I am having a conversation with a friend about this. Are we in a moral decline? I hear it everywhere, but I really have no idea what it means. He says that kids are less respectful than they used to be, and he thinks that connects to broader selfishness and such. I think that our constant mantra of moral decline is often clouded in nostalgia and has very little bearing on our current reality.
What do you think?
19 comments:
Manners and morals are strongest in totalitarian regimes. It's a forced niceness. Look at the first thirty minutes of Shogun. Under the Samarai if you didn't bow they chopped your head off -- so everyone bows. It's when there is affluence and freedom of expression that manners and morality suffer. What do you want freedom, which means you have to tolerate jerks or a government that breaths down your neck making sure you don't have fornication or use bad language.
You have to define your terms. How is moral being defined? Pinker argues that we live in the least violent time in history.
There are more democratic governments and civil rights movements than ever before. Humanism is on the rise.
But, if moral means adhering to the fundamental laws of a holy book, we may very well be in a moral decline.
Personally, I believe it's all abderitic. (one damn thing after another with no progressive (or anti-progressive) teleology).
Hey, Dave. How are things?
Agreed on terms and definitions. I have argued with my friend exactly those points. I think that our obsession with declension is, as I suggested, simply a function of nostalgia.
I don't know if there is a moral decline, but I have observed some decline in politeness and respect in certain areas I have worked (schools, courts). I have no way of measuring this, nor would I suggest any measure of force to correct this.
Interestingly enough, the average length of marriage has remained constant over the last 400 or so years. One theory for the rise in dovirce is that, in the past, people in bad marriages would wait it out and remarry when their spouse died. Now that people are living longer, they don't have this luxury.
I have to agree with Steve S regarding the decline in politeness and respect. This generation of kids and teens are very selfish and self centered. It is no exaggeration when they are referred to as the "me" generation. Pundits can blame it on celebrities like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan, and to some degree it might be true. They are poor role models, yet millions of girls look up to them. But the real decline is in parenting. Parents refuse to say no to their children or enact any form of meaningful discipline. They are afraid of hurting their kids' feelings, or losing their friendship. What crap! We say no to our kid with the understanding that it is for his own good. If he doesn't like it, oh well. We refuse to raise a spoiled brat. Our son is 4, and he is more polite, more respectful and more well rounded than many kids we know that are older than him. We see kids misbehaving all the time, in ways that make us cringe! And parents do absolutely nothing about it. In many cases, the parents behave the same way! It is heartbreaking, and unless more parents take a stand and stand up to their kids, this decline will continue.
Joe,
I completely understand. Not having kids, they all seem out of control to me! :) But I also wonder about this decline in manners or respect. Every damn generation seems to have thought the same exact thing. Does that mean that respect and manners have been on a steady decline? Our culture is more child obsessed than any other in time--even as we fear that we are not taking care of the kids. Both appear to be true.
Good question, Streak. As a parent, I have wondered the same thing, but like I said, it is hard to measure. Maybe I am just more sensitive to it, but there does seem to be a growing number of people complaining about how "other people's kids" behave in public. I have also noticed a growing use of bad language. I am certainly guilty of this, but I try to reserve it for certain settings. It is not unusual for me to hear the F-bomb in restauants and shopping centers.
Yeah, the f-bomb is often the indicator, but we forget that those words are just words--they are not inherently bad.
I think 50s television and film has screwed our perception of the past and convinced us that it was some idylic period where people cared about God, Country and family in ways that they don't any longer. I don't buy it.
I can only speak about the last 3 decades, as I wasn't around for the 50's. I know it is just a word, and I can live with it. I guess it is just one of those things where I prefer that people show some restraint and manners, but the world doesn't revolve around my expectations.
The divorce rate has gone up. Is this a measure of moral decline?
From a pastoral standpoint, honestly, I don't see it. There is nothing new under the sun.
We are child obsessed but that doesn't translate into proper raising. I think the phrase "moral decline" is more political than theoretical.
A question: Just because something is rooted in nostalgia doesn't necessarily make it true, does it?
Steve,
Has the divorce rate gone up? If it has, it is among Christians. They are the most divorcing group of people, especially Baptists. I read a stat not too long ago that said that over 50% of Christian marriages fail; but then over 75% remarry.
