Our moral decline, and other urban myths...

[Augustus]

Steven Pinker has a wonderful book on this: The Better Angles of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined.

If you look at his numbers, he chooses upper bound estimates for historical violence, and more recent ones middle to lower estimates. He uses an obviously incorrect figure for An Lushan, then puts in a footnote to say this figure is probably too high yet still uses it. All historical numbers are massively overstated though.

Also, per capita figures are somewhat problematic as they assumes violence should increase in line with population growth. But, given the nature of warfare, should this be assumed?

In addition, as I think he notes, there is a possibility of future catastrophe which could reverse the trend. If someone made an argument about the stock market that ignored the possibility of a future crash in its calculations, then people would be right to be critical of this. We have been very close to nuclear war in the past, and avoided it more by luck than design or 'moral progress'. Had one of these occurred then his book would not have been written.

Due to modern technology, especially nukes, the cost of war is increased between major powers. this makes them less likely to occur, but much worse if they do happen. As such, the timescale is too short to promote a trend that can be considered statistically rigorous. People were making similar pronouncements at the start of the 20th C, and we know how that turned out.

 

[Stevicus]

I often see people decry the moral decline of humanity. Commonly (but not universally) these are Christians who see some larger narrative at play.

I have often argued that I don't see it, but their point around moral decline is rarely the focus of the thread, and so these things pass, particularly with morals being subjective and all...ahem...

Anywhoos, I thought I'd make a thread more specifically on the moral decline of humanity, or more specifically, the lack thereof. I'm not suggesting we're perfect...far, far, far from it. But we never have been. What I think is disrespectful to current generations is the attitude I see portrayed around how things were 'better' in some fuzzily identified historical period often coinciding with the authors youth, or (even more tenuously) the childhood of a parent.

Enough ramble...I'm happy to take comment either on my general belief, or on any of the linked articles below. These are not chosen for any particular reason other than to be representative of reality we sometimes forget, imho.

How an 'ugly law' stayed on Chicago's books for 93 years

The East St. Louis Race Riot Left Dozens Dead, Devastating a Community on the Rise | At the Smithsonian | Smithsonian

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ination/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.51d4955df0e4

Burning question of the day: 1950s newspaper clipping shows how far women's rights have come | Daily Mail Online

Opinion | The Not-So-Good Old Days

I think some people might look at "moral decline" in the sense of sexual mores, as well as popular culture in general. People might look back at times when the Hays Code was prevalent in Hollywood movies, as well as similar codes of practices used for TV and radio. Back in the day, people saw jazz as decadent, which was later echoed in early opinions about rock-and-roll. People look back fondly on the days of "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best," while looking at today's popular culture with disdain.

Then, there are other things that I've often heard said, such as "back when people knew who their neighbors were," implying a disconnectedness in today's society. Some people might say "Back in those days, we never even had to lock our doors," while nowadays, people put bars on their windows, double locks on doors, high-tech security alarms and even video surveillance.

Likewise, stores have to put sensors at their doors to detect shoplifters, something they didn't have to do in the past. Even convenience stores have video and height markers on their doors to be able to tell the police the height of someone who robs the place. You wouldn't see anything like that back in the old days at mom and pop's general store in Podunk.

A handshake was good enough to seal a bargain in past eras, but nowadays, you need lawyers and have to get everything in writing (and even then, someone might try to con you). In fact, the overabundance of lawyers (and laws, for that matter), in and of itself, can be seen as evidence of moral decline. It would indicate the morals of society are so bad that the state tries in vain to remedy the situation by passing law after law.

 

[Augustus]

Then, there are other things that I've often heard said, such as "back when people knew who their neighbors were," implying a disconnectedness in today's society. Some people might say "Back in those days, we never even had to lock our doors," while nowadays, people put bars on their windows, double locks on doors, high-tech security alarms and even video surveillance.

Before she died, my gran lived in a working class neighbourhood that had a good sense of community and where people would look out for one another so was pretty safe. Over 30 years it became a crime-ridden majority immigrant neighbourhood without any sense of community, where she was the victim of crime on more than one occasion and were she couldn't walk the streets after dark.

Can just imagine the look on her face if someone tried to present statistical arguments that said things were actually improving

 

[Stevicus]

Before she died, my gran lived in a working class neighbourhood that had a good sense of community and where people would look out for one another so was pretty safe. Over 30 years it became a crime-ridden majority immigrant neighbourhood without any sense of community, where she was the victim of crime on more than one occasion and were she couldn't walk the streets after dark.

Yes, a lot of older, traditional neighborhoods have declined to a great degree.

Can just imagine the look on her face if someone tried to present statistical arguments that said things were actually improving

As far as people saying things are improving, coupled with outright denials of our decline, I just see it as a variation of the "Don't Worry, Be Happy" mentality that the ruling class has been attempting to foist on the people for decades now.

The decline in crime and violence might also be attributed to better technologies, such as video and other surveillance methods. Criminals don't like to get caught, so they mind their P's and Q's when they believe they're under surveillance. It reduces their opportunities and thus reduces crime.

Another factor can be summed up in the following chart:

When more and more bad guys are put behind bars, there are fewer of them out on the streets to create mischief.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I often see people decry the moral decline of humanity. Commonly (but not universally) these are Christians who see some larger narrative at play.

