People Think Morality Is Declining. Surveys Suggest They're Wrong.
Asked about people in general, respondents perceive moral decline. But when asked about specific acts or people in their personal worlds, the data tell a different story.

Think people are getting more depraved? You're not alone—but you're probably wrong. So suggests a new paper published in the journal Nature. It's the work of Adam M. Mastroianni, a social psychology researcher at Columbia University, and Harvard psychology professor Daniel T. Gilbert.
Their review of the data shows that Americans believe overall morality is declining, "that they have believed this for at least 70 years," and that they attribute it "to the decreasing morality of individuals as they age and to the decreasing morality of successive generations," write Mastroianni and Gilbert. But "people's reports of the morality of their contemporaries have not declined over time, suggesting that the perception of moral decline is an illusion."
Fears that society is getting less moral go back way more than 70 years, of course. More than 2,000 years ago, the Roman historian Livy warned about the "sinking of the foundations of morality" leading to "the final collapse of the whole edifice" and "the dark dawning of our modern day." In more recent times, the one thing we can count on from each aging generation is lamentations about "kids today."
"Why have so many different people in so many different times and places been convinced that their fellow citizens are now less moral than they once were?" ask Mastroianni and Gilbert. Obviously, one possibility is that this perception is true. Another possibility is that it's "a psychological illusion to which people all over the world and throughout history have been susceptible."
Their research points to the latter explanation: It's all in our heads.
People agree: humans are worse now…
To reach this conclusion, the researchers first established that people do indeed think morality is declining. This can be gleaned from U.S. surveys between 1949 and 2019 that ask Americans about honesty and ethics in society, "the state of moral values," and things like that; on 84 percent of such questions, a majority of participants reported perceptions of moral decline.
Data from around the world paint a similar picture. In surveys spanning 354,120 participants in 59 nations between 1996 and 2007, the majority of participants reported moral declines in 86 percent of relevant questions.
Mastroianni and Gilbert also conducted their own surveys of Americans in 2020, asking people how "kind, honest, nice, and good" people were at the moment and at various other points in time. Across the board, people largely thought their fellow humans had gotten worse. People attributed this decline both to individuals getting less moral over time ("personal change") and younger people today being less moral than younger people in the past ("interpersonal replacement").
Could these perceptions be right? It's not an easy question to answer subjectively, as individual views will necessarily depend on personal values and ethics. If you believe that acceptance of, say, homosexuality or interracial relationships are major markers of moral decline, you might be more inclined to believe that things have gotten worse—and to be right on your own terms. If belief in individual rights for all people is a big part of your moral calculation, then society is obviously doing much better.
And people's perceptions invariably rely on distorted or imperfect knowledge as well. A lot of people are convinced that things that were common but less talked about once upon a time just weren't happening until recently.
…But Evidence Suggests otherwise
It's hard to deny that some major—and commonly-agreed-upon—wrongs are less common today.
"Societies keep (or at least leave) reasonably good records of extremely immoral behaviour such as slaughter and conquest, slavery and subjugation or murder and rape, and careful analyses of those historical records strongly suggest that these objective indicators of immorality have decreased significantly over the last few centuries," note Mastroianni and Gilbert. "On average, modern humans treat each other far better than their forebears ever did—which is not what one would expect if honesty, kindness, niceness and goodness had been decreasing steadily, year after year, for millennia."
But what about the smaller things—what the researchers term "everyday morality"?
To address this, Mastroianni and Gilbert again look to the polls. This time, they consulted surveys asking people things like "Were you treated with respect all day yesterday?" "Would you say that most of the time people try to be helpful, or that they are mostly just looking out for themselves?" "Within the past 12 months, have you been assaulted or mugged?" and "During the past 12 months, have you let a stranger go ahead of you in line?"
If everyday morality really was cratering, answers to these questions over time should show it. But that's not what Mastroianni and Gilbert found.
Looking at surveys administered to more than 4.4 million people between 1965 and 2020, they found 107 questions about contemporary morality that were asked at least twice at times at least 10 years apart. And the results "were clear: people's reports of the current morality of their contemporaries were stable over time."
This strongly suggests "that the widespread perception of moral decline is an illusion," write Mastroianni and Gilbert. "Moreover, studies that use the rare objective measure of changes in everyday moral behaviour suggest the same thing." For instance, "rates of cooperation in the Prisoner's Dilemma game have increased significantly between 1956 and 2017," they point out. Yet "people mistakenly believe that such cooperation has declined."
Moral decline is an illusion…but an understandable one
Reading this study, I'm reminded of my parents' conviction that there are many more murders and violent crimes in our city today than there were when they were young. This is incorrect—even with much better crime-solving techniques today, rates of murder and all sorts of crimes are significantly lower now. But their knowledge of these crimes tends to be more complete today, for a number of reasons (more avenues for learning about these crimes, more access to news, more likelihood of paying attention to crime news now than when they were young, the perceptions of those around them, etc.).
These same sorts of explanations may explain larger perceptions about moral decline, Mastroianni and Gilbert suggest."When two well-established psychological phenomena work in tandem, they can produce an illusion of moral decline," they write. The first phenomenon is known as the biased exposure effect:
Human beings are especially likely to seek and attend to negative information about others, and mass media indulge this tendency with a disproportionate focus on people behaving badly. As such, people may encounter more negative information than positive information about the morality of 'people in general', and this 'biased exposure effect' may help explain why people believe that current morality is relatively low.
The second phenomenon is known as the biased memory effect: "When people recall positive and negative events from the past, the negative events are more likely to be forgotten, more likely to be misremembered as their opposite, and more likely to have lost their emotional impact." So, looking back on past times, people may remember interactions as more positive, people as more pleasant, and society in general as more moral than it actually was.
Taken together, these effects can give people the impression that not only were previous times better than they were but that things today are also worse, widening a gulf in perceived morality between the two periods. Or, as the researchers put it:
Biased exposure to information about current morality may make the present seem like a moral wasteland, biased memory for information about past morality may make the past seem like a moral wonderland and when people in a wasteland remember being in a wonderland, they may naturally conclude that the landscape has changed.
