Are we in moral decline?

[Tessa K]

This is interesting. It's long but the Abstract and Discussion have all the relevant findings. I don't have the skillz to check the stats but I'm sure some of you do.

The tldr is, unsurprisingly, no - but the reasons and consequences are interesting.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586- ... 7-x#MOESM2

[IvanV]

This is interesting. It's long but the Abstract and Discussion have all the relevant findings. I don't have the skillz to check the stats but I'm sure some of you do.

The tldr is, unsurprisingly, no - but the reasons and consequences are interesting.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586- ... 7-x#MOESM2

So it just part of the usual delusion that the youth of today are terrible and do everything worse than us.

[Sciolus]

Either I'm an outlier or I'm not old enough yet, but I reckon that the general state of morality, in Britain at least, is much better now than it was when I was young. There is much more tolerance, acceptance and adaptation to personal differences (including disability as well as the usual -isms), much less prurience about others' private lives and sexual habits, and the crime rate has steadily decreased (despite the best efforts of the police). It's worse in some respects, of course, notably the inequality of the super-rich, although even that is balanced by reduced classism at lower levels.

[bjn]

What Scolius said. The young ‘uns I know are a much nicer and more moral bunch on the whole. In the sense of respecting other people and who they are.

[IvanV]

Either I'm an outlier or I'm not old enough yet, but I reckon that the general state of morality, in Britain at least, is much better now than it was when I was young. There is much more tolerance, acceptance and adaptation to personal differences (including disability as well as the usual -isms), much less prurience about others' private lives and sexual habits, and the crime rate has steadily decreased (despite the best efforts of the police). It's worse in some respects, of course, notably the inequality of the super-rich, although even that is balanced by reduced classism at lower levels.

You are an outlier. You realise that the intolerance is immoral. But many people think that what they are being asked to tolerate is immoral, and it is the extending toleration that drives increased levels of immorality. In the extreme this is the Iranian view, and most people can see that the Iranian version is wrong. But they need to be taken one step at a time. They remain uncomfortable tolerating the many kinds of diversity they have been brought up to think is immoral.

[dyqik]

Either I'm an outlier or I'm not old enough yet, but I reckon that the general state of morality, in Britain at least, is much better now than it was when I was young. There is much more tolerance, acceptance and adaptation to personal differences (including disability as well as the usual -isms), much less prurience about others' private lives and sexual habits, and the crime rate has steadily decreased (despite the best efforts of the police). It's worse in some respects, of course, notably the inequality of the super-rich, although even that is balanced by reduced classism at lower levels.

You are an outlier. You realise that the intolerance is immoral. But many people think that what they are being asked to tolerate is immoral, and it is the extending toleration that drives increased levels of immorality. In the extreme this is the Iranian view, and most people can see that the Iranian version is wrong. But they need to be taken one step at a time. They remain uncomfortable tolerating the many kinds of diversity they have been brought up to think is immoral.

Yeah, but people who think like that are immoral.

[Gfamily]

Either I'm an outlier or I'm not old enough yet, but I reckon that the general state of morality, in Britain at least, is much better now than it was when I was young. There is much more tolerance, acceptance and adaptation to personal differences (including disability as well as the usual -isms), much less prurience about others' private lives and sexual habits, and the crime rate has steadily decreased (despite the best efforts of the police). It's worse in some respects, of course, notably the inequality of the super-rich, although even that is balanced by reduced classism at lower levels.

You are an outlier. You realise that the intolerance is immoral. But many people think that what they are being asked to tolerate is immoral,
...
They remain uncomfortable tolerating the many kinds of diversity they have been brought up to think is immoral.

Yes, many people do continue to think this, but (I think over time) more people now have brothers, sisters, cousins, nieces, nephews, and also friends with brothers, sisters... etc. whose lives are not confined to the 'norms' that they grew up with.
I would say (as per Sciolus) that the general state of morality is better.
However, what has recently developed, is a more vocal cuntfederacy of people who are in positions of influence (some because they're a bit 'tolerant and modern', and cheered on by others who were never really that) who are fixed in their view of 'what to be tolerant about' and anything wider than that is not to be tolerated because "it harms kids"

[Woodchopper]

On the other hand ...