I have often argued that I don't see it, but their point around moral decline is rarely the focus of the thread, and so these things pass, particularly with morals being subjective and all...ahem...

Morality is set by God's Messengers and His Laws in the age the Message was given. There is a certain level of change as humanity evolves in our capacity of mind.

If one has not chosen faith in God through His Messengers, then morality has no boundaries except what society as a whole may have set as law.

Thus the decline in Morality is to move away from what has been set by God by His Mesenger and given laws for the age in which we live.

In this age the bar is set high and in Faith it is acknowledged that God has all wisdom and that Gods Laws are the elixer.

Thus I see the level of morality we have to obtain in this age, is contained in the message given by Baha'u'llah, that it is the required elixer.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

I often see people decry the moral decline of humanity. Commonly (but not universally) these are Christians who see some larger narrative at play.

I think we're getting far better. One of the major differences is that behaviour is far more open now, due to many factors. The past holds secrets, too many.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think some people might look at "moral decline" in the sense of sexual mores, as well as popular culture in general. People might look back at times when the Hays Code was prevalent in Hollywood movies, as well as similar codes of practices used for TV and radio. Back in the day, people saw jazz as decadent, which was later echoed in early opinions about rock-and-roll. People look back fondly on the days of "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best," while looking at today's popular culture with disdain.

Then, there are other things that I've often heard said, such as "back when people knew who their neighbors were," implying a disconnectedness in today's society. Some people might say "Back in those days, we never even had to lock our doors," while nowadays, people put bars on their windows, double locks on doors, high-tech security alarms and even video surveillance.

Likewise, stores have to put sensors at their doors to detect shoplifters, something they didn't have to do in the past. Even convenience stores have video and height markers on their doors to be able to tell the police the height of someone who robs the place. You wouldn't see anything like that back in the old days at mom and pop's general store in Podunk.

A handshake was good enough to seal a bargain in past eras, but nowadays, you need lawyers and have to get everything in writing (and even then, someone might try to con you). In fact, the overabundance of lawyers (and laws, for that matter), in and of itself, can be seen as evidence of moral decline. It would indicate the morals of society are so bad that the state tries in vain to remedy the situation by passing law after law.

The vast majority of this falls into the bucket I would suggest is perception over reality, but I'll try and give you a more detailed answer later today.

Appreciate you sharing your thoughts, and the effort you've gone to.

 

[Shad]

I have often argued that I don't see it

Try twitter or reddit.

 

[Shad]

The vast majority of this falls into the bucket I would suggest is perception over reality,

I was add data to this mix. Communications technology provides a lot of us with tools not available in the past. Laymen included. Even a few decades let alone centuries. We "see" more so assume there is a decline. Said decline can easily be a data error due to inferior methods of the past. So an information bubble which in turns creates a perception of reality.

 

[Vinayaka]

Try twitter or reddit.

They didn't exist 50 years ago, so there is no way to compare. We had some old letters from relatives to grandparents. You want to see racism? In today's world it would be really sickening. Both my parents served in WW2. They had some stories to tell.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think some people might look at "moral decline" in the sense of sexual mores, as well as popular culture in general. People might look back at times when the Hays Code was prevalent in Hollywood movies, as well as similar codes of practices used for TV and radio. Back in the day, people saw jazz as decadent, which was later echoed in early opinions about rock-and-roll. People look back fondly on the days of "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best," while looking at today's popular culture with disdain.

Meh, I look at elements of today's pop culture with disdain.
My point wouldn't be whether people look at 'Leave it to Beaver' or 'Father Knows Best' with fondness. My point would be that these were highly stylized views of life, and not representative of reality. Much like the Cosby's was not.

As a quick example of what I mean;

In Frank Bank's autobiography, he claims to have slept with over 1000 women, and to have lost his virginity at 12.

Lauren Chapin drank, and ran away from home after Father Knows Best was cancelled in 1960. She was married at 16, and separated by 18. She became a drug addict, and was institutionalized for mental health issues. Eventually, she was arrested on criminal charges (forgery).

The veneer of morality means nothing. Read about Victorian England and you'll see VERY quickly what I mean.

I
Then, there are other things that I've often heard said, such as "back when people knew who their neighbors were," implying a disconnectedness in today's society.

Society has changed, but that is not indicative of a moral decline. I am, right now, talking to people all around the world. My grandfather couldn't. He spoke to his neighbours. One of whom he liked and the other who he thought was a 'bloody fool'.

Some people might say "Back in those days, we never even had to lock our doors," while nowadays, people put bars on their windows, double locks on doors, high-tech security alarms and even video surveillance.

I don't lock my back door, generally. It's literally wide open right now, despite no-one being home. My best friend is the same.
My wife doesn't lock her car.

Funny thing is that my parents, who live in the country and talk about how much safer it is, think we're being ridiculous. Perception or reality?

My wife's mother is horrified that we might let our girls walk home from school unaccompanied soon, but often talks about how her kids (inc my wife) would roam around on Saturdays while their father was playing football.
To her, this is because society is more dangerous now, and she doesn't trust people not to abduct the kids. So are there more child abductions now than when she was letting her kids roam?

