Redefining Ancient Right and Wrong in the Glowing Screens of . . .

[night_son]

The societal philosophy and parental permissiveness of allowing our children exposure to entertainment in any form regardless of self-destructive depiction seems these days to be universal. However, this modern doctrine of "run free without worry" Western societies and families approve for children is not an ancient phenomena relative to today's entertainment culture, although in the face of the instant cacophonic outrage and "educated" justification expressed and offered by publicly funded scientists, educators, politicians and parents, in response to mere mention of limiting or denying unlimited child access to pop culture, the internet, social media and electronic entertainment, one might think our species was created with a game console in one hand, a big screen tablet in the other, and VR goggles for eyes, with a tattooed on ticket for unlimited, hi-speed, fiber optic internet access. Whew!

So what are moral facts? Without providing instant gratification links, and of course, what follows is philosophical opinion, moral facts are the primal definitions of Right (big "r") and Wrong (even bigger "W"), and the most ancient, indelible distinctions our species can make, compare and contrast from and between them, in order to universally agree without doubt, that there are some things you just do not do, some things you must do to be considered a righteous individual, and that we can build freer, less murderous civilizations and societies upon those facts of being human and living and cooperating for the mutual good in close quarters with other humans. We're talking no shades "of" at all here, just bright light and lightless darkness. Life and Anti-Life.

Moving forward now, the bedrock of moral facts under our feet, adrift in your own mind, how does the modern American electronics entertainment and social smart device media industry represent or interact or align with, the ancient moral facts of Right and Wrong. Remember now, we're talking "Right" as being that which enables, promotes, nourishes, enlightens and defends; truth, human life, individual freedom, education, personal responsibility, compromise through dialogue, sharing of ideas, good social habits, work ethic, peaceful coexistence with other cultures and races, and the Not destruction of the human race by species infighting.

Is the answer not plain as the reliability of sunrise? As tomorrow never being tomorrow today? The answer is, undeniably, in two parts, that modern electronic entertainment and social media is as anti-moral fact Right, or Good, as is possible; and, allowing our children to access it without the extreme limitation of serious parental restriction, is the opposite of beneficial for their young minds, for posterity, and for the continued existence of s Western Civilization without gulags, pogroms, the usual . . . you know . . . moral speed bumps on the way to some philosopher's happy greener grass.

Yes, I am drawing my own conclusions for you, aren't I? Mea culpa. You'll have to forgive me, I am from the 70's, and all your smart devices, followers, likes and shares belong to me (joking?). Nevertheless, how can you, how can we, how can other parents, and how can Western Societies justify such nonchalant universal exposure of our young, developing minds to all the electronic anarchic, anti-Good for our species entertainment on demand, often 24/7 and 365. I mean, come on. We gift modern electronic entertainment in spades to our kids for their birthdays, holidays, their good grades, just because moments and because we want to make them happy and think we from-dinosaur-epochs adult role models are what? What? Cool. Not squares, Daddy-o.

At length, since and because the culture on-the-line of the day is "short attention span theatre", what do you all think? Can exposing our young minds to the above bit and byte hyper-violent, splatter punk, sex crazed, all day, everyday shoot'em up media be justified? If not, what can or should we do to limit or remove it from childhood development in modern times, and, what might be both the near and long term future effects of allowing it all to go unchecked, on our kids' minds, adulthood, and our societies, present and incoming?

Beyond that, moral relativists are welcome. Welcome to debate based on the premise of what is vs. is not good for our present and future, minds of our children, and societies, not just because, because: nihilist. Lastly, God need not enter the, uh um, room . . . you can't blame Him for social media, or, call Him down if you need the help (speaking to atheists who need might need him). Remember, I am basing my philosophy of moral fact on what's best for being human, living, and coexisting; short term and long game.

Thanks

n_s

 

[Marion Morrison]

Kids definitely should not see everything on the internet, it could warp their impressionable minds.

 

[Two Thumbs]

It's not complicated.

as a parent it's your duty to properly raise your kids, not run leftist experiments on them.

 

[night_son]

It's not complicated.

as a parent it's your duty to properly raise your kids, not run leftist experiments on them.

Thanks. I agree with you.

But what about those brief, harmless little daily moments when a parent just needs a minute or ten to get something done around the house or home office or on Facebook, so in their justification for having that moment stuff a iPhone playing Barney videos or whatever, into their toddler's hands? Way I see it, it's the sum concatenation of these brief, hardly considered moral lapses which add up into a chain of allowing child exposure over time to the worst the information age can offer.