People perceive moral improvement in their personal worlds
To tease out the effects of bias on perceptions of morality, Mastroianni and Gilbert asked the same people about moral decline generally and then asked the same questions about people they knew or interacted with personally. On average, folks said that people overall—and young people in particular—were not as kind, honest, nice, or good in 2020 as they were in 2005.
However, they believed people in their personal worlds were just as good as ever in 2020—in fact, participants said that the people they knew had become more moral over time.
And while they said young people they knew personally in 2020 were not as good as older people they knew in 2005, "this difference was smaller among people in their personal worlds than it was among people in general."
In another study, Mastroianni and Gilbert found that respondents were likely to believe people were worse today than in the year they were born or in the year they turned 20. But respondents did not think people got worse during the 20 years before they were born, or that they were any better two decades prior to their birth than they had been four decades prior.
"In short, participants believed that moral decline began at about roughly the same time they appeared on Earth," note the researchers. This provides further evidence that people are basing their perceptions of moral decline on biased information.
Illusions with real-world effects
Here's how Mastroianni and Gilbert sum things up:
Participants in the foregoing studies believed that morality has declined, and they believed this in every decade and in every nation we studied. They believed the decline began somewhere around the time they were born, regardless of when that was, and they believed it continues to this day. They believed the decline was a result both of individuals becoming less moral as they move through time and of the replacement of more moral people by less moral people. And they believed that the people they personally know and the people who lived before they did are exceptions to this rule. About all these things, they were almost certainly mistaken.
This mistaken belief can have serious real-world consequences, however—including pushes for more government intervention to stop perceived moral backsliding.
"In 2015, 76% of US Americans agreed that 'addressing the moral breakdown of the country' should be a high priority for their government," note Mastroianni and Gilbert.
This not only prompts people to demand authorities spend time addressing imaginary rather than real issues, but can lead to heavy-handed actions that impinge on personal freedom and civil liberties.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Super fast money earning online job to flood the cash in your bank account every week. from this only by working for 2 hrs a day after my college i made $17529 in my last month. I had zero experience when I joined this and in my first month I easily made $11854. It is so easy to do this job and regular income from this are just superb. want to join this right now? just go to this web page for more info…
https://boostyourwealth02.blogspot.com/
Speaking of moral decline...
Take your spam elsewhere.
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.SalaryApp1.com
Researcher asks subjective questions to survey respondents to prove grown men aren’t dancing naked in front of children.
The survey questions are quite frankly stupid. If one person treated someone with respect the answers would be yes, even if 10 did not. It also doesn't address work ethic, independence, or acknowledgement if kink in front of kids. Just a terrible article and setup for the survey.
Let's not go too far. The study has value.
This is just answering a very different question than what the headline thinks it's answering. In short, Basic courtesy to people you meet on the street is increasing. Direct rudeness to people based on their appearance or innate characteristics has definitely gone down.
I would say it is a valid counter to people saying that incidents of racism are worse now than ever before. However, it is not designed to and cannot answer the wider questions about morality in general.
Sure, until they learn the other's political leanings. The left encourages diversity in everything but thought while the right sees anyone who disagrees with them as an existential threat to civilization. And if they're seen showing courtesy to a member of the other political tribe they risk being shunned or banished by everyone they care about.
I am making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply.
Everybody must try this job now by just using this website. https://www.apprichs.com
The first step in fixing something is recognizing that a problem exists, really exists.
Stop trying to censor speech and make the effort to discern the truth of statements with correctly applied logic and science and you’ll be taking the first step to recognizing that a problem exists.
Like trying to refute anything that I’ve said.
"Like trying to refute anything that I’ve said."
Slimy pile of Nazi shit has had his ass handed to him many times, and is simply too stupid to understand.
Fuck off and die, shitstain.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,800 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,800 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link—————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
I refuted your feeble failed attempt the first time and every time you repasted it without even correcting your errors but still trying to sell it like the “white Indian” you emulate.
I originally thought that there was no way you could be so stupid to think you refuted anything.
But I’ve come to the conclusion that in your ignorance, you think simply talking shit constitutes refutation.
You don’t learn from your errors.
It is a sign of some moral progress and of increasing intellect that people acknowledge the existence of the Holocaust, despite your bullshit to the contrary.
Fuck Off, Nazi!
That you blindly believe a story backed up by laws that criminalize the evidence that refutes it where it exists.
A story with zero irrefutable physical evidence to support it.
A story that defies correctly applied logic and science which I have used to refute it many times right here and nobody has ever refuted what I’ve said.
A story that lines the pockets of the alleged victims and witnesses. A story confessed to by the tortured and those facing death.
Hahaha.
I dont think it has any value. Let's take an extreme example. Many serial killers put on a face as a pastor, good neighbor, friendly guy.... as they are killing people. A false facade of niceties or being friendly is just a false face. It says nothing about the morality or actions of the individual. This study judges these false faces as the totality of the morality. We have increased drug uses, increased kink, organized shift lifters, demands for free money sans work, open support of censorship, cheering of political prosecutions, ending friends and familial relations over politics, etc etc. All of these can occur with the people doing it being friendly to a neighbor.
The survey is meaningless.
But still, wouldn’t you rather be killed by a polite serial killer than a rude one? I know I would. Every little bit helps. I’ve heard of people saying it was more galling to be subjected to polite concentration camp staff than impolite ones; they’re nuts. I’m sure that at the time it’d’ve bothered them more if the staff torturing them were rude on top of it.
If a mafioso kills you because it's just business, that's one thing, but if it's personal that's worse.
Fair. John Wayne Gacy at least made the kids smile.
I don’t know, the Nazis and communists made few if any bones as to what they thought of their targets so hating them was justified. The COVID camps in Australia were just there to help so hating your jailers was Reason for them to play the victim kinda like the long suffering abusive spouse.
Coming from someone who would submit to the horrors of slavery over the horrors of war, even if the horrors of slavery could include the horrors of war, I can see you saying that.
The only thing I would want from a would-be murderer or slaver is a nice, dapper Alcatraz Ascot as a necktie, some nice, comfy ventilation from the hollow-point holes in their chest, and a sweet second smile on the neck. Ah, bliss! 🙂
"Organized shift lifters"? Is that what the kids are calling it these days? What is it?