BBC News - How stranger danger changed the way children play

Likewise, stores have to put sensors at their doors to detect shoplifters, something they didn't have to do in the past. Even convenience stores have video and height markers on their doors to be able to tell the police the height of someone who robs the place. You wouldn't see anything like that back in the old days at mom and pop's general store in Podunk.

Comparing the anecdotal mom and pop general store in Podunk again provides skewed perception. The stores near me don't have height markers. They have video in many cases, but that is because it's cheap and accessible. In the past, the option wasn't as readily available, or available at all.

It's hard to find hard data, but 'Retail Crime, Security and Loss Prevention: An Encyclopedic Reference' is worth a look.

'There isn't an old hand he doesn't know, and it takes him a mighty short time to find out the new ones. He's made some good arrests in his day, and he's pulled in shoplifters that other officers wouldn't have dared to touch. It's a risky thing, sometimes, a man has to be very shrewd and very sure too, and Dave is just that man. Why, one of them had on a thousand dollar shawl and the way they kicked against being arrested was a caution. They were responsible people, they said, and if they were arrested they would sue the department and have the officer imprisoned for false arrest.

on David N. Corwin, store detective
Frederick Loeser's & Company, circa 1880

or

During his 27 years as the Director of the Protection Department at Macy's, William Wall introduced a number of innovative retail security concepts. He instituted the use of guard dogs to supplement the night watchman in the store, he had jail cells built in the store where shoplifters could be held until turned over to the police, and he played an important part in establishing the first Stores Mutual Association, then known as the Stores Mutual Protective League.

on William Wall, Director of the Protection Dept
Macy's, circa 1901 - 1928

A handshake was good enough to seal a bargain in past eras, but nowadays, you need lawyers and have to get everything in writing (and even then, someone might try to con you). In fact, the overabundance of lawyers (and laws, for that matter), in and of itself, can be seen as evidence of moral decline. It would indicate the morals of society are so bad that the state tries in vain to remedy the situation by passing law after law.

Really?

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co - Wikipedia

Borg-Warner Corp. v. Anchor Coupling Co.

Davis v. General Foods Corporation, 21 F. Supp. 445 (S.D.N.Y. 1937)

My point here is not that things are exactly the same as they ever were. They are not. The world changes. But the essential nature of people does not simply change. Whilst we might 'remember' how much more trustworthy people were in the past, we are likely judging the people around us. I try hard to surround myself with trustworthy people today. How representative are they of society?

It's a form of ingroup bias, basically.

So, is there too much litigation these days? Sure, it would appear so to me. But this isn't due to a moral decline. And people 'back in the day' might have liked to seal a deal with a firm handshake (and I'm ignoring here who was actually entitled to MAKE deals, which is a bigger moral change to me) but reality is that contracts were broken.

 

[Stevicus]

Meh, I look at elements of today's pop culture with disdain.
My point wouldn't be whether people look at 'Leave it to Beaver' or 'Father Knows Best' with fondness. My point would be that these were highly stylized views of life, and not representative of reality. Much like the Cosby's was not.

But they do indicate what people are watching and what they like. Those who observed that standards were being lowered indicated that people wanted more sex, violence, and a generally cynical outlook on life - that could be cited as evidence of moral decline.

As a quick example of what I mean;

In Frank Bank's autobiography, he claims to have slept with over 1000 women, and to have lost his virginity at 12.

Lauren Chapin drank, and ran away from home after Father Knows Best was cancelled in 1960. She was married at 16, and separated by 18. She became a drug addict, and was institutionalized for mental health issues. Eventually, she was arrested on criminal charges (forgery).

The veneer of morality means nothing. Read about Victorian England and you'll see VERY quickly what I mean.

Well, some might argue that we were already in a state of moral decline by 1960, so the fact that Lumpy and Kathy engaged in supposedly "immoral" activities after those shows, that would confirm such a view.

No one is saying that everything was idyllic or perfect back in the old days. Sure, one can probably find a good deal of anecdotal evidence of moral turpitude in previous eras, but I'm not sure that it proves that society was any more or less moral than it is now. The perception being addressed in your OP would suggest that there are conflicting views and variant definitions of how "morality" is defined, along with how that definition has developed and changed over the past century or more.

In the past, morality was seemingly viewed as "black and white," whereas nowadays, people are far more accepting of the "gray area" than they used to be.

Society has changed, but that is not indicative of a moral decline. I am, right now, talking to people all around the world. My grandfather couldn't. He spoke to his neighbours. One of whom he liked and the other who he thought was a 'bloody fool'.

Perhaps, although the phenomenon started long before the advent of the internet. Perhaps it started with television, although it could also be due to greater mobility and people not living in the same neighborhoods for as long as they used to. The population seems a lot more transient these days, not staying in one place long enough to put down roots or get to know those around them.

As a moral issue, I've read some people lament about how there is a growing lack of community and how the spirit of volunteerism and public service has been in decline. I recall an article I read a while back about how various public service organizations (Lions, Kiwanis, Rotary Club, etc.) are seeing declining membership, while they were once a mainstay in every community.

