[PAX] - Decline of ethics? | INFJ Forum

[PAX] Decline of ethics?

Gaze

Donor
Sep 5, 2009
28,265
44,748
1,906
MBTI
INFPishy
Is there a decline of ethics today? If so, why has ethics declined, and what do you think is the main contributor? Is it because we are losing interesting following a shared or common set of values for how to live? Is it because of social darwinism, justifying any or all types of behavior as long as we get to achieve our goals? Or is it something else? Do you think we can return to a more ethical society? If so, how - what would we have to do or change to achieve this?
 
Last edited:
I actually don't think that ethics are declining, but rather there is now more transparency than there ever has been before due to the invention of the internet.

Depravity and hedonism have always been around. Those that wish to take a different path have been able to more easily segregate themselves from such things and ignore a wider scope of reality. Now things are constantly shoved in our faces. Things we used to be able to completely shut out are no longer entirely escapable. It's a good thing, but a painful growing process that we are smack in the middle of. Now that we have a wider lens, we can clean ourselves up to an even greater degree. These things take time though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Free
Why has ethics declined, and what do you think is the main contributor? Is it because we are losing interesting following a shared or common set of values for how to live? Is it because of social darwinism, justifying any or all types of behavior as long as we get to achieve our goals? Or is it something else? Do you think we can return to a more ethical society? If so, how - what would we have to do or change to achieve this?

I love questions like this. I can spend a year thinking about this. This reminds me of a documentary I just watched entitled "the True Cost". It's about fast fashion and the appalling outsourcing of the fashion industry. I was losing faith in younger generations interest in environmental and social justice issues, etc. Then I saw the filmmaker who put that documentary together. He was a young guy. Then I started seeing more and more young people doing some really great stuff for our planet. I don't know if ethics have declined. I think they may have just shifted with the younger generations.

I think some of the older generations like the boomers (me) really fucked up some things and now the next generation has to clean it up. It's a big task. Take healthcare, it's not the younger generation that fucked it up. It's my generation and the previous one that is dictating a ridiculous set of standards to be followed.

I don't think we can go back to the way anything was. We have to go forward. I miss some of the ethics I was raised with like you could trust someone to honor an agreement with just a handshake. Those days are long gone and have been replaced with trivial lawsuits and mountains of freaking paperwork.

It's a changing landscape out there with a new set of ethics, a new set of values, and a new set of priorities.
 
Changed the question to "is there a decline of ethics?" to make it more open.
 
Ethics is just another way to garner power. It's bs.
 
I think a decline in Christianity would cause a decline in ethics.
 
I don't know that ethics have declined per se. In some cases ethics have improved over time. But there is much that needs improving ethically around the world none the less.
 
I think that ethics for the average Joe Blo is more about rewards and consequences: laws and social expectations, than about right and wrong, or virtue and vice.

Ethical consideration seems to be increasingly relegated to medical and political spheres.

In the recent past, systematic and consistent personal/individual ethics were taught by Churches, parents, and tertiary institutions. Increasingly people have less significant contact with Churches and parents; and tertiary institutions have largely shifted into professional ethics. So yes, I think ethics is in decline.
 
I think that ethics for the average Joe Blo is more about rewards and consequences: laws and social expectations, than about right and wrong, or virtue and vice.

Ethical consideration seems to be increasingly relegated to medical and political spheres.

In the recent past, systematic and consistent personal/individual ethics were taught by Churches, parents, and tertiary institutions. Increasingly people have less significant contact with Churches and parents; and tertiary institutions have largely shifted into professional ethics. So yes, I think ethics is in decline.

Precisely.
 
Ethics and the branches of moral philosophy are reasoned and discussed by adult humans, and eventually laws are passed to reflect such philosophy. To my mind, as long as laws exist that draw the lines between right and wrong, Social Darwinism will never be endorsed by a society of reasonably educated people. It doesn't surprise me to find that people are already mentioning religion. It is true that religious and theocratic authorities for over a millennia have attempted to convince people that God invented ethics (like he invented everything else), but to the reasonable people of today's societies, ethics now encompasses the core principles of modernity. The only threats to these ethics (as far as I can see) are those that wish to replace them with Medieval ethics and the people that wish to stop us from defending our ethics against such people.