I don't see the slight rise in foul language as a moral decline, but rather a decline (or change) in manners. I suppose it is a pet peeve of mine and I am not suggesting a larger meaning to it, but maybe a represents a decline in civility, along the lines of road rage and current political discourse.
Tony, I don't have the stats in front of me. Several years ago, I wrote a paper on divorce reform. I do recall an increase in the divorce rate from the 1960's to the present. This coincided with the passing of no-fault divorce laws. I am aware of research that suggests that Baptists have the highest divorce rate among Christians. Didn't Catholics from the Northeast have the lowest.
Initially, I had wanted to write a paper on a program that reflected my hands-off attitude in regards to gov't intervention. I was mostly unable to do this because of overwhelming evidence that divorce is harmful to children and that society is paying the cost for failed marriages. Genrally, children of divorced parents are more likely to suffer some kind of mental illness, do poorly in school, and have higher incidences of teen pregnancy.
Steve,
Thanks for the response. I looked up the stats from a paper I wrote in seminary. The stats are a bit dated, about ten years old, but are correct. I cannot imagine over a ten year span they have changed that dramatically.
I did discover that Catholics from the northeast have the lowest divorce rates among religious groups and the highest divorce rates are from, you guessed it, Baptists in the Bible belt. Catholics do take a stringent view on divorce but Baptists practically endorse it.
If anything has degraded the church, it is divorce. It seems to be an issue that no one wants to address in any way. I would be curious to see a lot of your findings, from a legal standpoint, that is.
Genrally, children of divorced parents are more likely to suffer some kind of mental illness, do poorly in school, and have higher incidences of teen pregnancy. Agreed. Of all the kids in the church I serve, the most maladjusted by far are the kids whose parents are divorced.
This reminds me of one of my alma mater's ethics profs saying about a year ago that homosexuality is the greatest threat facing the church today. Is it? Divorce has much more far-reaching effects on families than homosexuality ever will (yes Streak, I said it!).
Oh, sorry to go off-topic a bit, Streak.
Re: language, I completely understand. As I have argued to my friend, the f-word or any other "swear" word is simply about context. There are places where it is not appropriate. For example, it is a shame when Anglican makes me swear in church.
Re: divorce. I think this measurement tells us something, but am not exactly sure what. I know that all the major trends about family and women reversed in the 50s--ie., divorce dropped, age of marriage dropped, number of women who chose not to marry, etc.--but those were aberations broader trends. How many divorces would have occurred in the 50s? How many marriages suffered in silence?
I agree that it causes tremendous problems to kids. That is certainly worth addressing, though what to do is less clear.
No problem for the diversion--it is all related. Tony, I would add that I believe that supposedly liberal Massachusetts has a much lower divorce rate, lower teenage pregnancy, etc., than the heart of the Bible Belt.
No, Streak, this is where you miss your own point about context. When you say, Jesus Christ in church it's prayer. When you say it just after hitting your thumb with a hammer, then it's something else. Can I get a witness?
Streak, a saying comes to mind.
Profanity is the liguistic crutch of the inarticulate fucker.
I am sure that there are several causes of the rise in divorce rates. One, like I mentioned, is no-fault divorce. Another, I am sure, is that there is less of a stigma attached to divorce.
As for solutions, I am not sure. Clearly, there are people getting married that should not be getting married. There are also people getting divorced, that should not be getting divorced. There have been studies that show that a good number of people that get divorced, do so over transient issues. If they had more patience, their situation would improve.
There is a tendency of some married people that view marriage as a mutually beneficial relationship that they stay in as long as it remains this way. If it is no longer satisfactory, it is time to move on.
From a legal standpoint, I don't what is best. Going back to fault-based system is unlikey to have an support. My proposal was to require divorcing couples with children to attend some kind of "divorce counseling" that focused on how they can help their children.
Divorce has a far greater effect on society than homosexuality.
Streak,
Is Massachusetts an anomaly or is that consistent throughout the more liberal states? What do you make of that?
I'll add more thing about divorce and I'll shut-up. Many pastors just do not do any kind of pre-marital counseling and this contributes to the problem. Many of the issues Steve has raised might be curtailed if people were counseled before they got into their marriages.
