Debate Mansion

   

moral values- irrelavant today?

Post Reply New Post

Page 1 of 5

Page 1
Page   of 5
Page 2 Page 5

zorrro

Goldie

zorrro

Joined: 29 July 2008

Posts: 2141

Posted: 30 November 2010 at 6:48am | IP Logged

Some of the posts recently on DM are making me wonder if moral values are of any relevance today or are they obsolete Confused  Do those age old values serve any purpose ?

Do we need to have some of the age old values taught by our parents or do we reject each one of them outright in the name of liberty /free will / modernity?
 We can discuss the pros and cons of getting rid of morality in our society .
 
I can understand some people wanting to stay away from some threads but hey this is intended to be a clean thread . feel free to post your honest opinion Tongue

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

diamond444blue-ice

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "moral values- irrelavant today?" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13877

Posted: 30 November 2010 at 10:39am | IP Logged
Originally posted by zorrro

Some of the posts recently on DM are making me wonder if moral values are of any relevance today or are they obsolete Confused  Do those age old values serve any purpose ?

Do we need to have some of the age old values taught by our parents or do we reject each one of them outright in the name of liberty /free will / modernity?
 We can discuss the pros and cons of getting rid of morality in our society .
 
I can understand some people wanting to stay away from some threads but hey this is intended to be a clean thread . feel free to post your honest opinion Tongue

I take it that you opened this thread because of the other thread on legalisation of prostitution.

To answer your questions in short, yes there is relevance of morals and irrespective of the time and era, there has to be some moral values. There are some universal morals like stealing, rape, murder, etc. are immoral acts.
It's also good to lead your life according to some principles or morals which might differ from person to person.
But in that thread we were not discussing how people should lead their individual life, it was a question of on what basis should a law be formed for or against something. When it's a question of legislation, there should be something more than just personal morality and individual choices.



Edited by souro - 30 November 2010 at 10:44am

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

zorrro

_Angie_

IF-Rockerz

_Angie_

Joined: 21 February 2008

Posts: 9888

Posted: 30 November 2010 at 11:40am | IP Logged
Traditional morality is inestimably important. Without it, all kinds of injustices and oppressions against individual persons are sanctioned.

The abandonment of traditional morality leads to expropriation of private property, heavy taxation, theft, waste, compulsory association, totalitarian thought control, sexual exploitation, homeless children, fraud and dishonesty, disloyalty to family, ever increasing government power and control, envy, indiscipline, laziness, individual irresponsibility, indecency, rudeness, impoliteness, social engineering and genocide, not to mention impiety.

The values of a society derive from its spiritual and moral foundations. When those foundations are destroyed a vacuum exists and people can be manipulated according to the ideology and power ambitions of ruling elites.
 
True human progress lies in a society organised around freedom - the liberty of the individual, subject to law based on and social institutions supporting, individual responsibility.  Honesty finds its embodiment in law, but law which seeks to regulate dishonest conduct cannot be effective in a society where the majority of individuals do not value honesty.
 
There are values which are important for the future of a society which cannot be embodied in law such as the family which is the basic unit of society. When family life disintegrates, society disintegrates. As men and women become too individualistic they think of their own needs and forget their children and spouses. Excessive individualism makes it impossible to build human relationships which are essential for enduring marriages and strong families.
 
Increasing incidences of marriage breakdowns, permissive  are related to a lack of commitment and the inability of a rising generation to build enduring relationships. The institution of the family cannot be established by law. It can be supported by law .Herein lies the importance of a social morality outside the law, the importance of which is recognised by the vast majority of the people.
 

The family has been an important part  of all civilisations and of primitive cultures too. Parental care and nurture is important even in the animal world  The family provides meaning, continuity and purpose in the lives of individuals. It provides a nurturing and protective environment in which children can progress to adulthood and the best environment for the care of the aged, the disabled and the young.

Traditionally, the family has played an important part in the maintenance of law and order. It is not possible to have policemen on every street. Control which parents traditionally exercised over children (a control which is no longer effective in the same way) helped to maintain law and order. The breakdown of the family and the decay of discipline in the schools which the progressivists (so-called) have engineered has contributed in a very large measure to the groW*H of teenage vandalism, crime, drugs and alcoholism. The escalation of these problems corresponds to the decline of the family and familial discipline and to the groW*H of permissiveness.

The decline of the importance of the family unit creates not only social consequences but also economic effects.

When these primary services are greatly reduced, or even totally disappear, they do not cease to be essential. Children have to be fed, cared for and educated. The sick must be treated, the old must be assisted. All that happens is that the services of great economic value, once performed by the family without economic cost, are transferred to the government, which has to pay handsomely to ensure that the same services are provided by professionals, teachers, doctors, nurses, social and welfare workers, the proprietors and staff of hospitals and homes for the aged and other individuals and institutions. This is one of the basic reasons for the explosion of welfare expenditure which has far-reaching economic and budgetary consequences.