The true defenders of ethics are those that consider themselves humanists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Free
I notice people increasingly have a finger to the wind in terms of social survival/upward mobility. Authentic introspection as to the right/good path in life seems to be too frequently replaced by the logic that what is right is whatever ideology/person seems to be on the winning side. So much of what poses as vital ethical discussion is actually a very tired venue for virtue signaling. It's not the first time in history for this type of thing to be so prevalent, but it seems to be a more dominant theme lately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gaze
Ethics and the branches of moral philosophy are reasoned and discussed by adult humans, and eventually laws are passed to reflect such philosophy. To my mind, as long as laws exist that draw the lines between right and wrong, Social Darwinism will never be endorsed by a society of reasonably educated people. It doesn't surprise me to find that people are already mentioning religion. It is true that religious and theocratic authorities for over a millennia have attempted to convince people that God invented ethics (like he invented everything else), but to the reasonable people of today's societies, ethics now encompasses the core principles of modernity. The only threats to these ethics (as far as I can see) are those that wish to replace them with Medieval ethics and the people that wish to stop us from defending our ethics against such people.

The true defenders of ethics are those that consider themselves humanists.
Religion just had the street level monopoly in disseminating ethics. The Catholic Church mainly disseminated Aristotelian virtues ethics. Those influences are dwindling for good, of for bad, but no other institutional body has filled the vacuum. There is a recurring low level debate in Australia about whether schools should teach ethics... but it's just circling the political eddies.

I agree that the transition of ethics into laws (not intended as a sharp distinction, but rather a public formalisation) will always tick over as needed. But as personal ethics evaporates, the nanny state, and social pressures inevitably step into the breach. Where has the ethics of moderation in both food and drink gone? The public (pleb) and personal mentality seems to have shifted into body image discussions of ideals and fatties, with food labeling laws and therapists in the wings. Gone is the notion of a virtuous mean between starving and gorging; and in its place are obsessive discussions of action/consequence. Education and knowledge regarding this matter weaves between biometric, nutritional, and economic considerations, but never an ethical thought is formed. Admittedly, ethics do re-emerge when discussions of fattie-shaming arise.

I don't think the issue of ethics should devolve into whether one school is one-up-ing another. Such conflict creates discussion, public discussion, even PLEBEIAN discussion; this inevitably leads people to a place where they can choose their own ethics. My biggest distaste with our present moment in history is that there are no public debates/discussions about ethics, save the most ridiculous. Is it ethical to keep cats as pets?
 
Ethics always change but they can seem to be dissolving because the things you view as un-ethical are no longer viewed by others as unethical. Instead they have a new set of standards and to them you are unethical because you fail to meet them.


The older generation views it unethical to have homo-sexual sex. The younger generation views it unethical to be 'close minded' and un accepting of others personal choices when those choices have no impact on others.
 
Ethics always change but they can seem to be dissolving because the things you view as un-ethical are no longer viewed by others as unethical. Instead they have a new set of standards and to them you are unethical because you fail to meet them.


The older generation views it unethical to have homo-sexual sex. The younger generation views it unethical to be 'close minded' and un accepting of others personal choices when those choices have no impact on others.

Point taken, but I am pretty sure the discussion was trying to focus on more enduring concepts of good/righteousness than generational disparities regarding the acceptance of homosexuality.
 
Point taken, but I am pretty sure the discussion was trying to focus on more enduring concepts of good/righteousness than generational disparities regarding the acceptance of homosexuality.

My point was in regards to enduring concepts of good/righteousness. The homosexuality was but one example. Everyone has multiple values within their complex value systems. Everyone thinks that 'the other person' only has values when that 'other persons' values coincide with their own. This is why two people can simultaneously believe the other person has no values while thinking they themselves do. Ethics don't get reduced or dimished. The values that govern ethics simply change over time and are re-prioritized and restructured within society.

Of course if you view values as being an objective set standard that all people are required to follow then you'd have to tell me who defines that standard so that I can really answer the question as to if we as human beings are continually falling away from this standard.

For example: If a person uses conservative Christian standards in which to define the ethics by which all people must follow then I can tell them that people are continually being less ethical in practice and may continue in that direction as religious practice loses its power in the social arena.
 