There is no objective standard for morality. Moral or immoral are just what people think they are at the time.

A belief that people are getting more or less moral is based upon an implicit belief that they are getting closer to or further away from some external standard. But there isn't one. No one can be certain that subsequent generations won't take the view that what we think is moral is for them immoral, and vice versa.

[Tessa K]

On the other hand ...

There is no objective standard for morality. Moral or immoral are just what people think they are at the time.

A belief that people are getting more or less moral is based upon an implicit belief that they are getting closer to or further away from some external standard. But there isn't one. No one can be certain that subsequent generations won't take the view that what we think is moral is for them immoral, and vice versa.

Agreed, morality is subjective. What most people think of currently as morality is either the way individuals treat each other or social values eg equality, tolerance, justice etc. The latter is less subjective but only tangentially about morality. But what law and social values prevail at any given point is not always an indicator of personal values; people can still be racist, misogynist, homophobic etc , they are just restrained from acting on it publicly or punished if they do (unless they're police...)

[tenchboy]

Thomas Hardy was considered immoral in his time. The vilification that followed the publication of Jude the Obscure is said to have been the reason he gave up prose writing. I read it again recently: after so long away, from the very first page it was like opening the front door and finding an old friend standing there. It reads now, to (a much older) me, as a plea for tolerance and understanding rather than knee-jerk condemnation of people who want to live their life in a different way. Parts of it could of have been written yesterday. (Except that no-one writes so beautifully any more).

[Woodchopper]

On the other hand ...

There is no objective standard for morality. Moral or immoral are just what people think they are at the time.

A belief that people are getting more or less moral is based upon an implicit belief that they are getting closer to or further away from some external standard. But there isn't one. No one can be certain that subsequent generations won't take the view that what we think is moral is for them immoral, and vice versa.

Agreed, morality is subjective. What most people think of currently as morality is either the way individuals treat each other or social values eg equality, tolerance, justice etc. The latter is less subjective but only tangentially about morality. But what law and social values prevail at any given point is not always an indicator of personal values; people can still be racist, misogynist, homophobic etc , they are just restrained from acting on it publicly or punished if they do (unless they're police...)

Even equality, tolerance and justice ultimately subjective.

Firstly, we are very selective about what kinds of kinds of equality, justice or tolerance are the priority for society. IMHO its great that we're celebrating Pride and greater equality of sexualities, but the last decades have also seen large increases in financial inequality. In my opinion, some aspects of equality are better and some worse. The judgment between them is ultimately subjective.

Secondly, future generations might criticize us for caring about equality, tolerance or justice at all. Its not difficult to imagine a scifi scenario in which people's morals are judged in terms of their collective protection of the biosphere. So our generation might be seen as far too tolerant of excessive consumption and pollution, too obedient to laws written by the corrupt and powerful, and too concerned with individualistic conceptions of equality that stood in the way of collective action. The problem is that any arguments that we are right and they would be wrong are ultimately subjective.

[Al Capone Junior]

That was an interesting article. Read the whole thing at work last night.

My two cents is that our overall morality has probably been improving, albeit slowly, for millennia. Abhorrent things that were commonplace in the past are unheard of today. Even things our grandparents and parents took as normal behaviors are frowned upon today. All for the good.

However I think social media and associated modern technologies may take this trend, along with Steven Pinker's better angels hypothesis, and throw them out the window.

Just the amount we seem to have devolved in the US in the last four or five years is astounding. The repugs have just about turned civility around to the point where mitch f.cking McConnell will probably be using the n-word on the floor of the Senate by year's end. And calls for physical violence against minorities (esp gay and trans ppl) are on the tips of their tongues, if not already being spoken aloud. IMO these are immoral acts, and thus their rising frequency indicates a lowering of overall morality.