Another example which often comes to mind is that there is a certain section of the downtown area and vicinity which has a certain "hippie-esque" vibe to it. Former hippies and others of that particular bent became shopkeepers and business owners along a certain nostalgic 60s "leftish" theme, yet this same group of business owners are the loudest voices in wanting the local government to use the police to get rid of transients, homeless people, and other assorted "bums" who they believe are hurting their businesses.

They betrayed their principles which they once touted and held close to heart - all for the sake of profit, no different than the right-wing capitalists they claim to oppose, and yet...

This may also be seen as a decline in morality, as selfishness, narcissism, materialism, consumerism, and greed have become more prevalent, while any sense of community or earlier ideals of "fight the power" or "question authority" have fallen by the wayside.

I don't lock my back door, generally. It's literally wide open right now, despite no-one being home. My best friend is the same.
My wife doesn't lock her car.

Funny thing is that my parents, who live in the country and talk about how much safer it is, think we're being ridiculous. Perception or reality?

My wife's mother is horrified that we might let our girls walk home from school unaccompanied soon, but often talks about how her kids (inc my wife) would roam around on Saturdays while their father was playing football.
To her, this is because society is more dangerous now, and she doesn't trust people not to abduct the kids. So are there more child abductions now than when she was letting her kids roam?

BBC News - How stranger danger changed the way children play

Do you live out in the country or in some low-crime area? A lot of people in America live in gated communities or have some sort of private security service. In some areas, I see how property owners make a point of posting signs on their property to let people know that they're being protected by some private security company. Or there might be Neighborhood Watch signs posted in the area. This has also become more common, growing out of the crime waves which took place in the 70s and 80s which led to a public backlash and calls to "take a bite out of crime."

Programs such as this, as well as strong public support for anti-crime measures, the militarization of police departments, "three strikes" laws, "stand your ground" laws, and an exponential increase in incarcerations (shown in the chart I posted upthread) - this no doubt had an effect on eventually lowering the crime rate. The rate of violent crime peaked in the early 1990s, but since then, it has shown a noticeable decline.

But even that wouldn't be an indication of morality becoming better or worse. Many have lamented the excesses of the police and the rise of surveillance and other security measures being taken, especially since 9/11. We sometimes hear horror stories of elderly women in wheelchairs and diapers being given strip searches at airport security checkpoints. And then, Trump's strident calls to "build the wall" are all part of the same hysteria. It's the same reason why so many Americans want to keep and bear firearms. It's all done in the name of taking a bite out of crime.

I used to walk to school on my own - even in rough areas in the 1970s when the crime rate was much higher than now. But nowadays, most parents drive their kids to school.

Comparing the anecdotal mom and pop general store in Podunk again provides skewed perception. The stores near me don't have height markers. They have video in many cases, but that is because it's cheap and accessible. In the past, the option wasn't as readily available, or available at all.

It's hard to find hard data, but 'Retail Crime, Security and Loss Prevention: An Encyclopedic Reference' is worth a look.

It might be worth looking at, but back 100 years ago, more people were living in rural or semi-rural conditions anyway. The cities were viewed as overcrowded, slummy, dirty, crime-ridden "dens of iniquity." I recall reading how some cities (like NYC) had raw sewage running down the streets with people crowded into tenements.

However, all four of my grandparents were born on farms, so they were spared such horrors in their youth. They were certainly aware of the immorality of the cities, even back in those days, but when people speak of moral decline in the modern sense, it's implied that the "city mentality" has pervaded all throughout the country.

Really?

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co - Wikipedia

Borg-Warner Corp. v. Anchor Coupling Co.

Davis v. General Foods Corporation, 21 F. Supp. 445 (S.D.N.Y. 1937)

My point here is not that things are exactly the same as they ever were. They are not. The world changes. But the essential nature of people does not simply change. Whilst we might 'remember' how much more trustworthy people were in the past, we are likely judging the people around us. I try hard to surround myself with trustworthy people today. How representative are they of society?

It's a form of ingroup bias, basically.

Maybe, although one thing to consider is that, overall, populations have grown larger and people are more urbanized and transient than they once were. It was a lot more difficult to be dishonest with neighbors you expected to see every day in a small town where people know each other. This leads to the question of whether it's even "natural" for humans to live in such large numbers in crowded urban conditions. I recall some earlier social psychology experiments using rats and putting them in their own "city" which became overcrowded and horrible.

What we're seeing today, in terms of population growth, urbanization, industrialization - this is all unprecedented. We've never had anything like this in recorded history before.

It may or may not indicate anything about our "essential nature," but it may be a confirmation that people are products of their environment and the societies they're born and raised in. And as you noted about "perceptions" (skewed or otherwise), these are merely part of humans' responses to their environment and what they're faced with on a daily basis. If humans do immoral things, it's only because "everyone else is doing it."

This may be why people often look at popular culture as helping to shape the environment which may lead to human perceptions of it which may shape the view that society is in a moral decline.

So, is there too much litigation these days? Sure, it would appear so to me. But this isn't due to a moral decline. And people 'back in the day' might have liked to seal a deal with a firm handshake (and I'm ignoring here who was actually entitled to MAKE deals, which is a bigger moral change to me) but reality is that contracts were broken.

It could be argued that too much litigation is a symptom of moral decline. If everything was so hunky-dory, no one would have any reason to sue one another. Of course, "back in the day," people and communities were said to have been more self-reliant - back when they didn't have to depend on "big gov" to solve their problems.