Do parents ever even remotely have in the moment moral quandaries over handing their child off to uncensored you tube access? Seems to me we need to think more carefully about the seemingly insignificant lapses in judgment, speaking to protection of our younger minds.

 

[Two Thumbs]

It's not complicated.

as a parent it's your duty to properly raise your kids, not run leftist experiments on them.

Thanks. I agree with you.

But what about those brief, harmless little daily moments when a parent just needs a minute or ten to get something done around the house or home office or on Facebook, so in their justification for having that moment stuff a iPhone playing Barney videos or whatever, into their toddler's hands? Way I see it, it's the sum concatenation of these brief, hardly considered moral lapses which add up into a chain of allowing child exposure over time to the worst the information age can offer.

Do parents ever even remotely have in the moment moral quandaries over handing their child off to uncensored you tube access? Seems to me we need to think more carefully about the seemingly insignificant lapses in judgment, speaking to protection of our younger minds.

well no one is perfect. any one can point out flaws when that's all they are trying todo.

instead of an iPhone, give them a ball, a puzzle, playing cards. There are tons of other options.

 

[WinterBorn]

Funny story about limiting access online.

My first wife and I divorced when our kids were entering their teenage years. To say my kids are bright would be an understatement. Anyway, my ex realized the kids needed a computer for school. So she bought an HP desktop model with a printer. She spent the entire evening setting up all the parental blocks and passwords. Plenty of frustration involved (she called me 3 or 4 times for help) and she was worn out by the time it was done. But she felt good about having the computer and having set up all the protections and limitations to keep the 11, 12, & 13 year old safe. She goes to bed.

Next morning she gets up and finds Post-It notes all around the screen listing all the passwords for every block and every access point. The boys spent a couple of hours hacking the entire system. According to them, they didn't go anywhere bad. They just wanted to see where all that stuff was stored.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Funny story about limiting access online.

My first wife and I divorced when our kids were entering their teenage years. To say my kids are bright would be an understatement. Anyway, my ex realized the kids needed a computer for school. So she bought an HP desktop model with a printer. She spent the entire evening setting up all the parental blocks and passwords. Plenty of frustration involved (she called me 3 or 4 times for help) and she was worn out by the time it was done. But she felt good about having the computer and having set up all the protections and limitations to keep the 11, 12, & 13 year old safe. She goes to bed.

Next morning she gets up and finds Post-It notes all around the screen listing all the passwords for every block and every access point. The boys spent a couple of hours hacking the entire system. According to them, they didn't go anywhere bad. They just wanted to see where all that stuff was stored.

This is why you should get to beat your kids senseless at least twice a year.

 

[night_son]

Funny story about limiting access online.

My first wife and I divorced when our kids were entering their teenage years. To say my kids are bright would be an understatement. Anyway, my ex realized the kids needed a computer for school. So she bought an HP desktop model with a printer. She spent the entire evening setting up all the parental blocks and passwords. Plenty of frustration involved (she called me 3 or 4 times for help) and she was worn out by the time it was done. But she felt good about having the computer and having set up all the protections and limitations to keep the 11, 12, & 13 year old safe. She goes to bed.

Next morning she gets up and finds Post-It notes all around the screen listing all the passwords for every block and every access point. The boys spent a couple of hours hacking the entire system. According to them, they didn't go anywhere bad. They just wanted to see where all that stuff was stored.

At least they learned something in the process, right? My fiancé says that after our children-to-be reach a certain age, they aren't allowed to have any device she cannot figure out. She's an accountant with a microbiology degree, so she's going to have to fake it. Great story though. Thanks.

 

[G.T.]

Instill your morals into your children, the micro-managing this or that is less and less worrisome once youve successfully done that.

 

[Vastator]

Remember now, we're talking "Right" as being that which enables, promotes, nourishes, enlightens and defends; truth, human life, individual freedom, education, personal responsibility, compromise through dialogue, sharing of ideas, good social habits, work ethic, peaceful coexistence with other cultures and races, and the Not destruction of the human race by species infighting.



n_s

This question may not be possible to answer, when as a parameter for said answer, one is bound by a definition of “right” that we may not agree upon....

 

[G.T.]

Remember now, we're talking "Right" as being that which enables, promotes, nourishes, enlightens and defends; truth, human life, individual freedom, education, personal responsibility, compromise through dialogue, sharing of ideas, good social habits, work ethic, peaceful coexistence with other cultures and races, and the Not destruction of the human race by species infighting.



n_s

This question may not be possible to answer, when as a parameter for said answer, one is bound by a definition of “right” that we may not agree upon....