Quiet quitting is a type of shift lifting.
Not meaningless. But I agree, it has very hard limits and should not be taken too far. However, that's any survey or question. The primary issue with the social sciences has always been that limited results are overapplied and overgeneralized. Almost always it's a case of asking a question that the data simply cannot answer
I don't know who said it, I've heard it attributed to Ben Franklin, but it sums it up so well: Skulls are always smiling.
As for Kink, nobody better lay a finger on my Body Butter! 🙂
You make interesting points.
It happens at times.
The study ONLY has value in showing that a "study" can be designed to GUARANTEE a predetermined conclusion. As reported, the study DOES NOT indicate what you claim.
The frequency of racism is 100% UNRELATED to overall morality.
Nature has lost all their credibility with me. I had a subscription for decades, and let it lapse when they went anti-gun in their editorials, and they went woke a year or two later, not to mention pushing the climate charade.
Psychology? Social psychology? A triple whammy of nonsense.
I skimmed the rest for giggles. Nothing has any credibility.
When immorality is clad in virtue, expect ENB to sing from the rooftops how wonderfully moral we are now that grinding your crotch in a 5 year old's face is a sacrament.
The survey may be valid, but it ended in 2020. Which was when things really started to go to hell.
Realizing that modern people are pathologically kind even when they should be rude shows a lack of courage, an immorality. The fact modern Americans think that the fellow citizen enabling tyrants to steal income from me and use it to blow up kids across the globe, as long as they are nice about it, makes morality even out. Seriously this study is immoral, so is anyone thinking it shows a bright moral future. People should not be "nice" to one another right now, people need to do the right thing. Most times you can be polite to do the right thing, most modern Americans believe that being polite *is* the right thing, regardless of what happens in reality.
So what you are saying is that the massive decline in morality is a Summer of the Shark effect, where we confuse increased reporting with increased incidence?
I am willing to entertain the idea that the media would previously barely mention things in hushed tones while now they throw the worst of humanity to the forefront as clickbait.
I'm not thoroughly convinced. This analysis only even attempts to measure basic courtesy and gross misconduct. While these are elements of morality, they are not the whole. Also, given the presence of monitoring that would shock Orwell, many people are far more polite in person these days because any recorded misbehavior could end your career.
The parts that people are bemoaning are things like family unity, not driving fully nude in a pride parade, or convincing extremely young children that they are part of a social minority and need medical sterilization and to lie to their parents about it (ripped from the headlines). The chief complaints are clearly outside the scope of this analysis, and so I don't think this conclusion is viable.
No, it isn’t from greater reporting. Laments about declining morality far precede modern reporting. They permeate ancient religious and secular texts. It’s an absolutely common trope as far back as people have been recording thoughts about life and history.
Much more telling is the result that people always see the decline as starting about the time they were born. That suggests something for different from reporting. Instead, it suggests that they are imputing an internal knowledge of all the ways they fall short of an idealized morality to society as a whole: I fall short when faced with the complexity of real life ergo others do so too and the world is headed to hell in a hand basket.
It’s a narrative of a fall from an idealized childhood. The anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss argued that every creation myth across cultures is really about the dilemma of the choice between non-existence in a perfect world and flawed existence in an imperfect world. This the narratives are always about the human condition in the present and always involve a notion of decline.
Luckily no civilization in history had ramifications for becoming overwhelming immoral. Also luckily, one guy came up with a motivation that applies to all other humans, making any critique that would push people to be more moral to be easily dispensed with, since anyone pointing out massive societal immoralities really had a great childhood (white privilege) and just wants to revert to that (white fragility). Please learn to recognize that all academia is a poisoned well, they filled their ranks with sophists for generations. The rhetoric of wisdom sounds great always of course, but these people are mouthing rhetoric for cross purposes (money) not for some pure academic pursuit.
Well, see, those things in your last paragraph are beyond morality...they're nuts. I think when most people think of morality, they don't consider loony-left stuff to be the same subject matter.
Well said.
Nobody was discourteous and asked the rapists to stop raping the woman on that train in Philly, according to these questions that's a sign of improving morality.
What a virtuous society!
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1675847875580837889?t=ep7VQY5v2tepoWZZ8EphCg&s=19
It’s always about vengeance
[Link]
https://twitter.com/AlexsandrKislov/status/1675846200749334528?t=j_Z99q_N3WPM6uYTS3FVJA&s=19
When one's country is overrun by hostile invaders who cannot be assimilated, there are only three options:
1) Capitulation & subjugation
2) Forced relocation (don't believe anyone who says it can't be done. It has been throughout history)
3) [Violates community guidelines]
It's quite obvious that 3 means extermination. Why does nobody call this guy out when he calls for mass murder? Is it silent agreement?
Remember when sarcasmic said Covid internment camps didn't count as wrong because they weren't extermination camps?
They were just quarantine camps!! Loss of freedom is fine with disease per sarcasmic.
https://reason.com/2021/11/24/ahmaud-arbery-alleged-murderers-almost-escaped-charges-prosecutorial-misconduct-jackie-johnson-george-barnhill/?comments=true#comment-9228119
And Putin is trying them all in Ukraine, even though his is the invading force.
https://twitter.com/Antweegonus/status/1675730293477588992?t=UgKAlkYuAJ9kSc_2m44z2w&s=19
I for one am quite relieved all sides are now comfortable admitting that mass immigration was always grievance-based predation by one people on another
The song and dance about GDP, cultural enrichment, foreign food etc was always loathsome and I’m glad it’s pretty much done now
[Link]
Oh my goodness. What a load of bull. Don't you know that drag shows still exist? As long as men dress up as women there is no morality at all. None. None of those questions matter. All that matters is that drag queens and trannies are walking the streets. Clean that shit up (lock them up, murder them, it makes no difference) and then there can be a conversation about morality.
Amirite?
Sounds exactly like leftists regarding gun owners.
The difference is, we aren't trying to fuck someone's kids.