People solved their own problems in their own ways, but that too has been called into question, especially when it involved people taking the law into their own hands. A small, close-knit community might single out and shun people who "didn't belong" or were considered a "bad influence." So, there was that ugly side that you mentioned. I don't deny that, but it's also the reason why I tend to be more collectivist and far-left in my overall philosophy. It's the only real way for people to peacefully coexist in an urban, industrialized society under diverse, multiracial, multicultural conditions.

If we want "individualism" and "self-reliance" (which themselves are often seen as moral principles), without the interference of "big gov" (as many modern capitalists proclaim), then we'll have to go back to the days of people resolving their own problems on their own. Some people actually want that (such as the growing alt-right), and they might perceive it as the "lesser of two evils" compared to what we have now.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I often see people decry the moral decline of humanity. Commonly (but not universally) these are Christians who see some larger narrative at play.

I have often argued that I don't see it, but their point around moral decline is rarely the focus of the thread, and so these things pass, particularly with morals being subjective and all...ahem...

Anywhoos, I thought I'd make a thread more specifically on the moral decline of humanity, or more specifically, the lack thereof. I'm not suggesting we're perfect...far, far, far from it. But we never have been. What I think is disrespectful to current generations is the attitude I see portrayed around how things were 'better' in some fuzzily identified historical period often coinciding with the authors youth, or (even more tenuously) the childhood of a parent.

Enough ramble...I'm happy to take comment either on my general belief, or on any of the linked articles below. These are not chosen for any particular reason other than to be representative of reality we sometimes forget, imho.

How an 'ugly law' stayed on Chicago's books for 93 years

The East St. Louis Race Riot Left Dozens Dead, Devastating a Community on the Rise | At the Smithsonian | Smithsonian

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ination/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.51d4955df0e4

Burning question of the day: 1950s newspaper clipping shows how far women's rights have come | Daily Mail Online

Opinion | The Not-So-Good Old Days

I think some people would consider environmental crimes to have increased over time, and you do not address those. Do you feel respect for the environment is increasing? How about the behavior of people towards the future of the human race and of the planet?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think some people would consider environmental crimes to have increased over time, and you do not address those. Do you feel respect for the environment is increasing? How about the behavior of people towards the future of the human race and of the planet?

To be fair, I wasn't trying to be all-encompassing, since I have no idea how that would be possible.
Whilst we are more aware of the damage certain behaviours do to the environment, I would think we are certainly not worse that previous. There is a judgement to be made on how much ignorance is a defence in terms of morality, I suppose, but I can't see that it can be used to argue someone is more moral, only that we can't know what they would have done with greater insight.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But they do indicate what people are watching and what they like. Those who observed that standards were being lowered indicated that people wanted more sex, violence, and a generally cynical outlook on life - that could be cited as evidence of moral decline.

Of course it could be. That is basically the rationale behind the OP, though. People can cite various things as evidence of moral decline, but they appear more interested in window dressings than reality. If you are arguing that there was veneer of polite morality which existed in the past which doesn't now, I'd agree. But that is not my point.

Well, some might argue that we were already in a state of moral decline by 1960, so the fact that Lumpy and Kathy engaged in supposedly "immoral" activities after those shows, that would confirm such a view.

Of course, some would. That is the nature of this timeless argument.

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. - commonly attributed to Socrates

However, I used those specific examples because you had raised those two particular shows as evidence of greater morality. You don't find it illustrative that on those two particular shows you chose, I could easily find evidence of what would generally be considered immoral behaviour by major figures on the shows? That doesn't seem to indicate a mismatch between what was presented and how life actually was?
But sure, let's roll back the clock then, if the magical moral period was further back...

Clark Gable? Scandals of Classic Hollywood: Clark Gable, the Scandal That Wasn’t
Katherine Hepburn? Sex fixer to the stars lifts lid on scandal in Hollywood's golden age

No one is saying that everything was idyllic or perfect back in the old days. Sure, one can probably find a good deal of anecdotal evidence of moral turpitude in previous eras, but I'm not sure that it proves that society was any more or less moral than it is now. The perception being addressed in your OP would suggest that there are conflicting views and variant definitions of how "morality" is defined, along with how that definition has developed and changed over the past century or more.

Indeed, I'm not suggesting anything more than that people who say we were more moral 'back in the day' are doing today's generation a disservice, and talking through their hat. I'm not suggested current time are 'moral' nor even offering a definition of what 'moral' is.

In the past, morality was seemingly viewed as "black and white," whereas nowadays, people are far more accepting of the "gray area" than they used to be.

To a point. I think there was a lot of effort put into the perception of morality. I'd suggest Victorian Secrets (Stephen Fry) as an interesting case study in what I mean.

As a moral issue, I've read some people lament about how there is a growing lack of community and how the spirit of volunteerism and public service has been in decline. I recall an article I read a while back about how various public service organizations (Lions, Kiwanis, Rotary Club, etc.) are seeing declining membership, while they were once a mainstay in every community.

People commonly conflate change with decline. So, sure, Lions memberships might be declining. That doesn't suggest public activity is though.
Giving Statistics : Charity Navigator

I would suggest people are commonly time poor when compared to the past, and that tends to inform their methods in terms of charitable giving and works.