There is no society which can survive without strong family relationships. is it too late for the present civilisation to realise this?


Edited by angie.4u - 30 November 2010 at 11:43am

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

zorrroblue-ice

mr.ass

IF-Rockerz

mr.ass

Joined: 27 October 2008

Posts: 9508

Posted: 30 November 2010 at 11:43am | IP Logged
The important aspect is goal. What is our societal goal? What can be done to achieve it?

We have to take into consideration that we are in a diverse society, so the goals of each person are different. People should live and let live, ie, live uninhibited,but at the same time, the general goal should be not to ruin anyone elses life in society.

Old world values are good in theory, they have to be made flexible in todays current world.


Edited by old-black-joe - 30 November 2010 at 1:20pm

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20237

Posted: 30 November 2010 at 11:50am | IP Logged
Originally posted by old-black-joe

The important aspect is goal. What is our societal goal? What can be done to achieve it?

We have to take into consideration that we are in a diverse society, so the goals of each persons are different. People should live and let live, ie, live uninhibited,but at the same time, the general goal should be not to ruin anyone elses life in society.

Old world values are good in theory, they have to be made flexible in todays current world.


Sometimes, I have to say you surprise me. Most of the time you post, one can expect a somewhat on topic, but very off-beat and weird OBJ-esque comment. But every now and then you post something that is thoughtful and sensible. 

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

mr.ass

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20237

Posted: 30 November 2010 at 12:07pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by angie.4u


There is no society which can survive without strong family relationships. is it too late for the present civilisation to realise this?


The question is what do you define as family - a traditional blood related mother, father & children structure, or people essentially coming together, living and working together to form and interwoven structure that functions like a family would.

Family and social dynamics has changed over time. It is not just the traditional parents and children structure we see. There are a variety of different families out there. We have single parents, raising children. We have uncles, aunts, grandparents, cousins even siblings raising young children in the family when parents are deceased or absent for a reason. We have homosexual parents raising children. We have families choosing to have no children. There are families who choose to adopt and raise children of multiple ethnicities. We have families who take in foster children in and out until they are placed in permanent homes. In tough economic times we have groups of friends living together long term and sharing cost of living. Many people even in the states are choosing a commune system where multiple families share one dwelling unit. Actually now even in the states some people are reverting to joint family systems to share costs and opening a whole new world.

In the seventies Diff'rent strokes showed a new family where a single older father was raising a multiracial family. In the eighties we saw Full House with three friends raising a family. In the nineties there was Who's the Boss where two single parents lived together raising their own families. Today we have Modern Family, Raising Hope, Two & Half Men, all showing so many different - sometimes messed up relationships - but one things for certain - family.

If we have a very rigid stringent perspective of family, then it will appear that family in essence has disappeared and so have family values. However, if we accept a dynamic family model then our society has evolved to have so many different forms of families with people coming together to form so many beautiful and intricate relationships and social dynamics.

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20237

Posted: 30 November 2010 at 12:12pm | IP Logged
In my opinion traditional virtue ethics where we classify everything as black and white, follow rigid notions of morality are outdated.

Personally I subscribe to the moral perspective of relativist utilitarianism. Moral values are relative to the situation, time, people, background and culture. There is no black or white answer, and we have to view things in a pragmatic perspective for greater good. We don't view the world from the same lenses are the generation before and the next generation will for sure have a new set of lenses.

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13877

Posted: 30 November 2010 at 12:18pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by angie.4u

The breakdown of the family and the decay of discipline in the schools which the progressivists (so-called) have engineered has contributed in a very large measure to the groW*H of teenage vandalism, crime, drugs and alcoholism. The escalation of these problems corresponds to the decline of the family and familial discipline and to the groW*H of permissiveness.

I somewhat agree with the rest of the post but not this part. Progressive people didn't encourage decay of discipline in schools, over indulging parents did. Progressive would be to embrace new things but only the good ones, not vandalism, crime, drugs and alcohol. Something like introducing computer in school work, just when computer is emerging as the next hot thing, is what one can call progressive.


Edited by souro - 30 November 2010 at 12:18pm

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

zorrroblue-ice

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
In wake of SKS: censorship/moral responsibility? --arti-- 9 651 12 August 2009 at 6:04pm
By angelic_devil
Valentine's day - values anything?

2 3 4

raj5000 31 1616 15 February 2008 at 6:10am
By rockstallion
Soldiers killing is moral?

2

raj5000 15 746 02 October 2007 at 10:28pm
By sareg
Non Vegetarians Animal Activists - Moral?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 14 15

raj5000 117 5041 06 April 2007 at 6:41pm
By raunaq
Moral Inspector of TV? realitybites 8 521 07 February 2007 at 12:13pm
By realitybites

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.