You know, I still haven't figured out why you guys think that kids are being groomed. Groomed for whom? The supposed groomers will be old and gross by the time the kids are of age. Your team takes the most extreme examples and parades them as if they are the norm, just like the gun-grabbers who claim ARs cause mass shootings. What you are saying is not honest. I'm not saying you are dishonest. I think you believe what you are saying. But you really need to step back, turn off the emotions, and examine the ideas you are promoting.
Yeah, kids are as sloppy and unkempt as ever!
The supposed groomers will be old and gross by the time the kids are of age.
This shows how you are being intentionally obtuse.
No I’m not. Please explain how adults who are now in their 20s and 30s are going to be attractive to children in ten years. I don’t know about you, but when I was that age I and everyone my age thought anyone over 25 was old.
Now let's go back in history a bit.
20 years ago: “Oh my God they’re telling kids it’s ok to be gay! It’s the end of the world!”
20 years before that: “Oh my God they’re teaching sex in school! It’s the end of the world!”
20 years before that: “Oh my God white kids and black kids are going to school together! It’s the end of the world!”
Guess what. The world didn’t end then, and it isn’t ending now.
Sarcasmic just made the slippery slope argument and refuted himself, even if he inserted an unrelated strawman at the end. Let’s see if he notices.
More honest Mammary-Fuhrer: "Morality has gone TOTALLY into the crapper, ever since the Grinch-Lizards STOLE The Donald's Sacred Erections!"
Is he pretending to argue in good faith? Not that it matters. Any conversation with him always descends into him making “you” statements because he can’t argue with what I actually say and always resorts to personal attacks.
Self-awareness isn't a Sarcasmic super-power.
Anyway, this is evidence that in Sarc's imagination his critics are helpless in the face of his logic and mighty intellect.
Judge them by their own actions.
Why do they insist on their right to dance naked in front of kids?
Why do they insist on their right to have little kids stuff dollar bills into their underwear?
Why do they insist on teaching little pre-pubescent kids all about sex?
If you can think of any clean G-rated reason for any of these, you are one yourself.
And how often is this happening? Does it happen in your town? In your state? Or are you describing very rare occurrences that make the news precisely because they are very rare, and portraying them as if they happen every day in every city in America?
That's about as honest as gun-grabbers claiming a school is shot up by someone with an AR every week.
I'm not defending anything here. Just saying there needs to be some perspective.
First you say it never happens.
Then you say it's ok if it happens just a little.
I questioned the idea that kids are being groomed by asking who they are being groomed for. Not sure what this "it" is you're accusing me of waffling on.
Those were your literal words, but they implied there was no grooming.
And I answered your question by telling you how to recognize the groomers -- the ones who insist om dancing naked before kids as some kind of constitutional moral right.
You responded by saying the groomers will be too old by the time the kids grow up.
IOW, you pretend groomers are not interested in raping little kids, that they are kind and considerate and want to wait until the little kids become adults.
You are one sick fuck.
And I answered your question by telling you how to recognize the groomers — the ones who insist om dancing naked before kids as some kind of constitutional moral right.
Grooming for whom? You're not answering my question!
IOW, you pretend groomers are not interested in raping little kids
Who is raping little kids? That's the first I've heard of that.
You are one sick fuck.
Really? You can't answer my questions so you accuse me of supporting child-rape? That's a pathetic low, even for you.
Wow now pedophiles no longer exist, impressive, sarc just solved the problem. By declaring there is no problem, and anyone who talks about the problem is irrational, because there is no problem.
I guess sarcasmic has never heard of NAMBLA.
The "grooming" alleged to be going on is for pedophiles, so the targets don't have to grow up. No intervening decades needed.
Well if that's the case then there should be a swath of child rape in the news. Did I miss it?
"I still haven’t figured out why you guys think that kids are being groomed."
Because they're grooming kids.
"Your team takes the most extreme examples and parades them as if they are the norm"
Because they are the norm.
Evidence in the links.
You used to know all this, but I guess that your tribalistic little brain won't countenance the truth anymore.
Team Jeff is pro grooming. His wife may have not lied about his parental issues.
our team takes the most extreme examples and parades them as if they are the norm, just like the gun-grabbers who claim ARs cause mass shootings.
No-one is arguing for the acceptability of mass shootings and\or trying to normalize it in the culture. Its about negating a constitutional right for one side. This is a policy, not moral argument.
On the grooming outrage side is the blatant attempt to make sexualizing children acceptable. That is a moral argument.
Hate to break it to you, but children are sexualized all by themselves. Thanks to the media, LGBTWhatever themes in almost every form of entertainment, and this newfangled Internet thingy, little kids are not only exposed to sexuality but talking about it amongst themselves at young ages that are incomprehensible to old farts like myself.
That's not a value statement. No, that's just the facts.
Funny enough this works here too.
Wow now pedophiles no longer exist, impressive, sarc just solved the problem. By declaring there is no problem, and anyone who talks about the problem is irrational, because there is no problem.
many climate alarmists are just as adamant about the immorality of cheeseburgers and airplane travel
They can go fuck themselves. Rush Limbaugh said it perfectly.
"Environmentalists are like watermelons: green on the outside, red in the middle."
Amirite?
No.
Good lord. Are you just fully embracing being a troll? Or do you still hope people will think you have anything of substance or meaning to say when you post? I honestly can’t tell anymore. In one instance you logically engage with the subject matter. In the next instance you’re posting the most juvenile trolls like this.
You can’t have it both ways.
He can, because the juvenile stuff was him just being sarcastic, how could you not tell?!?
Edit: it's like watching cartmans mental gymnastics in South Park, just not funny because it might be a real person.
https://twitter.com/TheVirginiaGen1/status/1675562253976838147?t=9RdWER8Lw3CWyxJ1S_AyHQ&s=19
The "deep rooted challenges" Rachel faced on his "path to acceptance" was a mental illness, something that needed treatment not normalization. Bear in mind that condition of mental illness on a 4473 form would bar him from owning a gun, much less exercising a command role in the US Army. That's how far the Army has fallen, while they wonder why recruitment is down.
