Our moral decline, and other urban myths...

[Stevicus]

(-cont)



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.

Then that may add to the perception that there is 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.

I think we're seeing different perceptions, though, not just in terms of idealizing the past, but by the same token, the skewed demonizations of it as well. Both of my grandmothers (and many in their generation) would have been good role models, as they were strong and independent. And not everyone necessarily went along with the racial ideals of the old Confederacy, which only existed a mere four years. But to hear some people talk, they think it was the center of American life through the 18th, 19th, and much of the 20th centuries. These kinds of skewed perceptions also create the wrong impression when comparing then and now.

A lot of people today react against "political correctness" as being another attempt at creating false perceptions of reality. But many might take a more candid view of things and say that things really haven't changed as much as people think. A lot of people of color are still oppressed, languishing in the ghettos, without any real hope. And the idea of a "strong independent female" might also be questioned, at least in the sense of how it might be compared with women of past eras, such as my grandmothers who were hard-working, tough, and strong-willed. But they were neither "princesses" nor female Rambos. (In fact, if they were still alive, they'd be arguing very loudly that society is in a profound state of moral decline today. They were both very outspoken about their views of morality, far more so than my grandfathers, who were more inclined to go with the flow.)

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.

Well, as far as taking matters into their own hands, at least in early America, there were isolated portions where the "law" was too far away to be able to do anything.

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'.

Yeah, I think that's the point. It's a matter of conflicting value systems and ideas of morality which have changed over time. And some people do see individualism or self-reliance as moral issues, at least in the sense that they see political freedom as a moral consideration. Some people believe it's immoral to eschew individualism in favor of collectivism, since they see it as infringing on people's personal freedom. And self-reliance is the idea that people should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and not rely on government handouts. I used to know a Southern Baptist preacher who loudly decried the idea of a "womb to tomb" welfare state, suggesting that it was immoral for a government to take care of its own people.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

Some of the improvements of which you speak could be referring to gentrification.

But a lot of small towns have declined, as well as once booming cities in the Rust Belt. Detroit is often used as the poster boy for urban decline in America.

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.

I wasn't really referring to the OP as much as other posts in this thread, such as the mentioning of the book by Steven Pinker which suggested that things are improving from what they were in the past.

As for economics and politics, I don't see how those topics can be avoided in a discussion of society, public perceptions of morality, and the changes which were brought about (many through political action), as well as competing/conflicting moral value systems - which gets to the core of what the topic is ostensibly about.

2) I guess there was a time you think the ruling class was not trying to 'foist' a perception on the rest of us?

No, I didn't say that, although in the past, it was a lot more difficult for them to do so without the technology of mass media at their disposal.

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.

I think you misunderstood my point. The increased surveillance/security and incarceration is the result of increased crime. Again, I was referring to the point about "why violence has declined" which was part of the title of Steven Pinker's book mentioned upthread. The apparent conclusion is that people have turned over a new leaf, embracing the "better angels of their nature," but I would suggest that there could be other explanations for the decline in violent crime. It's not because people have suddenly gotten more "moral" or anything like that.

I recall people in the USSR saying that there was no crime, that people could walk down the streets of Moscow, a city of 7 million, late at night and not have any worries about their personal safety. One guy told me that when Stalin was in power, a person could leave their wallet at a cafe or bar, come back two hours later, and find it exactly in the same place where he left it. No one would dare touch it or try to steal it. Does that mean a communist society was more moral than the decadent, morally-depraved West? Or does it mean that humans are essentially immoral creatures in their natural state and that it takes an iron-fisted authoritarian government to keep most of us in line?

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

Well, I agree with your point about incarcerations over drug use. The war on drugs has largely been a failure and it's led to America's version of its own "gulag" system. Plus, privatized prisons have created a cottage industry which has grown into a powerful lobby.

But no, I'm not suggesting it's a good thing. I'm just saying that the decline of violence is not, in and of itself, sufficient evidence to prove that more people are embracing the "better angels of their nature." I don't believe that for a second. In addition to having conflicting moral value systems, there also appears to be conflicting ideas of what kind of false imagery and skewed perceptions we should use to cover up our sins.

 

[Augustus]

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?

It was more a point about how some people could legitimately consider there to be a decline in morality because they are focused on what happens locally. Broad statistical trends mean little to people when their realities tell them something different.

People don't care about the average, just that which they perceive and how this relates to what they consider to be important.