Last edited:
My point was in regards to enduring concepts of good/righteousness. The homosexuality was but one example. Everyone has multiple values within their complex value systems. Everyone thinks that 'the other person' only has values when that 'other persons' values coincide with their own. This is why two people can simultaneously believe the other person has no values while thinking they themselves do. Ethics don't get reduced or dimished. The values that govern ethics simply change over time and are re-prioritized and restructured within society.

Of course if you view values as being an objective set standard that all people are required to follow then you'd have to tell me who defines that standard so that I can really answer the question as to if we as human beings are continually falling away from this standard.

For example: If a person uses conservative Christian standards in which to define the ethics by which all people must follow then I can tell them that people are continually being less ethical in practice and may continue in that direction as religious practice loses its power in the social arena.


Yes, very well said. I totally get that there is a high element of relativity and subjectivity to ethics.
 
Religion just had the street level monopoly in disseminating ethics. The Catholic Church mainly disseminated Aristotelian virtues ethics. Those influences are dwindling for good, of for bad, but no other institutional body has filled the vacuum. There is a recurring low level debate in Australia about whether schools should teach ethics... but it's just circling the political eddies.

I agree that the transition of ethics into laws (not intended as a sharp distinction, but rather a public formalisation) will always tick over as needed. But as personal ethics evaporates, the nanny state, and social pressures inevitably step into the breach. Where has the ethics of moderation in both food and drink gone? The public (pleb) and personal mentality seems to have shifted into body image discussions of ideals and fatties, with food labeling laws and therapists in the wings. Gone is the notion of a virtuous mean between starving and gorging; and in its place are obsessive discussions of action/consequence. Education and knowledge regarding this matter weaves between biometric, nutritional, and economic considerations, but never an ethical thought is formed. Admittedly, ethics do re-emerge when discussions of fattie-shaming arise.

I don't think the issue of ethics should devolve into whether one school is one-up-ing another. Such conflict creates discussion, public discussion, even PLEBEIAN discussion; this inevitably leads people to a place where they can choose their own ethics. My biggest distaste with our present moment in history is that there are no public debates/discussions about ethics, save the most ridiculous. Is it ethical to keep cats as pets?

The nanny state begins as soon as personal responsibility ends with people. These people are neither humanists nor philosophers. They are feminists (and other forms of SJW, but this particular kind of poison has been stemming from 3rd wave feminism for a while) that use rape statistics when it is convenient for them, and when it isn't (Cologne) they deflect these statistics in order to give their other ridiculous world-views more weight. I think Cultural Marxism is the biggest threat to ethics because it relies on the tearing down of our own basic elements of Western modernity and philosophy and replacing it with a cesspool of pessimism and self-loathing. (Don't forget censorship). This involves doing things like replacing particular art exhibitions with more modern pieces in order to reflect a more 'progressive' and 'diverse' and 'less oppressive' picture of our society. What they actually intend to do is replace the art in order to change the way the next generation views our own history by what paintings they see, what video games they play (Anita Sarkeesian), what newspapers they read (The Guardian has some pretty self-loathing articles on a daily basis) etc. Inside each of these people that practices 'critical theory' is an authoritarian waiting in the wings.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Free
I suppose I should add this video which goes into a little more detail on the topic of critical theory.

[video=youtube;dYu6qhd88_M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYu6qhd88_M[/video]
 
Newton's third law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

If we're to witness a renaissance of ethics and a rejuvenation of what we once fought for, we must fight the regressive agenda anywhere it attempts to censor information and stifle free-thought. We MUST re-enter the world of rationalism, empiricism. We MUST re-introduce the importance of free speech without any limits. Two-state solution between Jews and Muslims? This can only happen if both sides adopt secularism as the forefront principle. You want equality? Look no further than the society which fully embraces its core and distinct originating principles: Britain. The first to abolish the institution of slavery, the first to give all members of its state a vote to elect their leaders based on their shared values. After its election in 2015, its outright rejection of regressive dogma in the form of Russell Brand and Ed Miliband, you must look to this country as the spawn of a new generation of defenders of free-thinking. All of the free-thinkers must take this moment in human history as an opportunity to change humanity's priorities for the next countless generations to commence their drive through the world. Take up arms by taking up intellectualism and find any way you can to counter the insurgency of censorship and deceit in the new left-wing's dogmatic definition of 'criticism'. They only criticise what they perceive to be the oppressor, but their definition of an oppressor is completely false and skewed. They are all closet authoritarians waiting to find themselves on a seat in the United Nations to enact another elaborate scheme to display an excuse to censor information and to censor free will of diverse and shared opinion. The equal reaction to this agenda will be inevitably wiped out. And I am on this forum to cleanse this poison from the system; albeit a small sub-section of the system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Free
Newton's third law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

