Deseret News | Morals eroding in U.S.

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Morals eroding in U.S.

Page:
< Previous
1
2

What are "ethics"? | 5:57 p.m. July 7, 2009

Mr Bass you are appear to be mistaken, to put it kindly.

ETHICS: 1. moral philosophy. 2a moral principles
2b set of these

(Oxford Dictionary of Current English)

Show Business | 6:19 p.m. July 7, 2009

A good measure of what is now considered morally acceptable in reflected in what is regarded as approved "entertainment".

Here's a quick review of some of the most popular entertainers through "recent" history:

1. Bing Crosby. Crooned love songs mostly. Married. Neat appearance.

2. Elvis Presley. Suggestive movements often accompanying singing. Cheated on his wife. "Untimely" death by drug abuse.

2. Michael Jackson. Not married long. Grabbed himself while singing. Died apparently of drug abuse.

Consider the plethora of rock stars with "untimely" deaths by serious drug abuse. Homosexual and cross-dressing groups. Emphasis on melody, first replaced by heavy beat, replaced by melody-less. heavy beat only ("rap music").

Well-dressed artistes, first just became more casual, then unbuttoned shirts, then took shirts off altogether, stopped shaving, appeared making suggestive movements and pants hanging off, with underpants showing.

Dancing, once represented by precise ballroom dancing in suits and relatively modest dresses, now reduced to half-dressed individuals that more and more often replicate sexual intimacy in increasingly "daring" dance moves.

@ Divorce | 6:20 p.m. July 7, 2009

Maybe if Gay marriage were allowed than there would be less "shacking up" and more married couples

Comments continue below

fooling themselves | 6:34 p.m. July 7, 2009

The modern American conservative movement would like to believe (and have US believe) they have cornered the market on morality: family values, righteousness, this is wrong, this is right ... you know the drill.

This is the way they entertain themselves.

The rest of the country knows better.

Late comer | 7:00 p.m. July 7, 2009

Sorry to join the discussion so late. It seems that this forum has disintegrated into a debate between those who are willing to define morals, those who refuse to let morals be defined, and those who don’t seem to recognize personal morals but only national morals -and those of the USA only-.

Let me put my voice on the side of those who recognize morals, personal and national, as important. I see that they are connected but not as has been asserted by the majority of those on this forum who make the connection.

As I see it, and I think history; ancient and modern, will support me; that so goes the people goes the nation.

Late comer 2 | 7:01 p.m. July 7, 2009

If the people generally expect moral behavior from themselves they expect it form each other; thus, they are much less tolerant of their “leaders” to behave immorally.

For a modern example I will reference FDR, Eisenhower & JFK. During their day in power they were immoral men who broke the vows they made to their wives by having sexual affairs. These were well known by the press but not made public because the people of this nation were moral, as such they would never have supported nor would they have considered reelection of the same and may well have sought for impeachment.

It was not the immorality of the “leaders” who changed this situation, it was the immorality of the people. As the 60’s rolled on moral sex and marital fidelity became less the national standard; thus, when Clinton held to office and his sexual behavior was made known to the public; the public became angry but he retained his office and the rest is history.

Late Comer 3 | 7:02 p.m. July 7, 2009

When Nixon’s common use of vulgar language, lack of personal honesty and self serving pragmatism was made known the people were so outraged by his behavior that he was forced to resign the highest office in the land.

Closer to now, it has been asserted that GWB crafted self serving lies to gain public the acceptance of the people for a preemptive war. Even in Clinton’s time that would not have been tolerated. Mr Clinton was impeached for “lying” under oath about a sexual dalliance. Can you see a situation in the 90’s that GWB would have retained his office for starting a war just to aggrandize himself and his supporters? No it would have been far to against the nation’s standards (even if the claim of lies were questionable)

Yet today we watch as Pres. Obama, well that is far too large to place here; so, I leave you thinkers out there to review his first 1/8 of term in office and what it says about our national and your own moral compass

Late commer 4 | 7:03 p.m. July 7, 2009

I hold that morals are truly a set of absolutes. They are an undeniable and unqualified set of behaviors and ideas. These ideas dictate the behavior without regard of situation, and the person does good consistently.