"@DeptofDefense
.@USArmy Maj. Rachel Jones found solace after coming out as a transgender female. Her journey from battling depression & suicidal thoughts to embracing authenticity inspires us all. #WhyWeServe
[Link]"
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1675852657313955842?t=9qwgPtQIgilNcV7n6ISsnQ&s=19
I observed yesterday that liberals don't believe non-white people are capable of forming dissenting views on their own.
Here's Jen Psaki claiming the only reason Muslim Americans object to trans dogma in schools is because white conservatives are manipulating them into it: [link]
Once you notice this bigotry in liberal discourse, you'll see it everywhere. It's completely embedded in their worldview.
They love non-white people as long as they dutifully recite from their script. But for any who don't, it's because they're being controlled how to think.
Asians are carrying water for white supremacy if they are against affirmative action.
Which was an actual headline:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12259933/Jemele-Hill-Asian-Americans-carried-water-white-supremacists-affirmative-action-ruling.html
As if it should be okay for Harvard to systematically discriminate against Asian-Americans in admissions based solely on their race, and the people being racially discriminated against should take one for the BIPOC team.
You don't sound like an ally right now. I think you need to go do the work, citizen!
(Sarcasm tag because parody is obsolete)
https://babylonbee.com/news/screaming-liberals-run-in-terror-as-pride-flags-replaced-with-american-flags
A true act of violence by those espousing hate.
My flag is more inclusive than your flag. My flag has 50 stars, one for each state.
Yeah, but those stars are all white, you Cracker.
"When people recall positive and negative events from the past, the negative events are more likely to be forgotten, more likely to be misremembered as their opposite, and more likely to have lost their emotional impact."
"Indeed, this very assertion is an example of the effect."
Given this generation loves to wallow in their "trauma" I can see how they got that twisted up.
It's sort of like the people who insist SNL used to be so much better, because they only remember the really funny skits.
https://twitter.com/Trollstoy88/status/1675601529343029249?t=YlG72mBokU_yC_0Gis0qew&s=19
A wild warlike Russian orc educates a highly civilized American citizen on how to behave in public.
[Video]
"People Think Morality Is Declining. Surveys Suggest They're Wrong."
Morality might be, but moralizing isn't.
The same holds true of religion's purported decline. Just the gods are changing.
That's pretty much my response. Morality is absolutely in freefall if you use the average moral standards of 10 years ago, much less 70 years ago. A new moral structure is being implemented (some might say forced down our throats) that is antithetical to the prior moral order. It can be said that moralizing is on the rise, but it is on terms that would be considered immoral in our recent past.
Without delving into the poll/study I would assume the questions are meaninglessly worded and nothing is defined. Without setting a baseline and assigning the correct position on an array of moral attitudes while also showing a multi-year shift, then essentially nothing is shown.
Morality is a huge component of the culture war. Reason is on the side of those attempting to radically invert values. Immortality and vice is their strongest value.
Morality is a huge component of the culture war. Reason is on the side of those attempting to radically invert values. Immortality and vice is their strongest value.
What is moral about using government force (violence) against people who have not harmed the life, liberty or property of others?
I know, right?!
https://reason.com/2016/12/05/time-to-end-discrimination-against-gays/
Roflcopter.
"A new moral structure is being implemented (some might say forced down our throats) that is antithetical to the prior moral order."
No, the new morality is an outgrowth and refinement of the old moral order. Take veganism, for example, it's an extension of the old morality prohibition on cruelty to animals. I remember reading about the coal miners in Wales and what they would do to anyone who would dare to torment or mistreat the ponies they worked with. I wonder what the next new moral order will bring. The more we learn about plants, the question of sentience/non sentience could lead to uncomfortable answers, is what I'm saying.
"then essentially nothing is shown."
They show a persistent belief that morality is declining. No surprise there. Most social science studies only confirm what people know already. Some do come up with counter intuitive conclusions, however, so there is that.
It's not proported. One in three Americans are religiously classified as "Nones," up vastly over previous decades.
And it's happening elsewhere, as this story from Germany shows:
German Catholic church ‘dying painful death’ as 520,000 leave in a year
https://www.newsbreak.com/news/3074668170122-german-catholic-church-dying-painful-death-as-520-000-leave-in-a-year
Note well that it mentions that the supposedly "Anti-Christian" Nazis collected the Church Tax that subsidizes Catholic and Protestant Churches.
Lots of new observatories, art museums, and safe zones for kids in the making. 🙂
On the contrary, Catholicism is continuing to grow:
https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/vatican-statistics-show-continued-growth-number-catholics-worldwide
As does Christianity in general:
https://research.lifeway.com/2022/01/31/7-encouraging-trends-of-global-christianity-in-2022/
The growth is credited to Christians having better birth rates than their non-religious counterparts, which have very low birth rates.
And the idea that collectioning taxes from churches is somehow a way of subsidizing and endorsing them is laughable and simply false. If anything, taxing the churches shows hostility towards them; go read Hitler's Table Talk, it shows a lot of disparaging comments on Christianity by the Nazis.
The apostates should reconsider their action.
Just because someone is born in a religious family, doesn't mean they will remain in their parent's religion...and thank Man's Rational Faculty for that. And it's happening with Amish, Mormons, and Muslims as well as Catholics. The Information Age has overwhelmed Humanity with new and increasing knowledge and "The more one knows, the less one believes."
And you misunderstood. The Church Tax was extorted from Citizens to subsidize the Catholic and Protestant Churches of the Citizen's particular affiliation. The Churches sure as Hell didn't object to that.
And Hitler's Table Talk has been thoroughly trounced on it's credibility:
Hitler's Table Table--Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Table_Talk
The apostates need to to keep thinking and carving out their own understanding of truth without the alleged authority of God, Pope, Church, and Grim Fairy Tales.
“And Hitler’s Table Talk has been thoroughly trounced on it’s credibility”
The translations are problematic. The original German version is said to be more reliable. Soviet film director A. Sokurov made “Moloch,” a fictionalized account of the material which is well worth a watch. Same Sokurov touch can be seen in his also fictionalized biopics of Lenin and Hirohito.
https://thepiratebay.org/description.php?id=4450119
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Spam may not be immoral, but it's a damn pain, regardless of creed or non-creed. No!