Another example which often comes to mind is that there is a certain section of the downtown area and vicinity which has a certain "hippie-esque" vibe to it. Former hippies and others of that particular bent became shopkeepers and business owners along a certain nostalgic 60s "leftish" theme, yet this same group of business owners are the loudest voices in wanting the local government to use the police to get rid of transients, homeless people, and other assorted "bums" who they believe are hurting their businesses.

Did you read the link to 'Ugly Laws' in my initial OP? If not, it would seem relevant here.

They betrayed their principles which they once touted and held close to heart - all for the sake of profit, no different than the right-wing capitalists they claim to oppose, and yet...

This may also be seen as a decline in morality, as selfishness, narcissism, materialism, consumerism, and greed have become more prevalent, while any sense of community or earlier ideals of "fight the power" or "question authority" have fallen by the wayside.

You think people question authority less now? That's an interesting perspective, almost worthy of it's own thread.
I would disagree.

Do you live out in the country or in some low-crime area? A lot of people in America live in gated communities or have some sort of private security service. In some areas, I see how property owners make a point of posting signs on their property to let people know that they're being protected by some private security company. Or there might be Neighborhood Watch signs posted in the area. This has also become more common, growing out of the crime waves which took place in the 70s and 80s which led to a public backlash and calls to "take a bite out of crime."

Nah, I live in a suburb of Melbourne. It's a city of about 5 million. It's always hard crossing borders in a comparitive sense, but anecdotally, I think the homicide and burglary rates here are pretty reasonable for a big city, but there are too many assaults.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/just-how-dangerous-is-melbourne-20100313-q59o.html

Advertising and marketing is also more targeted, and (unfortunately) profit motives and social media have increasingly promoted sensationalism in mainstream journalism.
There were very real crime issues in the 80s which show that period (the period of my youth) as a peak in many areas. So, do I think of my youth as more violent than today? No, but some quick research leads me to believe it was, at least in many ways.

Programs such as this, as well as strong public support for anti-crime measures, the militarization of police departments, "three strikes" laws, "stand your ground" laws, and an exponential increase in incarcerations (shown in the chart I posted upthread) - this no doubt had an effect on eventually lowering the crime rate. The rate of violent crime peaked in the early 1990s, but since then, it has shown a noticeable decline.

But even that wouldn't be an indication of morality becoming better or worse. Many have lamented the excesses of the police and the rise of surveillance and other security measures being taken, especially since 9/11. We sometimes hear horror stories of elderly women in wheelchairs and diapers being given strip searches at airport security checkpoints. And then, Trump's strident calls to "build the wall" are all part of the same hysteria. It's the same reason why so many Americans want to keep and bear firearms. It's all done in the name of taking a bite out of crime.

I'm completely unsure how that refutes the OP, though.

I used to walk to school on my own - even in rough areas in the 1970s when the crime rate was much higher than now. But nowadays, most parents drive their kids to school.

Same here. We're working out whether to let our daughters walk to school right now.
You don't see how this supports an argument that 'declining morals' is perception rather than reality?

(cont-)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

(-cont)

It might be worth looking at, but back 100 years ago, more people were living in rural or semi-rural conditions anyway. The cities were viewed as overcrowded, slummy, dirty, crime-ridden "dens of iniquity." I recall reading how some cities (like NYC) had raw sewage running down the streets with people crowded into tenements.

However, all four of my grandparents were born on farms, so they were spared such horrors in their youth. They were certainly aware of the immorality of the cities, even back in those days, but when people speak of moral decline in the modern sense, it's implied that the "city mentality" has pervaded all throughout the country.

Yeah, we hear that here too. I think it's fair to suggest that cities have problems unique to cities, and that this has always been the case, but our increased population density means these problems are more commonly experienced.
The flip side is that rural areas also have unique problems. Drug culture and suicides amongst young men would be examples.

It may or may not indicate anything about our "essential nature," but it may be a confirmation that people are products of their environment and the societies they're born and raised in. And as you noted about "perceptions" (skewed or otherwise), these are merely part of humans' responses to their environment and what they're faced with on a daily basis. If humans do immoral things, it's only because "everyone else is doing it."

This may be why people often look at popular culture as helping to shape the environment which may lead to human perceptions of it which may shape the view that society is in a moral decline.

I get what you mean, and there is some truth there, but I think it's a long bow, and a lot to put on 'pop culture'.
Still, if I am looking for strong, independent female role models for my girls, I have more chance today. If I hope that they see people of all colours as having equal value, then I have more chance today. If I want them to avoid swearing, or gay kissing, yesteryear was clearly better.
Obviously I'm over-simplifying here, and some aspects of pop culture horrify me, including much of 'reality' tv. But that is precisely because it is dressing up things which are not real as if they are, and encouraging skewed perspectives of reality because of it.

I'll take the swings and roundabouts of actual reality over polite papering over, or soundbite driven sensationalism.

It could be argued that too much litigation is a symptom of moral decline. If everything was so hunky-dory, no one would have any reason to sue one another. Of course, "back in the day," people and communities were said to have been more self-reliant - back when they didn't have to depend on "big gov" to solve their problems.

