we all of a sudden find time to question our way of life. Nobody needs to fight for survival now, nobody needs to work hard to provide for their families. We start questioning non-essential items such us fetus rights and role of homosexuality in our progress. We start exploring donkey love and cannibalism as new and cutting edge concepts. We start questioning our whole way of life since we have no other things preoccupying us. We start questioning to concept of the family and societal roles of wives and husbands - who needs this pre-historic institute? Hey, how about trying some drugs for mind altering or simply to fight off boredom - isn't heroin awesome? Let's have heroin for everybody and make it a part of our life.

If humans are given everything they'd ever need - they start declining. Just like any humanoid when given unlimited supply of food and resources - they don't put it into good use, they just lose their focus (which usually is survival) and start their unending cycle of consumption and moral decay. And our North American society (and European for most part) is exactly at that stage - we are the fat blobs of this planet who are given everything, and who started their spiraling motion downwards.

Ever wonder why all empires end? Why would Roman Empire fall to simpleton Barbarians? Because of this.

[Glacier]

And when the barbarians started invading Rome, they were shocked to discover how "barbaric" Roman morals were. An important lesson - just because we are more "civilized" than others doesn't mean we are morally superior.

Bestiality is wrong because there is no consent

And what about zoophiles?

A lot of people seem to think that just because someone is attracted to animals, that they go around raping every animal they see. However, that’s not true. While some may do that, most don’t. It is possible to love an animal and to have consensual sex with him/her. And yes, animals can consent to sex with humans, though it's not through words like humans do. For example, if a female dog wants to have sex with you, she'll do things like turning her butt towards you and moving her tail to the side, rubbing herself against your crotch, etc. If you respond to her advances and have sex with her, how is that not consensual? Besides, if an animal doesn't want to have sex, it can say no with its claws, teeth, hooves, horns, etc. Also, most zoophiles love their partner, regardless of the sex, and even if he/she didn’t show an interest in it, they would love him/her just the same. Anyone who rapes animals or uses them as sex toys is a bestialist and a pervert and should be grouped with rapists and pedophiles
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 358AAuuQAn

.

[steven lloyd]

Woah! Way too much information!

[steven lloyd]

This is a bit lot more palatable and perhaps still on the subject of ethical and moral decay
- although I won't lose any sleep and may buy a bottle, depending on the label (I must be in full decay)

German liquor company pours new product over women's breasts before bottling
05/10/2012 8:00:00 AM
by Nevil Hunt

A German company is selling booze that's been poured over the breasts of a model before being bottled. Is this taking gimmicks to new heights?

Old-fashioned: "A jug of wine, a loaf of bread and thee."

Modern: "Booze and jugs."

In an effort to differentiate their products from the competition, the German liquor company G-Spirits has put booze on the market that comes with a questionable pedigree.

You can buy the company's vodka, rum and whisky, and be assured that every drop has been poured over a beautiful woman's breasts before it was bottled.

You'll have to pay a hefty price to get the stuff: the company is milking consumers for $180 a bottle.

One wag has already dubbed G-Spirits' new liquors "Hooter shooters," and you can't help but wonder what cup size you should use to consume the stuff.

Every bottle comes with a nude photo of the model in mid-pour and a certificate signed by the lady. The certificate can, of course, be framed and placed on the wall to show the world that, yes, you have far too much money.

The company founders are two former bartenders, which explains a lot. If there's one thing bartenders learn, it's that drunks with lots of money are easily turned into drunks with no money.

I'm sure I read somewhere that greed went out of style with the recession. But if G-Spirit sells all 5,000 bottles of their limited edition boob booze, it will prove conspicuous consumption is alive and well.

The company's website describes the sublime taste of their products and suggests the liquor picks up "a unique erotic character" by coming into contact with a model's breasts. I have a sneaking suspicion that the aftertaste may include subtle hints of silicone, expensive cologne and particles of necklace tarnish. And I've heard the liquor pairs exceptionally well with a Gurkha Black Dragon cigar, but only if it's lit off a burning $100 bill.

G-Spirit insists its booze is sanitary and follows all food and consumer laws. Maybe it does, but why would anyone want to increase the risk of getting sick while paying for the privilege?

Having loads of cash obviously affects sound judgment. How else can you explain all the four-wheel-drive king-sized SUVs on our roads that transport six-year-olds to hockey practice so they can use their $300 composite sticks.

For some rich people, being rich has no significance if they're not flaunting it. If the Average Joe can afford booze that's $50, $60 or even $100 a bottle, then one must find a way to spend more.

Enter the smartypants guys from G-Spirit, who must have once sold some fabulous clothes to an emperor I read about in a picture book.

Would you drink booze that had been poured over a beautiful woman? Will the 5,000 bottles sell out?

http://news.sympatico.ca/oped/coffee-ta ... g/54789ae5

[fvkasm2x]

I hate people and think we have turned into heathen pigs with no manners, class or respect for anything.

Almost every day, I see or hear something that disgusts me.

[kgcayenne]

It's the lowest common denominator effect.

Low standards often mean low effort. It's easy & comfortable to be indulgent, but difficult to be in control of oneself.

The donkey movie has been brought up in this thread, and I have to say that I personally don't oppose discussion or documentaries about controversial topics, but they have to be made in a way that maturely expands on the seriousness of social, cultural, and theological conflicts to other cultures including our own. Having watched the trailer, I simply can not, for one second, believe that this movie is anything but something that would have sprung from a sophomorical frat house party. By the tone of the music and quantity of giggling, it looks like a toned down trailer for jackass.

It's easy to entertain, but difficult to provoke thought.

[Nebula]

You're very much on the money. Trailer for Jackass.

[Glacier]

Woah! Way too much information!

True, but the question remains, if the "there is no consent" argument against sex with animals is invalidated, how long will zoophilia remain a criminal offence?

[Lady tehMa]

Has how society views laws changed?

It seems to me, that 100 years ago there appeared to be more respect for laws - there were still law-breakers, but it seems for the most part that people paid attention and worked within the law framework.

Today, it seems that a lot of people feel they can pick and choose what laws they want to follow; from jaywalking and speeding to drug use and break and enter, and murder.

This is not a good trend for society as a whole; laws provide a framework with clearly deliniated areas of what is acceptable and what is not. Society works best when everyone strives for the common good. It seems that the current mindset is "what matters is what works for me, and forget about anyone else".

[steven lloyd]

As citizens in a collective society it can be argued we have a moral responsibility to speak and even engage in civil disobedience when dealing with unjust and immoral laws. Try some Martin Luther King Jr.

http://lawofnations.blogspot.ca/2006/01 ... civil.html

http://voices.yahoo.com/martin-luther-k ... 96350.html

http://www.manythings.org/voa/people/Ma ... Jr.-1.html


History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly ... and with a willingness to accept the penalty.

Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Marti ... uotes.html

also a bit of Socrates

http://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/1694959.html