"people in their personal worlds were just as good as ever in 2020"
Well, I'm so relieved to learn that. Here I was thinking the opposite after listening to a sports talk show last month where, shockingly to me, three of the four hosts said they would not turn their significant other in to the cops if they found out S.O. had murdered someone. Only the oldest dude said he would, that said S.O. was not deserving of unconditional love if S.O. murdered someone.
I wonder what kind of cretin takes the "It's Only Football" Podcast as a moral guide? 🙂
And I wonder if it was a Yogi Berra clone who said his S.O. didn't deserve unconditional love if the S.O. committed murder? Uh, hello? Law of Non-Contradiction anyone? 😉
Just as planned. Not going to get the peasantry crammed into public transport if they have a nice little Kia Rio to tool around in.
With just 8% of new vehicles costing under $30,000, ‘it’s the least affordable car market in modern history,’ expert says.
“Not only are new vehicle prices near an all-time high, but the interest rate to finance a purchase has also jumped dramatically. Now, fewer affordable new cars even hit the market, according to recent reports.”
"Not only are new vehicle prices near an all-time high"
Be smart. Buy a used car. A new car depreciates in value the moment you take possession of it.
Used cars are still astronomical right now. 10 year old Hondas are going for 20+k.
Even decade old piece of shit Ford cars are going for almost 10k
Cash for Clunkers permafucked the used car market.
"People Think Morality Is Declining. Surveys Suggest They're Wrong."
It's true! 10 out of 10 immoral people surveyed stated categorically they are not immoral!
Methodology is kinda important, eh? It's almost like polls are constructed exclusively as a means to support the bias of the pollster. Even worse, "journalists" don't read the methodology and exaggerate the false conclusions of the pollsters into a "fact" statement that isn't remotely interpretable from the data.
It hurts that our tax dollars fund this.
NPR airs a piece about how the Asians weren’t actually being discriminated against by Harvard, etc.
...and were just being used by white people who wanted to end Affirmative Action
They go even further to claim that Asians Americans are only racist because white folks entice them. NPR is fully committed to Marxist class warfare..
Lopez must not know many actual Asian-Americans. Because all of the ones I know (liberal, conservative, or independent) want their kids to get into the best college possible, and don't want other people to make excuses to cut ahead of them in line.
Did they leave out the part about subtracting 100 points from their SAT scores?
Jen Psaki claims GOP is ‘TRYING TO RECRUIT MUSLIM-AMERICANS’ against transsexuals.
“I’ve been noticing the reemergence of a very old GOP playbook,” Psaki said, suggesting former President Richard Nixon encouraged the fear of black people in order to draw the votes of white people. “And it worked by pitting one group of Americans against another, the GOP successfully managed to split off southern whites from the Democratic Party.”
There was no “Southern Strategy,” and Nixon was so racist, he was cutting civil rights ads in 1960.
NIxon was no racist. He won his first political campaign as president of his college promising to racially integrate the campus social groups. He was better than Kennedy on civil rights and outspent Johnson on America's black communities. The southern strategy happened though, until Nixon, the southern states were solidly democratic.
Nixon doubled down on the Great Society when it was obviously failing. Seeing the results, one has to assume he was only slightly less racist than LBJ.
"Seeing the results, one has to assume he was only slightly less racist than LBJ."
LBJ was an example of the non-racists among the southern democrats. This also goes back to his earliest days, doing back breaking road construction side by side with black laborers, teaching Mexican students how to debate, he hated poverty and had an empathy with the downtrodden. Calling him or Nixon a racist because you dislike his politics is contemptible. I urge you not to fall in line with those who label anything they take exception to as racist. It's a stupid and hateful habit to get into.
In 1968 the solid south for George Wallace. In 1972 the solid south voted for Nixon along with every other state in the Union except Massachusetts.
Texas went to the Democrats in '68, their only southern state for 25 EV. Republicans picked up North and South Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri for 76 EV. Wallace got the deep deep south of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas and Georgia for 45 EV.
Contrast to 1964:
Democrats: 102
Republicans: 47
Wallace: 0
It is odd that the Left is so on board with hyper-conservative Muslims, even to the point of turning against the Left's former Jewish allies and ignoring the real import of Muslim teachings against gay rights and against feminism.
And that the right is so anti Mexican immigration, when most of the Mexican immigrants are hard working, Catholic, pro-life and anti-woke. They are natural Republicans if Republicans would only be more welcoming.
Author of this article and study can fuck off. We just lived through most immoral event of the past 50 years: the unprecedented house arrest of billions followed by the coercion to inject an unproven substance into their bodies to keep their jobs and freedom of movement.
How many people were actually *arrested*?
I'll wait for you to count. BTW: You probably won't need to remove your shoes.
Guess you can't read or intentionally missed the adjective "house" that was placed before "arrest."
How long have you been a bootlicker?
There were more arrests than you have brain cells.
China’s authorities are quietly rounding up people who protested against COVID rules Rwanda: Lockdown Arrests, Abuses Surge Deaths, arrests and protests as Philippines re-emerges from lockdown Scrutiny of Social-Distance Policing as 35 of 40 Arrested Are Black Arrested For Violating Coronavirus Stay-At-Home Mandates: Police Are Jailing Alleged Scofflaws Growing defiance of COVID curbs in China brings wave of arrests Malaysia Arrests Thousands Amid Coronavirus Lockdown More than 250 people arrested during lockdown protests in Australia More than 150 people have been arrested as anti-lockdown protesters clashed with police in central London
Hundreds of thousands of people around the world have been arrested for violating COVID-19 orders (Farge E. U.N. raises alarm about police brutality in lockdowns. In: Reuters [Internet]. 27 April 2020.
Reuters; c2020 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-un-rights/u-n-raises-alarm-aboutpolice-brutality-in-lockdowns-idUSKCN2291X9).
In summary, FUCK OFF SLAVER.
"Hundreds of thousands of people around the world have been arrested for violating COVID-19 orders "
Stolen valor. Hundreds of thousands put their lives on the line taking a moral stand. You chose to meekly comply.