That is pure perception. There has never been a time when everything was so 'hunky-dory' that people wouldn't sue each other. Or...speaking of self-reliant...take matters into their own hands.

People solved their own problems in their own ways, but that too has been called into question, especially when it involved people taking the law into their own hands. A small, close-knit community might single out and shun people who "didn't belong" or were considered a "bad influence." So, there was that ugly side that you mentioned. I don't deny that, but it's also the reason why I tend to be more collectivist and far-left in my overall philosophy. It's the only real way for people to peacefully coexist in an urban, industrialized society under diverse, multiracial, multicultural conditions.

If we want "individualism" and "self-reliance" (which themselves are often seen as moral principles), without the interference of "big gov" (as many modern capitalists proclaim), then we'll have to go back to the days of people resolving their own problems on their own. Some people actually want that (such as the growing alt-right), and they might perceive it as the "lesser of two evils" compared to what we have now.

It's a fair conclusion. However, I don't see individualism or self-reliance as moral issues at all.
I think more that these are vehicles to allow individuals to make decisions around morality rather than collective decisions. Interestingly that is the very opposite of what commonly happened in small communities back in the 50s. It wasn't the government enforcing morality, but the town itself, as I think you're aware. I tend to find many things tied to 'morality' are actually tied to conformance and 'fitting in'.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Before she died, my gran lived in a working class neighbourhood that had a good sense of community and where people would look out for one another so was pretty safe. Over 30 years it became a crime-ridden majority immigrant neighbourhood without any sense of community, where she was the victim of crime on more than one occasion and were she couldn't walk the streets after dark.

Can just imagine the look on her face if someone tried to present statistical arguments that said things were actually improving

Because she is looking locally. And there is no argument being made that some areas aren't less safe now.
Do you think there are areas now which are less dangerous than they were 30 years ago?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, a lot of older, traditional neighborhoods have declined to a great degree.

It's hard for me to give examples without knowing which cities you're speaking of, but there are also older, traditional neighbourhoods which have improved to a great degree.

As far as people saying things are improving, coupled with outright denials of our decline, I just see it as a variation of the "Don't Worry, Be Happy" mentality that the ruling class has been attempting to foist on the people for decades now.

1) The OP doesn't argue that things are 'improving' and neither is it talking about economics, or politics. It is specifically talking about morality, and in response to commonly heard cries about said morality 'declining', whatever that actually means.
2) I guess there was a time you think the ruling class was not trying to 'foist' a perception on the rest of us?

The decline in crime and violence might also be attributed to better technologies, such as video and other surveillance methods. Criminals don't like to get caught, so they mind their P's and Q's when they believe they're under surveillance. It reduces their opportunities and thus reduces crime.

Wait...so reduced crime is due to increased technology and incarceration, but increased crime is a sign of moral decay?
At some point you have to realise, having it both ways like that is exactly what I am suggesting people do.

Another factor can be summed up in the following chart:

When more and more bad guys are put behind bars, there are fewer of them out on the streets to create mischief.

So increased incarceration is a sign of...what? You're almost suggesting it's a good thing, here.

In any case, this is an interesting set of graphs, if you do want to look further at the topic.
Suffice to say, I think overlaying changing policy around incarcerations for drug use would be well worth considering.

How America became the world's leader in incarceration, in 22 maps and charts

 

[Stevicus]

Of course, some would. That is the nature of this timeless argument.

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. - commonly attributed to Socrates

However, I used those specific examples because you had raised those two particular shows as evidence of greater morality. You don't find it illustrative that on those two particular shows you chose, I could easily find evidence of what would generally be considered immoral behaviour by major figures on the shows? That doesn't seem to indicate a mismatch between what was presented and how life actually was?
But sure, let's roll back the clock then, if the magical moral period was further back...

Clark Gable? Scandals of Classic Hollywood: Clark Gable, the Scandal That Wasn’t
Katherine Hepburn? Sex fixer to the stars lifts lid on scandal in Hollywood's golden age

Well, sure, as I said, you can find anecdotal evidence of such things, but you might also find strong condemnations of such behaviors (if and when they were ever brought to the public eye). Even before the age of movies and television, one could likely find criticism of actors and theater as being immoral. One can probably find it all throughout history.

The very fact that religions have entire lists of activities and behaviors they consider "immoral" is proof enough that people were doing these things even back in Biblical times, and they didn't like it. My own ancestors left their homeland because they thought it was getting "too permissive." A lot of American provincialism and religious fundamentalism can be seen as a reaction against some of the bawdy "licentiousness" and what they saw as "depravity." Some people in modern times criticized such views as being "old fashioned" and "fuddy duddy," which by itself creates the perception that the old days really were like that.

The desire to improve morality in society is not necessarily a bad thing. Of course, we can compare different eras and say that people weren't as moral back in the old days as people might idealize, and use that to claim that current lamentations over "moral decline" are an "urban myth," but I'm not sure what the actual point would be.

Indeed, I'm not suggesting anything more than that people who say we were more moral 'back in the day' are doing today's generation a disservice, and talking through their hat. I'm not suggested current time are 'moral' nor even offering a definition of what 'moral' is.