Moral people are not perfect but they can be counted on not to do bad. They can be counted upon to not tolerate immoral behavior (though they may no longer stand up an push back they tend to leave the presence of bad behavior). They get upset at “leaders” whose behavior, public or private, is immoral and morn the harm done to us all by this.

Mike Richards | 7:12 p.m. July 7, 2009

What "law" governs morality? Should we assume that if something was once considered immoral, if something was once considered murder (abortion), is now both moral and ethical - just because it is legal? Are we to assume that because Hitler's Germany declared Jews sub-human, that killing them was moral and ethical? Today, are we to assume that sex outside of marriage, because it has become 'accepted', is both moral and ethical?

Do your ideas or my ideas have anything to do with morality, or is morality something that transcends social opinion? I would take that option, the option that states that man cannot redefine something that God has predefined.

A common belief in the LDS community is that all blessings are predicated on immutable law, law that pre-dates this earth's existence, law that will continue being binding long after this earth's existence is just an-almost-forgotten memory.

Some of us believe that morals are absolute, that they have no relation to mankind's current belief or unbelief in God, that they are not situational, but absolute.

Some of us believe that mankind is trying to excuse itself from living morally.

What Morals? | 7:37 p.m. July 7, 2009

This country has no "morals".

re: Morals 7:37 | 8:03 p.m. July 7, 2009

Please don't confuse the last monstrous administration that rushed to war based on lies with the people of America.
There is a huge difference between the two as we saw this in the General Election.
God bless Americans!
The REAL Americans that is.

re: re: Morals 7:37 | 8:03 | 12:36 a.m. July 8, 2009

"Please don't confuse the last monstrous administration that rushed to war based on lies with the people of America."

I agree, this explains why North Korea and Iran can do what they are doing. Afterall, don't want Obama to rush to war with these two nations. Obama must be getting pointers from the previous two democrat presidents (Clinton and Carter) on how to properly appease the enemy - or is North Korea and Iran our enemies?

Ernest T. Bass | 12:09 p.m. July 8, 2009

re: re: Morals 7:37 8:03
Why didn't Bush go to war in Iran and No Korea. Both countries DID EXACTLY THE SAME THING while bush was president.
Are you advocating war in those countries? What exactly for?
Iran has a zero threat to the US. Pakistan, with nukes, is far more of a threat.
No Korea talks alot but they're like an annoying little yappy dog, all bark and no bite.
Back to the point, morals are relative. Some people believe intercourse is only moral if used for procreation. That is 'their' definition of morals. Those people have no right to define morals for other people who view things differently.
Read the book: "The Way we Never Were"
It is complete MYTH that so-called "morals" are worse now than before.
Humans have always lied, cheated, stolen, and had intercourse with multiple partners. ALWAYS, since the beginning of recorded history.
The ONLY thing to change is access to porn, it is easier to view. That is it.
Ask yourself what is considered to be "the oldest profession" and why? It's ALWAYS been around. Marriage & fidelity is a relatively new concept.

Anonymous | 12:22 p.m. July 8, 2009

No, morals are NOT eroding in the US.

YOUR morals and bigotry and self-righteous religious hegemony may be going away!

But that is a good thing!

Don't mistake your own obsolescence and irrelevance for a general decline in morals!

David | 12:28 p.m. July 8, 2009

"In all determinations of morality, this circumstance of public utility is ever principally in view; and wherever disputes arise, either in philosophy or common life, concerning the bounds of duty, the question cannot, by any means, be decided with greater certainty, than by ascertaining, on any side, the true interests of mankind."

Page:
< Previous
1
2

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.