Plus, with the level of remarriages, practically equaling that of first-time marriages, you have folks backing into personal problems that never really were ever solved.
Streak-
I like the question about how "moral" is defined. I look around and don't see anyone owning another person, no children working long hours, no more "whites only" signs, etc.... Nostalgia has a very selective memory, especially for those in the dominant culture. I would tend to agree that morality is hurting right now in our history if we want to look at the nation's willingness to go to war over 9/11, willingness to accept "collateral damage" as another daily news statistic, and our willingness to allow a superrich upper class and a growing lower class. I could easily see these being related to the "broader selfishness" that your friend speaks of.
I would question whether this current time is more child obsessed than any other. I think there are plenty of examples in the past of segments of society being incredibly child obsessed. My speculation would be that it's more related to affluence and there's just so much of the society that's affluent relative to a generation or two ago. I have to wonder if the decrease in politeness so many point out is more related to the examples kids see in their parents and other key figures than the attention they get.
Later-BB
Steve, you certainly made me laugh. Inarticulate, indeed.
I think the evidence is pretty clear that the entire institution of marriage has shifted over the last several hundred years from a mostly economic union to one that focused on romantic love. One can argue that the economic based ones, while not nearly as fun, may have had more staying power as those needs didn't change.
Tony, I am not sure if Mass is anamalous or not. I suspect that part of it is that they have a better safety net and more attention to public services than many of the Bible belt states. After all, the worst place to be poor is in the BB. Look at Alabama where the tax code is pre-modern and the Christian Coalition led the fight to reform it.
But growing up Baptist, I also wonder if evangelicals don't contribute to this problem by elevating expectation. A possible unintended consequence of the "family values" emphasis is placing unbelievable expectation on that union and when it falls short (and it will, naturally), that can be difficult to deal with.
BB, great points, as usual. I have made the same argument that our view on shifting morality depends on how we define it. Allowing torture is another example.
As for child-obsessed, I said that mostly tongue in cheek. There is little doubt that since the 50s (again that decade) we have had more literature devoted to childrearing and an increased awareness of developmental stages, etc. But we clearly have many disconnects along the way. Child poverty, uninsured children, and of course, infant mortality are much higher in this country than most developed nations.
Great discussion, people.
I poked around a bit and found some good sites with a huge variety of statistics. Unfortunately, some of them conflicted with others, so it is hard to get consistency.
Mass. does indeed have a lower than average divorce rate. The highest is Nevada, followed by Tenn., Ark., and Alabama. One of the researchers said that the low divorce rate in Mass., had much to do with the high percentage of Catholics in that state and also suggested that Catholics tend to do more in terms of pre-marriage counseling than Protestants do.
There was also some research that suggested the following:
"University of Texas sociologist Norval Glenn says another factor affecting regional differences in divorce is "social rootedness." His research shows that people who live in stable communities are less apt to divorce because they are more likely to be enmeshed in an inter-generational social network that helps them evaluate potential mates, offers them marital advice and support, and expects them to work through any domestic problems that may arise. Thus, the Sun Belt's higher divorce rates are due, in part, to the fact that this region has more social instability than less-transient areas in the Northeast and Midwest."
BB, I believe that the decline in politeness has a great deal to do with parents. Certainly, more than MTV, Marilyn Manson, or video games.
I htink that pre-martital counseling is a good thing. My wife and I got married in a Methodist church and the counsleing we received (from a pastor that had never been married) was not all that great. We had some friends that were getting married in the Catholic church and they received excellent and comprehensive counseling. Having been raised Catholic, I kind of expected the counseling to be a priest telling the couples that condoms were a sin, but it was a series of groups session facilitated by other married couples.
Of course, none of this helps couples that do not attend church or get married in a civil ceremony. Michigan has tried several times to mandate pre-marital counsling. Two governors (one republican and one democrat) have vetoed the bills, so I doubt this will be tried again. This is unfortunate. Besides the harm to children, divorces cost taxpayers approximately 30 billion a year.
Having worked in the child welfare system, I would like to know what being "child obsessed" is?
Post a Comment