True, although it's just as much of a disservice when some of these traditional ideas of morality are dismissed as "old fashioned." If it's seen as something from the past, a discarded relic, or otherwise no longer relevant in today's modern world, then that, too, contributes to the perception we're talking about.

To a point. I think there was a lot of effort put into the perception of morality. I'd suggest Victorian Secrets (Stephen Fry) as an interesting case study in what I mean.

I'm not familiar with that book. I tried to Google it and get a summary, but all I got were a bunch of links trying to sell the audiobook. But apart from that, I have come across various stories and tales about English aristocrats getting naughty in the bedroom even during Victorian times. It seems to be a popular theme, perhaps as an attempt to tear down old myths about morality of the past and perceptions people hold today.

But what I've seen in my life is also tempered by looking at different branches of my own family. My parents were divorced when I was very young, so I had a compartmentalized relationship with different sides of my family. My mother's side mostly lived in the Los Angeles area (with mostly liberal morals), while my father's side lived in the rural Midwest - and the differences were stark - as different as night and day. They were very conservative and staunchly religious. So, when they might talk about "moral decline" (although I don't recall them using that particular phrase), it was easy to see what they were talking about. For them, it wasn't just some public image they were trying to present; they really believed. They would be equally critical of those naughty European aristocrats, probably even more so if they were exposed as hypocrites.

People commonly conflate change with decline. So, sure, Lions memberships might be declining. That doesn't suggest public activity is though.
Giving Statistics : Charity Navigator

I would suggest people are commonly time poor when compared to the past, and that tends to inform their methods in terms of charitable giving and works.

Well, that's something that's hard to fathom, at least when you speak of people being "time poor." Our technology has produced some great time-saving devices where people should actually have more time for their daily activities than they did in previous eras.

I don't think it's necessarily a matter of conflating change with decline. It really depends on whether people see it as change for the better or change for the worse.

Did you read the link to 'Ugly Laws' in my initial OP? If not, it would seem relevant here.

Yes, I agree.

You think people question authority less now? That's an interesting perspective, almost worthy of it's own thread.
I would disagree.

I've noticed it over the past few decades, at least in the sense that "authority" has more common people in their corner. There was more of an anti-establishment bent back in the 60s and 70s when I was growing up, but that trend has slowly reversed since the Reagan era. "Authority" fought back and also worked hard to clean up their "image" in the hearts and minds of many people - although that's yet another false perception, just like, as you suggest, the image of "morality" in Victorian times was a false one.

I've noticed that those who question authority nowadays are routinely dismissed and ridiculed as "anti-government nuts" and so forth. I also see it a lot in the sharp reactions against anyone who might question the reputations of the police or various government agencies (such as the FBI, CIA, etc.). There are far too many people out there who go out of their way to defend the government and other such "authority," and that, by itself, has not gone unnoticed.

Even here in this forum, one person called me an "idiot" for actually daring to suggest that the police should be more transparent and forthcoming with information after the police shot an innocent man. These kinds of attitudes are toxic in what should be a "free" society with a vigilant populace.

Nah, I live in a suburb of Melbourne. It's a city of about 5 million. It's always hard crossing borders in a comparitive sense, but anecdotally, I think the homicide and burglary rates here are pretty reasonable for a big city, but there are too many assaults.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/just-how-dangerous-is-melbourne-20100313-q59o.html

Advertising and marketing is also more targeted, and (unfortunately) profit motives and social media have increasingly promoted sensationalism in mainstream journalism.
There were very real crime issues in the 80s which show that period (the period of my youth) as a peak in many areas. So, do I think of my youth as more violent than today? No, but some quick research leads me to believe it was, at least in many ways.

I'm not sure about Australia, although in the U.S., it has been reasonably shown that violent crime has declined since it peaked in the late 80s/early 90s. It's difficult to say why this is the case, although if one is solely looking at crime stats, one might conclude that "moral decline" bottomed out 25-30 years ago and that we're in a "moral upswing." I wouldn't argue that myself, since I wouldn't just look at crime stats as a sole factor. But by the same token, some have made similar arguments in that there are fewer wars nowadays and that the world is more peaceful than it used to be. Even in this very thread, I've seen arguments along those lines

I'm completely unsure how that refutes the OP, though.

Well, it's not really meant to be a refutation. My only point was that there's a certain ebb and flow of "morality" and "immorality." If, for example, people believe that society is in a state of "moral decline," it's generally treated as a call to clean things up and make proposals to make society more moral. People react to what they see as "immorality" and work to change things, sometimes even to extreme levels.

Same here. We're working out whether to let our daughters walk to school right now.
You don't see how this supports an argument that 'declining morals' is perception rather than reality?

(cont-)

I see it more as a conflict between competing value systems.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Steven Pinker has a wonderful book on this: The Better Angles of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined.

He points out that not so long ago it was common to have public executions., racial violence was tolerated or even expected, and women were universally second class citizens. The level of violence overall has been decreasing for decades.

We have been in a period of moral *incline*, not moral decline.

B-b-but we're not allowed to set gays on fire any more and there's all these uppity women making their own decisions without any input from men! And we're just supposed to treat Muslims like regular people now? What's with that? And they don't even teach kids cursive writing any more! The imminent collapse of civilization, I tell you!