If we're to witness a renaissance of ethics and a rejuvenation of what we once fought for, we must fight the regressive agenda anywhere it attempts to censor information and stifle free-thought. We MUST re-enter the world of rationalism, empiricism. We MUST re-introduce the importance of free speech without any limits. Two-state solution between Jews and Muslims? This can only happen if both sides adopt secularism as the forefront principle. You want equality? Look no further than the society which fully embraces its core and distinct originating principles: Britain. The first to abolish the institution of slavery, the first to give all members of its state a vote to elect their leaders based on their shared values. After its election in 2015, its outright rejection of regressive dogma in the form of Russell Brand and Ed Miliband, you must look to this country as the spawn of a new generation of defenders of free-thinking. All of the free-thinkers must take this moment in human history as an opportunity to change humanity's priorities for the next countless generations to commence their drive through the world. Take up arms by taking up intellectualism and find any way you can to counter the insurgency of censorship and deceit in the new left-wing's dogmatic definition of 'criticism'. They only criticise what they perceive to be the oppressor, but their definition of an oppressor is completely false and skewed. They are all closet authoritarians waiting to find themselves on a seat in the United Nations to enact another elaborate scheme to display an excuse to censor information and to censor free will of diverse and shared opinion. The equal reaction to this agenda will be inevitably wiped out. And I am on this forum to cleanse this poison from the system; albeit a small sub-section of the system.

I see a problem in countering the "regressive agenda" with a push for free speech, empiricism, and rationalism. These goals are not ends in themselves, but rather can be seen as instrumental conditions, which serve in the pursuit of those things which are proper ends, principally happiness. As such, they can very easily be subsumed into the regressive narrative: that free speech, empiricism, and rationalism do nothing but facilitate oppression. Indeed, feminists argue that the experiential, sociological, and even scientific data which informs empirical inquiry is implicitly androcentric, and patriarchially biased. A shift in schools of thought only shifts the battlefields.

It seems that the central meme of critical theory is the notion of oppression. Oppression, by its nature cannot remove the ultimate end(s) of human inquiry and activity, it cannot "break the human spirit", but merely thwarts its progress. Perceived oppression (be it real, or imagined), finds itself in the cross-hairs of fury, driven by the full force of that "human spirit." Alternatively, oppression (real, or imagined) can be met with pusillanimity, with the surrender of personal agency/responsibility: In this case, not to "fate", but to the oppressive control of an oppressive sociological group, or an oppressive ideology. Believing that one's fundamental agency has been surrendered/taken to/by another places responsibility for one's happiness in the hands of another, or at least makes the destruction of that other an acceptable and necessary priority. The "big picture" regressive agenda of our times is probably indifferent to any social group, or any ideology; even if many groups and ideologies will be casualties along the way. The regressive agenda is the perpetuation of the notion of effective oppression, which diverts humans from pursuing their own happiness, to "punching the air" and flailing at imagined ghouls: a perpetuation of fundamentally unnecessary conflict. The disturbing reality is that even though oppression may be largely imagined, the conflict is tangible and real, reinforcing the sense of oppression, to the point that even the most indifferent, successful, educated white male may truly feel oppressed.

In my opinion, the central implicit belief of the agenda must be addressed: that one's pursuit of happiness/fulfillment/actualisation/etc. can be thwarted/oppressed/etc. by an external agent is false. Of course this cannot be shown to be true, or possible, if the apex of happiness/fulfillment/actualisation/etc. is seen to be monetary, professional, physical, sensual,etc. - because those are limited and particular goods, which can never be equally distributed/earned/attained/etc. It must be a universal (not particular), ubiquitous, unlimited, immediately available good - whose accessibility is entirely within the exclusive, undelegatable responsibility of each person. Personal ethics, whose responsibility cannot be surrendered to another, is only possible if one's ends, and the means to those ends, cannot be in any way perceived to be removed by another. That is to say, to oppose the myriad manifestations of critical theory, requires the cultivation of an "interior life".