I see the problem from a right hemisphere perspective, probably because I am left handed. In my view, society is not a collective (gang) but a collection of individuals: the whole is only as strong as its weakest constituent. Like a link in a chain (your ancestral line for example), a break in the code of conduct throws the shared assumptions (like justice) out with the bathwater, leaving a new set of rules to ponder.
Reciprocity (you only get what you give) demands you be honourable, lest you find yourself in a den of thieves, and out of your league; unless of course you are a thief, in which case honour among your fellow takers is by definition, an oxymoron. You know, either you produce what you consume or you take it. Is there another way to survive? The Marxists would have us believe the bounty of prosperity is God-given (no wait, there is no god; I forgot) and it is up to a motivated revolutionary elite (true believers in the religion of Communism, where the state is everything and the individual is nothing) to use violence to tear down what took millennia to create. It never works, but the sales pitch does, due to the fact that when you scratch the surface of humanity, underneath lies envy, a truly ugly lust of which we are all guilty. The alternative? A personal code of conduct.
There are rules and laws designed to create a just and moral society but as David mentioned they can sometimes be bent or ignored, without terrible consequence, depending on circumstances. I think there should be consequences when great harm is involved in breaking a law for instance, yet we know some laws are outdated, poorly enforced, politically motivated and just plain wrong sometimes, so there should be constant reassessment and updating of them.
People get fed up and will flaunt the rules if allowed to, and be embolded when not challenged, so it's definately nesessary to have accountability. But when the media glorifies and justifies all kinds of different "wrongdoing" the message comes down to "anything goes, if you can get away with it".
If our leaders show immoral behaviour then why should we all be so goody good?
I don't think you can force morality on people though. It's best to teach them young that "you can't always get what you want."
Morality and ethics are individual pursuits, and the only thing that society at large has any involvement in is the effect that individual behaviors have on that society... When enough people in a given society behave morally and ethically, then that society is said to be a "high trust" society... the opposite is true when enough people in a given society behave in an immoral and unethical manner... that society is said to be a "low trust" society. The upshot of all of this is that society does not make the individual; it's the individual who makes the society... A classic example where the individual parts are greater than the whole. Any demographic group (Millennial or otherwise) attempting to justify immoral or unethical behavior is nothing more than a weak-ass excuse to avoid responsibility for one's actions... Now, please don't get me wrong, I can almost excuse and find justification for stealing an extra lemon if one is going to give it to a homeless person on a hot summer day, so they can make a container of lemonade to share on the street with their fellow unfortunates... That's Robinhood!... but stealing an extra lemon to squeeze over one's chicken picata... that's being a thief.
It is not a matter of the act. It is the lack of having a unified community standard for moral behavior. Those rules that govern society have some leeway. Some rules are fine to break as long as they fit in the overall morality of the society. There has to be some wiggle room to address boundary conditions that don't fit the intent of the rules.
Say a worker in the lunch line decides to break the rules and give a hungry child an extra portion. Most rational people would find that to be an acceptable deviation. We operate on different sets of rules during unusual circumstances. Applying them universally when they don't fit can be immoral in itself.
The real problem comes when there is not a shared framework of how society should work. Breaking those rules just because people have a disregard for them will break down society.
The real strength of religion for a society is not the particular articles of faith. Personal beliefs are internal. There is no difference to society as a whole, whether you personally believe in those articles as long as you share the overall moral ethics of the society.
What is going on is we have people who want to displace the existing morality and remake society by force.
Affluent people desiring the problems and passions of the common man. We see it all the time. Especially, in the media and politics.
Look at Tucker Carlson, whom I like, he’s a trust fund baby, educated with the elite and now portrays himself as a good ole boy hunter - fisher man. He’s just like us.
They crave something they can never understand. The struggles of the everyday common man.
I see the problem from a right hemisphere perspective, probably because I am left handed. In my view, society is not a collective (gang) but a collection of individuals: the whole is only as strong as its weakest constituent. Like a link in a chain (your ancestral line for example), a break in the code of conduct throws the shared assumptions (like justice) out with the bathwater, leaving a new set of rules to ponder.
Reciprocity (you only get what you give) demands you be honourable, lest you find yourself in a den of thieves, and out of your league; unless of course you are a thief, in which case honour among your fellow takers is by definition, an oxymoron. You know, either you produce what you consume or you take it. Is there another way to survive? The Marxists would have us believe the bounty of prosperity is God-given (no wait, there is no god; I forgot) and it is up to a motivated revolutionary elite (true believers in the religion of Communism, where the state is everything and the individual is nothing) to use violence to tear down what took millennia to create. It never works, but the sales pitch does, due to the fact that when you scratch the surface of humanity, underneath lies envy, a truly ugly lust of which we are all guilty. The alternative? A personal code of conduct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE9XYr_1NIA
There are rules and laws designed to create a just and moral society but as David mentioned they can sometimes be bent or ignored, without terrible consequence, depending on circumstances. I think there should be consequences when great harm is involved in breaking a law for instance, yet we know some laws are outdated, poorly enforced, politically motivated and just plain wrong sometimes, so there should be constant reassessment and updating of them.
People get fed up and will flaunt the rules if allowed to, and be embolded when not challenged, so it's definately nesessary to have accountability. But when the media glorifies and justifies all kinds of different "wrongdoing" the message comes down to "anything goes, if you can get away with it".
If our leaders show immoral behaviour then why should we all be so goody good?
I don't think you can force morality on people though. It's best to teach them young that "you can't always get what you want."
Morality and ethics are individual pursuits, and the only thing that society at large has any involvement in is the effect that individual behaviors have on that society... When enough people in a given society behave morally and ethically, then that society is said to be a "high trust" society... the opposite is true when enough people in a given society behave in an immoral and unethical manner... that society is said to be a "low trust" society. The upshot of all of this is that society does not make the individual; it's the individual who makes the society... A classic example where the individual parts are greater than the whole. Any demographic group (Millennial or otherwise) attempting to justify immoral or unethical behavior is nothing more than a weak-ass excuse to avoid responsibility for one's actions... Now, please don't get me wrong, I can almost excuse and find justification for stealing an extra lemon if one is going to give it to a homeless person on a hot summer day, so they can make a container of lemonade to share on the street with their fellow unfortunates... That's Robinhood!... but stealing an extra lemon to squeeze over one's chicken picata... that's being a thief.
It is not a matter of the act. It is the lack of having a unified community standard for moral behavior. Those rules that govern society have some leeway. Some rules are fine to break as long as they fit in the overall morality of the society. There has to be some wiggle room to address boundary conditions that don't fit the intent of the rules.
Say a worker in the lunch line decides to break the rules and give a hungry child an extra portion. Most rational people would find that to be an acceptable deviation. We operate on different sets of rules during unusual circumstances. Applying them universally when they don't fit can be immoral in itself.
The real problem comes when there is not a shared framework of how society should work. Breaking those rules just because people have a disregard for them will break down society.
The real strength of religion for a society is not the particular articles of faith. Personal beliefs are internal. There is no difference to society as a whole, whether you personally believe in those articles as long as you share the overall moral ethics of the society.
What is going on is we have people who want to displace the existing morality and remake society by force.
Affluent people desiring the problems and passions of the common man. We see it all the time. Especially, in the media and politics.
Look at Tucker Carlson, whom I like, he’s a trust fund baby, educated with the elite and now portrays himself as a good ole boy hunter - fisher man. He’s just like us.
They crave something they can never understand. The struggles of the everyday common man.