[Retric]

In many ways the trend if for the US over the last 200 years to become less ethical the more formally religious it is. (As measured by things like church attendance.)

If you can site some counter evidence I would be interested in reading it.

[dragonwriter]

That's not all that surprising: outward religious formality is a sign of religion being tribal identity rather than substantive ideology.

There's​ a degree to which some degree of tribalism sis useful for promoting continuity of community and preservation of ideas, but there's also a persistent danger of degeneration into empty tribalism preoccupied with outward form.

[prewett]

Sounds like you have an axe to grind, especially since you cite no evidence yourself... How would you measure "less ethical," anyway? Are we more ethical now than 200 years ago or less, in your view?

According to Gallup, 91% of Americans in 1948 claimed to be Christian, compared to 69% in 2016. [0] I would assume "formally religious" is tracks similarly. Personally, I think we are less ethical, but since I wasn't around in 1948, hard to say.

I think ethics is related to your value of what is right and wrong. In 1948 people by and large had a "Christian" outlook on what is right and wrong and why. In 2016, the more popular claim is moral relativism, namely that there is no absolute right or wrong. Given that I can make up right and wrong and they only apply to me and not you, that seems to be a recipe for unethical behavior. In fact, I'm not sure "ethics" is a meaningful word if you subscribe to moral relativism.

Say what you like about "formally religious," but I think it offers a much better framework for ethics than the moral relativism we have now.

[0] http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx

[mikeash]

In what way was USA 1948 more ethical than USA 2016?

When I think of USA 1948, I think of things like Jim Crow, women requiring their husband's permission to open a bank account, interracial marriage being forbidden, homosexuals staying in the closet for fear of their lives, young men being forced into military service against their will, and lobotomy as standard psychiatric treatment.

But, you know, there's occasional swearing on TV now, so maybe it balances out.

[Retric]

USA Murder rate 1948 : 5.9 vs 4.9 (2015 aka now) I don't know about you but I would call Murder a rather extreme unethical behavior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...

Now, compare with say France a very secular and minimally religious country and their murder rate is 1.31 (Though not 100% apples to apples this extends across many other similar statistics.) : http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/Unit...

Surprisingly China and Japan perhaps the most atheist countries out there with significantly different economic situations also have lower murder rates than France. (Though again not apples to apples statistics.)

PS: I often hear about morality religion links but only see a few meaningless connections like church attendance and divorce rates.

[vonmoltke]

> According to Gallup, 91% of Americans in 1948 claimed to be Christian, compared to 69% in 2016. [0] I would assume "formally religious" is tracks similarly.

This is kinda tangential, but according to a very interesting panel discussion a few weeks ago "formally religious" (as measured by church attendance) as actually been more or less constant over this period. The 22% drop includes few who regularly attended religious services. The relation to the panel discussion, and somewhat to this one, is that the drop in nominal adherents has been part of what has fuelled the moralist resurgence on the right since the 90s.

[dragonwriter]

> In 2016, the more popular claim is moral relativism, namely that there is no absolute right or wrong.

No, it's not.

Conservatives love to pretend that disagreement with their values is rejection of all values, but that is simply not the case.

[prewett]

I've never heard conservatives say that rejecting their values is a rejection of all values. I don't think that a conservative would say that liberals have no values; liberals have very clear values. I can't speak for the ones you've interacted with, but I've never heard that.

Regarding moral relativism, the argument, as I understand it, is that post-modernism rejects any meta-narrative; you decide for yourself what the narrative is. Moral absolutism requires a meta-narrative of some form. This is right because God told us it is, or because this is the core value our nation is founded on, etc. So without a meta-narrative, you have to define your own, and so you are left with moral relativism.

It's possible that post-modernism is no longer widely held. I'd probably be the last to know about it. If that's the case, then maybe there is moral absolutism. Certainly there seems to be an idea in some circles that protecting the environment, and/or everyone has a right to express their sexuality however they want to are absolutes. But a truly moral absolutism provides an absolute basis, and I'm not aware of any absolutes for these. Environmentalism is a pragmatic source: if we don't do it, we might die off, but perhaps dying off is actually best. (I don't agree, but philosophically speaking) And what basis is there for everyone having a right to doing things? There are things we decided we don't have the right to do (kill people, for example). Why, exactly, does everyone have the right to express their sexuality however they want? Moral absolutism requires some fundamental, unalterable reason. Moral relativism simply requires "I think this way."

I'm not very sure what most people's world views are, but everything I am aware of points to a moral relativistic view, rather than a moral absolutist view.

[dragonwriter]

> I've never heard conservatives say that rejecting their values is a rejection of all values.

Neither have I, but I've frequently heard them characterize groups that explicitly adhered to different values from theirs as rejecting all values.

> Regarding moral relativism, the argument, as I understand it, is that post-modernism rejects any meta-narrative; you decide for yourself what the narrative is.

This might distantly approach relevance (leaving aside questions of it's accuracy) if the left, either in the general sense or in the peculiar American sense that includes much of the center-right, was generally post-modernist. But that is not, and has never been, the case.

> Moral absolutism requires a meta-narrative of some form.

No, it doesn't. In fact, because you can't actually logically derive an ought from an is, a meta-narrative doesn't even add support to moral absolutism (or any other moral position.)

Any morality requires taking certain moral beliefs as unsupported axioms, and absolutism just requires that the those axioms don't include that the morality of an act is dependent on the actors view of the morality of the act.

I can assure that liberals regularly believe that conservatism is wrong independent of conservatives belief in its rectitude, which absolutely is moral absolutism.

[aaronbrethorst]

> Personally, I think we are less ethical

What does this mean to you?

[prewett]

When I wrote it I was thinking of the lack of statesmen. I can think of a number of politicians from 1800 - 1960 who were Statesmen. I'm thinking someone who is wise and who is willing to make sacrifices to bring about a better future for people he may not even know. I can't think of any major politician since then that really stands out as a Statesman.

[aaronbrethorst]

Can you give a couple specific examples?