I wouldn't put much stock in people's beliefs about past and present morality. Interesting psychological phenomenon, but not very useful. I would like to see more quantitative, objective analysis based on criteria that are hard to argue against. Not that I'm prepared to make this analysis myself.

[Tessa K]

That was an interesting article. Read the whole thing at work last night.

My two cents is that our overall morality has probably been improving, albeit slowly, for millennia. Abhorrent things that were commonplace in the past are unheard of today. Even things our grandparents and parents took as normal behaviors are frowned upon today. All for the good.

However I think social media and associated modern technologies may take this trend, along with Steven Pinker's better angels hypothesis, and throw them out the window.

Just the amount we seem to have devolved in the US in the last four or five years is astounding. The repugs have just about turned civility around to the point where mitch f.cking McConnell will probably be using the n-word on the floor of the Senate by year's end. And calls for physical violence against minorities (esp gay and trans ppl) are on the tips of their tongues, if not already being spoken aloud. IMO these are immoral acts, and thus their rising frequency indicates a lowering of overall morality.

I wouldn't put much stock in people's beliefs about past and present morality. Interesting psychological phenomenon, but not very useful. I would like to see more quantitative, objective analysis based on criteria that are hard to argue against. Not that I'm prepared to make this analysis myself.

The main difference now is that more people object to, and try to take action against, what they perceive as immoral or inhumane behaviour either because we're better informed about what goes on outside our own social group and/or because we've formed more tolerant views.

Treating others well isn't a new concept, of course.

Eg therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:12

or the Golden Rule of treating others as you would like to be treated, which appears in various philosophers' works, eg Kant's Categorical Imperative.

But even people who profess to be Christians are very good at ignoring this, of course. They're very selective about loving their neighbour.

Laws in the West are certainly more moral or humane than in the past but there is, and probably always will be, a tension between those who try to do the right thing by others and those who very much see the world in terms of Us and Them.

[dyqik]

The other major difference now is that we are aware of injustices in a much wider area, and from the points of view of a wider selection of people.

Before social media, the actions of a school board in Utah wouldn't be noticed outside that county in Utah, unless a court case got to the Supreme Court. The off-air rantings of a minor radio talk show host* wouldn't be noticed at all. The experiences of a black queer woman in Kentucky, or a refugee trying to enter the UK, wouldn't be on any of our radars. But now those things appear daily in our social media feeds, and national politicians respond to them.

*Approximate substitution for a podcaster/YouTuber

[Tessa K]

The other major difference now is that we are aware of injustices in a much wider area, and from the points of view of a wider selection of people.

Before social media, the actions of a school board in Utah wouldn't be noticed outside that county in Utah, unless a court case got to the Supreme Court. The off-air rantings of a minor radio talk show host* wouldn't be noticed at all. The experiences of a black queer woman in Kentucky, or a refugee trying to enter the UK, wouldn't be on any of our radars. But now those things appear daily in our social media feeds, and national politicians respond to them.

*Approximate substitution for a podcaster/YouTuber

Yes, as I said: we're better informed about what goes on outside our own social group

[Millennie Al]

Just the amount we seem to have devolved in the US in the last four or five years is astounding. The repugs have just about turned civility around to the point where mitch f.cking McConnell will probably be using the n-word on the floor of the Senate by year's end. And calls for physical violence against minorities (esp gay and trans ppl) are on the tips of their tongues, if not already being spoken aloud. IMO these are immoral acts, and thus their rising frequency indicates a lowering of overall morality.