Stolen valor? This conversation is for grownups, sweetie.
"This conversation is for grownups, sweetie."
Whines the contemptible whiner.
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
This is what passes for clever repartee from the smug (and stupid) asshole trueman.
Lol, you're such a sophist.
Hey! Good to see: “Fuck Off, Slaver” back in use again!
Here lately, I’ve been using variations tailored to individual flavors of slavery.
For Holocaust Denier Rob Misek, I say: “Fuck Off, Nazi!”
For Putin Apologists Nardz and Goldie, I say: “Fuck Off, Dugin Hooligan Putineer!”
For Commie Tankie Tony, I say: “Fuck Off, Leftie Nihilist!”
And finally for Eco-Wacko Sinophile Mtruman, I say: “Fuck Off, Watermelon Rickshaw Boy!”
I hope I have made some little contribution to the rich Reason Commentariat tradition.
🙂
How many jews were arrested in the holocaust? Does that number being smaller than the total interned make the actions better to you?
Also any Jews who complain about it are displaying stolen valor lol.
In China, a lot. In the USA, very few. But many small businesses went broke thanks to the lockdowns. As did many landlords thanks to the eviction moratoria.
"In China, a lot. In the USA, very few. "
In countries as diverse as authoritarian China to liberal Canada, people rose up to oppose the government policies, often risking their lives and livelihoods to do so. Not so in the US, where a trucker's blockade a la Canada was attempted but fizzled out in an embarrassing failure. Either Americans are not as ornery as we make ourselves out to be, or put our faith in gods with feet of clay like Trump, hoping they'll sort things out and everything will be fine without lifting a finger.
I left my house every day to attend to business and was never injected. If you chose to subject yourself to house arrest and forced injection, you have only your immoral self to blame.
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands imprisoned world wide, slaver asshole. And being coerced to get a jab under penalty of losing one’s job is still coercion, whether or not you actually got the jab. Moron.
I left my house every day to attend to business and was never injected. I assure you, I'm not the only one. It doesn't speak highly of your moral fortitude that you chose to meekly comply with these injunctions, only to pseudonymously whine about it years later on the internet. Grow a pair! Grow a spine! Grow a pair of spines!
Oh, big man behind a keyboard making stuff up and then telling someone else to be as brave as he pretends to be. This is great performance art!
You should whine less and be thankful that not everyone in this world is a moral coward.
It is hilarious that he takes this stance when accusing others of stolen valor above. Here is his argument that I can see.
“Don’t mention people who actually paid for civil disobedience with loss of freedom.”
“Anyone who got locked up or killed for disobeying government regulations around COVID isn’t as smart or brave as me, who went out everyday in a pathologically kind society and suffered no loss of freedom.”
“If you lost freedom during this time, it’s your own fault, and society can’t do injustice against you unless you consent.”
It’s awesome.
What has this asshole done to fight the state excesses during covid? Nothing but whine pseudonomously on the internet. Others around the world put their lives and livelihoods on the line, going to prison and being brutalized.
"It is hilarious"
No, it's pathetic.
“If you lost freedom during this time, it’s your own fault, and society can’t do injustice against you unless you consent.”
What lengths you go to excuse craven passivity in the face of jack booted thuggery. Also pathetic.
Good for you. I would have assumed you were scheduling each booster well in advance.
" I would have assumed you were scheduling each booster well in advance."
What gave you that idea? I don't like visiting doctors, don't like taking medicine, don't trust untested drugs and don't have any conditions that would make me more vulnerable. I guess all that makes me rather unusual.
The article hints at the problem with the study, morality is both objective and subjective. Which one you focus on will change your results.
To address this, Mastroianni and Gilbert again look to the polls. This time, they consulted surveys asking people things like "Were you treated with respect all day yesterday?" "Would you say that most of the time people try to be helpful, or that they are mostly just looking out for themselves?" "Within the past 12 months, have you been assaulted or mugged?" and "During the past 12 months, have you let a stranger go ahead of you in line?"
I was wondering if we were going to have a stretchy definition of morality. Bravo, well done.
Olds have always been dicks, just look what they did to the Nazis. The younger generation has been the vanguard of morality since the days of Joan of Arc.
The flaw in this study is defining "morality" in a completely generic, milquetoast, secular humanist fashion.
Brown dances perilously close to this in one sentence, "If you believe that acceptance of, say, homosexuality or interracial relationships are major markers of moral decline, you might be more inclined to believe that things have gotten worse—and to be right on your own terms." But then she quickly skates away from the concept without analyzing it further lest she actually have to tackle tough subjects.
Yep. It confirms her own biases because they share her biases and moral worldview. Quite a shitty way to evaluate changes in morality when only a new and evolving moral structure is used
There isn’t one flaw in this study. If you had to limit it to one source, it’s the sub-100 IQ of the brain trust between Mastroianni and Gilbert.
“Vietnam was more moral than the Revolutionary or Civil War because fewer people died.” isn’t only wrong based on the premise “fewer people died” (or were disrespected in their daily endeavors or whatever).
Well, if you're a collectivist instead of believing that individualism is moral, then it makes sense, because collective utility arguments remove human individuality from the equation.
LOL! We're going to prove people are more moral today than yesterday by lying to you:
Their review of the data shows that Americans believe overall morality is declining, "that they have believed this for at least 70 years,"
...
careful analyses of those historical records strongly suggest that these objective indicators of immorality have decreased significantly over the last few centuries,
"People think morality has been declining over the last quarter century but the fact that we aren't enslaving as foreigners and warring with as many natives as we were 200 yrs. ago proves they're wrong!"
"last three-quarters of a century"
"Morality" is up for self-assessment victims, who can feel "respected".
"Morality" is down for crimes against reason, liberty, and children.
Libertine >> libertarian, right Reason?
Society A: slavery is legal, homosexuality is illegal
Society B: slavery is illegal, homosexuality is legal.
I would certainly say that ceteris paribus Society B is more moral than A, but I have no way of proving it without resorting to (inherently unprovable) axioms, nor any way of quantifying how much more moral, and I am well aware that some people would argue for the other way around.
