Is this where our society is headed?

#5
#5
I know it's bad, but I didn't know it was that bad. Truly unsettling.
 
#6
#6
I know it's bad, but I didn't know it was that bad. Truly unsettling.

WMCTV

Come visit Memphis and world famous Beale St, where they don't help a guy who's bleeding almost to death after getting whooped by 4 guys, and everyone has their cell out taking pics and going thru the guys wallet and pockets..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7
#7
Not sure why that guy has a gun in NY, isn't that illegal? I'm sure tougher gun laws would prevent this behavior & guys could just duke it out when they have a misunderstanding. Seriously there seems to be a common theme in these instances. Damn Obama's kids.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#8
#8
Luckily I don't live near places like this.

But that is a prime example of a culture gone awry. It has all the ingredients for trouble

1. Socioeconomically disenfranchised urban dwellers looking to get rich quick.
2. Rap
3. .22 hand gun (lol wtf really?)
4. Convenience store

Are we sure though this was a rap video being shot or a quick-e-mart being robbed? Could the employees even know the difference?
 
Last edited:
#10
#10
You know you see this same kind of stuff in Asia, South America, Russia, Africa..its like a 3rd world attitude.
 
#13
#13
Although the videos do place an emotional toll upon us, in the words of Uncle Ellis to Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, "What you got here, ain't nothing new."

As just one example, among too many to recount, the primary concern of numerous people throughout the 1890s-1920s was whether or not they should bring biscuits or cornbread to the lynching picnic. Or maybe bring both.

Perhaps the facade changes over the year, but, underneath, it's always the same reality.

In the words of a great philosopher, "The human gonna human."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#14
#14
Although the videos do place an emotional toll upon us, in the words of Uncle Ellis to Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, "What you got here, ain't nothing new."

As just one example, among too many to recount, the primary concern of numerous people throughout the 1890s-1920s was whether or not they should bring biscuits or cornbread to the lynching picnic. Or maybe bring both.

Perhaps the facade changes over the year, but, underneath, it's always the same reality.

In the words of a great philosopher, "The human gonna human."

Good post. And yet it does tend to contradict several musings I've seen on here about how much more "evolved" we've gotten over the years.
 
#15
#15
Good post. And yet it does tend to contradict several musings I've seen on here about how much more "evolved" we've gotten over the years.

Generally speaking, I think societies and individuals alike (although certainly not all) have "evolved" in the sense of having higher concepts of basic human rights extended to all (rather than just some or even none) than previous eras.

Nonetheless, the murderous will always be in us. And give us all a major social cataclysm or upheaval, and "human progress" is back to year zero.
 
#16
#16
Generally speaking, I think societies and individuals alike (although certainly not all) have "evolved" in the sense of having higher concepts of basic human rights extended to all (rather than just some or even none) than previous eras.

Nonetheless, the murderous will always be in us. And give us all a major social cataclysm or upheaval, and "human progress" is back to year zero.

Just one question and a follow-up:

1. Are you a believer in social-contract morality?

2. Do you believe in objective morality?
 
#17
#17
The thread title suggests that this is a new trend.

I'd like to know at what point in human history where there not people indifferent to the well-being of strangers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#18
#18
Just one question and a follow-up:

1. Are you a believer in social-contract morality?

2. Do you believe in objective morality?

I don't believe in any objective morality, if, by "objective," you mean universal, timeless, and absolute. I do, however, realize the need for a "society" as such to accept what many of us could see as rational moral principles in order to function and cohere, thereby avoiding a state of radical amoral anarchy.

For instance, many of us accept as good the principle of respect for an individual's body - that is, his or her right to safety and health. However, a well-functioning society that still practices rule-based human sacrifice may see it differently. And, in this sense, human sacrifice could seem desirable, possibly even rational.

This is just one long way to say that I have no clue. All morality is socially-determined, so what the hell do I know.

I just subscribe to the moral law of volprof, which is respect other people's rights to their bodies, opinions, thoughts, and even their actions, as long as the latter does not somehow infringe upon other individuals' rights to the same. This is probably a gross oversimplification of the world, but, one could also argue what moral theory isn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#19
#19
I don't believe in any objective morality, if, by "objective," you mean universal, timeless, and absolute. I do, however, realize the need for a "society" as such to accept what many of us could see as rational moral principles in order to function and cohere, thereby avoiding a state of radical amoral anarchy.

For instance, many of us accept as good the principle of respect for an individual's body - that is, his or her right to safety and health. However, a well-functioning society that still practices rule-based human sacrifice may see it differently. And, in this sense, human sacrifice could seem desirable, possibly even rational.

This is just one long way to say that I have no clue. All morality is socially-determined, so what the hell do I know.

I just subscribe to the moral law of volprof, which is respect other people's rights to their bodies, opinions, thoughts, and even their actions, as long as the latter does not somehow infringe upon other individuals' rights to the same. This is probably a gross oversimplification of the world, but, one could also argue what moral theory isn't.

Your response prompts a third question:

Why did you use the term 'evolve'?
 
#20
#20
I don't believe in any objective morality, if, by "objective," you mean universal, timeless, and absolute. I do, however, realize the need for a "society" as such to accept what many of us could see as rational moral principles in order to function and cohere, thereby avoiding a state of radical amoral anarchy.

For instance, many of us accept as good the principle of respect for an individual's body - that is, his or her right to safety and health. However, a well-functioning society that still practices rule-based human sacrifice may see it differently. And, in this sense, human sacrifice could seem desirable, possibly even rational.

This is just one long way to say that I have no clue. All morality is socially-determined, so what the hell do I know.

I just subscribe to the moral law of volprof, which is respect other people's rights to their bodies, opinions, thoughts, and even their actions, as long as the latter does not somehow infringe upon other individuals' rights to the same. This is probably a gross oversimplification of the world, but, one could also argue what moral theory isn't.

Morality is individually determined (second bold statement) or socially determined (first bold statement)?

Or did you mean individually determined (individual responsibility for their morals) but influenced by the society in which they live?
 
#22
#22
Moral law of volprof.

But, according to you, that not only should mean nothing to me but it also does mean nothing to me. Basically, if I stated, "According to the way I see it, society was so much better when the peasant class was routinely raped and pillaged by the privileged classes" you could not even justifiably reprimand me.
 
#24
#24
Morality is individually determined (second bold statement) or socially determined (first bold statement)?

Or did you mean individually determined (individual responsibility for their morals) but influenced by the society in which they live?

All morality is socially-determined. Individuals in nature are just amoral beings, probably without any concept of language, or at least a language that would be the pre-condition of a morality. No one just comes up with a morality, in this regard. I have some notion of basic human rights, yet these notions are influenced by the culture I live in. In this sense, my own morality is the product of my society. (It's important to note though that societies can be conflicted and multivalent in terms of morality, which explains, in part, why no society is completely coherent or whole - that is, homogenous.)

Even so, I still attempt to put together the pieces in a manner that I think best fits. In other words, my sense of morality is still the product of my society yet I am the arbiter (or can at least pretend to be) of the morality that proves most useful to me and, by extension, hopefully proves most useful for those I interact with.

But I am only a man, a man they call "volprof."
 
#25
#25
But, according to you, that not only should mean nothing to me but it also does mean nothing to me. Basically, if I stated, "According to the way I see it, society was so much better when the peasant class was routinely raped and pillaged by the privileged classes" you could not even justifiably reprimand me.

Objectively, no. But individually, yes. Someone whose morality is defined by routine rape and pillage probably wouldn't be inclined to care what I say anyhow.
 

VN Store



Back
Top