I'll just pick treatment of gay people as it's easy to agree on some details, and use that to say you're a victim of the illusions described in the paper (or maybe others). There have been calls for physical violence against gay people for a very long time indeed. The actual change is that there are many people alive today who had a well founded fear of coming out when they were younger. And not because of a small number of people who might do something bad but because society as a whole would. It's not very long since being known as gay could lose you your job, get you ostracised by ordinary people in society - not merely extremists, and get you beaten up (which then would not be considered a serious crime). Mere advocacy of violence is an improvement over actual violence, and society perceiving advocacy to be a problem is an improvement over society considering it to be normal - but that leads to the false perception of moral decline because today we have a moral problem that people didn't even realise was a problem in the past. That's not a decline, it's an improvment.

In general, I think that since morality is a product of people, rather than an external, objective phenomenon, what happens is that when people are young they learn what is normal, and see some ways to improve morality, but when they get old, they have probably seen all the improvements they cared about when they were young, and see further change as decline.

While there may be short term fluctuations, over the longer term I don't think there can be the slightest doubt that morality is improving. We have gay marriage, having children outside marriage is unremarkable, persecuting jews is considered bad rather than good, few people think there is anything wrong with miscegenation - and it's certainly not illegal. Women can get university degrees and own property. Slavery has been mostly eliminated. Even in war, we no longer consider it normal for the winners to kill all the losers (or, at least the men).

[Tessa K]

One aspect the paper doesn't explicitly consider is nostalgia, the heavily rose-tinted view of old people that everything was better when they were young. My parents and their social group were particularly guilty of that even though they grew up during the war and my.mum's family were poor.

On the other hand, music definitely was better when I was young

[Martin_B]

Didn't the ancient Greeks talk about the decline in morals of the younger generation?

[shpalman]

Just the amount we seem to have devolved in the US in the last four or five years is astounding. The repugs have just about turned civility around to the point where mitch f.cking McConnell will probably be using the n-word on the floor of the Senate by year's end. And calls for physical violence against minorities (esp gay and trans ppl) are on the tips of their tongues, if not already being spoken aloud. IMO these are immoral acts, and thus their rising frequency indicates a lowering of overall morality.

I'll just pick treatment of gay people as it's easy to agree on some details...

This is interesting because homosexuality used to be considered immoral, and some people probably still consider it to be so, which leads to other people considering "morality" to be a bad thing, i.e. it's used to tell people not to do certain things which aren't any of their business.

My point being not that we've gotten more (or less) moral, in terms of living up to moral standards, but that our morals themselves have been getting better.

[shpalman]

Didn't the ancient Greeks talk about the decline in morals of the younger generation?

The Nature paper begins:

The social fabric appears to be unravelling: civility seems like an old-fashioned habit, honesty like an optional exercise and trust like
the relic of another time. Some observers claim that “the process of our moral decline” began with the “sinking of the foundations of morality” and proceeded to “the final collapse of the whole edifice”, which brought us “finally to the dark dawning of our modern day, in which we can neither bear our immoralities nor face the remedies needed to cure them”. But as apt as this description of our times may seem, it was written more than 2,000 years ago by the historian Livy, who was bemoaning the declining morality of his fellow Roman citizens. From ancient to modern times, social observers have often lamented the ugly turns their societies have taken, and have often suggested that a recent decline in morality—in kindness, honesty and basic human decency—was among the causes.

[Al Capone Junior]

Just the amount we seem to have devolved in the US in the last four or five years is astounding. The repugs have just about turned civility around to the point where mitch f.cking McConnell will probably be using the n-word on the floor of the Senate by year's end. And calls for physical violence against minorities (esp gay and trans ppl) are on the tips of their tongues, if not already being spoken aloud. IMO these are immoral acts, and thus their rising frequency indicates a lowering of overall morality.

I'll just pick treatment of gay people as it's easy to agree on some details, and use that to say you're a victim of the illusions described in the paper (or maybe others)

A distinct possibility, especially as I'm not especially good at figuring out complex social issues.

[Trinucleus]

Yes.

Two out of my three kids can't spell 'Father'

[dyqik]

Yes.

Two out of my three kids can't spell 'Father'

Perhaps you should be less distant.