But regardless, and regardless of how one view the paper cited in the article, if you think that morality is declining/improving, you must have some basis for your opinion, and what criteria are you using for your basis?
Further, if you give reasons grounded in testable facts – e.g., “more murders/rapes/pineapple pizza” than in your youth, will you change your opinion when those facts can be shown to be wrong?
“…. I am well aware that some people would argue for the other way around.”
And you should be ever vigilant and brave enough to condemn these people (all 4 of them) every time an opportunity to virtue signal presents itself.
Haha. What a doosh.
And another fuckwit has entered the chat.
FWIW I doubt anyone on these boards would disagree with my preference for Society B, but there would be more than four people elsewhere – some fundamentalists n>4 would argue that as slavery is sanctioned by the Bible but homosexuality is prohibited, ergo A is more moral than B.
And fairly obviously, your sympathies lie with advocates for Society A, else you would not have found the need to criticise my potential condemnation of those advocates. You remind me of the Self-Righteous Brothers in the Harry Enfield sketches.
It seems that you’re the one angling for a sponsorship deal with “Summer’s Eve”
Edited to add: I find that Christian Identity regard slavery of non-white races as justified by the Bible, and that homosexuality should be punished by death. There are more than 4 Christian Identity "adherents" in the US.
Or he was pointing out that your display of sophistry communicates nothing, and was giving you some wise advice on how to conduct yourself with virtue. Wait... He was doing that, now I see why you lashed out with your emotional baggage on full display. I bet Everything is so terrible and unfair.
Another fuckwit has entered the chat.
Neither you nor he made any worthwhile comment about my post, preferring some moronic attack that did not even rise to the level of ad hominem.
Scott Alexander thoroughly refuted the study . . . three days before this asinine article was published.
The Federal government existing in its current state refutes this study.
Despite common beliefs about declining morality, surveys indicate a different perspective. Contrary to popular perception, studies suggest that overall moral values in society have not significantly deteriorated. While certain moral challenges exist, it is essential to recognize that moral judgments can be subjective and influenced by various factors. By examining empirical data, we gain a more accurate understanding of the moral landscape and can engage in informed discussions about societal values. It is important to challenge assumptions and consider multiple perspectives when evaluating the state of morality in contemporary times.
Read DRM's reply above.
It is important to consider that moral values can evolve and adapt over time. What may be considered moral or immoral can be influenced by societal progress, increased awareness of social justice issues, and changing ethical perspectives. Additionally, advancements in education, increased access to information, and the promotion of inclusivity and empathy can contribute to positive moral development.
https://www.greaselightningovencleaning.co.uk/oven-cleaning/rg/oven-cleaning-wokingham/
Nice attempt to sneak spam into a philosophical discussion! And use Moral Relativism and Wokeism too.
No thanks, I'll stick with spray-on lye like Easy-Off. It also might work well on those who live out Moral Relativism and Wokeism with initiation of force.
Fuck Off, Spammer!
What a horrendously shallow view of morality. Morals are more than how you interact with others, they are how you act when no one is looking. In fact, the argument can be made that non-interaction is more important than interaction, but that study would never support ENB's libertine worldview.
Lets make sure everyone is on the same page for what morals are. Ethics are set in stone, what is right and what is wrong. Black and white, unchanging.
Morals are the values and group acceptance of what is right and wrong, morals change from society to society, and with time as well as social values change. Many academics do not have a strong handle on the difference between ethics and morals.
That said, absolutely, our societal values have dropped over time. If you look what was acceptable and taboo just 50 years ago, you would see a society of the 70's that never would have accepted political correctness, wokism, and several other accepted norms, many which have had a huge slide in the last 15 years. If you look at religious institutions which tend to hold the foundation for ethical behaviors, you see a huge decline in attendance. Crime statistics are up, family values expressed by current corporations are a 180 in the last few decades. It's accepted or looked the other way that President Biden has rapped his daughter several hundred times according to her diary. Our VP got her start in politics by sleeping with a California Senator in a very public affair. None of this phases the political support for them, where that would have disqualified them from office just a few decades ago. Hunter snorting cocaine in the White house, yep, just another story to laugh at. Biden taking bribes from China and the Ukraine, we can overlook that now. Even when it may effect us going into a nuclear war in the near future.
ABSOLUTELY, our societal morals have dropped to what a few decades ago would have been considered perverted and never acceptable.
All the votes cast for a grooming potus suggests that the survey is wrong. How touching.
So according to this study, morality is only politeness. Theft, cheating in school, massive lying by public figures, and even violent crimes like the knockout game don’t even count.
But conservatives respond to this by ignoring everything that is actually hurting people and complaining that people have become more open about who they're having sex with. Faugh!
Has other immorality increased in the last 50 years? Theft certainly has. 50 years ago, shoplifting was mainly a problem with kids, and parents came down hard on their children when they discovered it. Now, parents fanatically defend their children when they are caught in theft, vandalism, and even assault and murder. There are organized rings of adults cleaning out stores. There are porch pirates even in good neighborhoods, and groups going around at night to peer through the windows of parked cars and break in if they think there’s anything worth stealing. We probably always had a subculture that doesn’t think theft was wrong, but it’s greatly increased now. I blame socialists in the schools – seriously,your kids are probably being taught by someone who does not believe in property rights.
Professors claim to be seeing much more cheating in school – copying test answers, plagiarizing homework from the internet, even hiring someone to take a test or write a paper for them. Much of the increase is internet-enabled: It’s a lot easier to cut and paste from an online source than to copy an article out of a printed encyclopedia, and the internet makes it much easier for students willing to pay to cheat and persons ready to be hired for it. But I’ve seen much commentary by professors to the effect that the kids don’t even believe it’s wrong. My generation cheated a lot, but we knew we were doing wrong.
Politicians lying: They’ve always been conscienceless liars, so it’s difficult to tell if anything has changed but what they lie about. The Democrats now seem to have formed a united front to lie about economics and biology, but in the 1960’s, nearly everyone in both parties and the news media were frequently and publicly denying the obvious fact that we lacked a winning strategy in Vietnam or any goal more coherent than “Winning hearts and minds [with napalm]”.