I agree with this to a degree, but I also think that many morals boil down to simple biology ~ like what Sam Harris says. Think about maximal suffering, and in evolutionary biology no sentient creature seeks this (barring genetic abnormality) and so we'd all agree we can start with that (maximal suffering) as "bad" and cash most things out (using logical deduction) from there.

 

[night_son]

Remember now, we're talking "Right" as being that which enables, promotes, nourishes, enlightens and defends; truth, human life, individual freedom, education, personal responsibility, compromise through dialogue, sharing of ideas, good social habits, work ethic, peaceful coexistence with other cultures and races, and the Not destruction of the human race by species infighting.



n_s

This question may not be possible to answer, when as a parameter for said answer, one is bound by a definition of “right” that we may not agree upon....

By all means, please feel free to define "right" and "wrong" as you choose and believe. I had hoped most would do so in the body of their answers. Of course my thread starter was biased; how can one not be? I'd rather save my glacial objectivity to put out the last marshmallow cooked in the last bonfire of Western civilization.

 

[G.T.]

Remember now, we're talking "Right" as being that which enables, promotes, nourishes, enlightens and defends; truth, human life, individual freedom, education, personal responsibility, compromise through dialogue, sharing of ideas, good social habits, work ethic, peaceful coexistence with other cultures and races, and the Not destruction of the human race by species infighting.



n_s

This question may not be possible to answer, when as a parameter for said answer, one is bound by a definition of “right” that we may not agree upon....

By all means, please feel free to define "right" and "wrong" as you choose and believe. I had hoped most would do so in the body of their answers. Of course my thread starter was biased; how can one not be? I'd rather save my glacial objectivity to put out the last marshmallow cooked in the last bonfire of Western civilization.

Irreconcilable differences regarding social morality are typically caused by Religious dogma; however, as we can see with the Christian Bible ~ secular morals become increasingly better in terms of evolution and even most modern Christians would find that following the literal morality of the Bible is barbaric in many cases.

 

[night_son]

Remember now, we're talking "Right" as being that which enables, promotes, nourishes, enlightens and defends; truth, human life, individual freedom, education, personal responsibility, compromise through dialogue, sharing of ideas, good social habits, work ethic, peaceful coexistence with other cultures and races, and the Not destruction of the human race by species infighting.



n_s

This question may not be possible to answer, when as a parameter for said answer, one is bound by a definition of “right” that we may not agree upon....

I agree with this to a degree, but I also think that many morals boil down to simple biology ~ like what Sam Harris says. Think about maximal suffering, and in evolutionary biology no sentient creature seeks this (barring genetic abnormality) and so we'd all agree we can start with that (maximal suffering) as "bad" and cash most things out (using logical deduction) from there.

Thanks for introducing that baseline. But what about when the body is functioning without extreme pain? What is the baseline foundation then, for moral decisions or distinction between good and bad, or do you think it's all instinct and personal need driven?

 

[G.T.]

Remember now, we're talking "Right" as being that which enables, promotes, nourishes, enlightens and defends; truth, human life, individual freedom, education, personal responsibility, compromise through dialogue, sharing of ideas, good social habits, work ethic, peaceful coexistence with other cultures and races, and the Not destruction of the human race by species infighting.



n_s

This question may not be possible to answer, when as a parameter for said answer, one is bound by a definition of “right” that we may not agree upon....

I agree with this to a degree, but I also think that many morals boil down to simple biology ~ like what Sam Harris says. Think about maximal suffering, and in evolutionary biology no sentient creature seeks this (barring genetic abnormality) and so we'd all agree we can start with that (maximal suffering) as "bad" and cash most things out (using logical deduction) from there.

Thanks for introducing that baseline. But what about when the body is functioning without extreme pain? What is the baseline foundation then, for moral decisions or distinction between good and bad, or do you think it's all instinct and personal need driven?

There's many different kinds of suffering, and physical suffering is only 1 would be my answer to this inquiry. Thats why maximal suffering, as opposed to maximal physical pain, is the baseline.

Mind you, Harris is not inventing this he is merely pointing out the reality of how we (mostly) conclude these things when we reason without irrational dogma....such as...."punishment for working on the sabbath."

 

[night_son]

Remember now, we're talking "Right" as being that which enables, promotes, nourishes, enlightens and defends; truth, human life, individual freedom, education, personal responsibility, compromise through dialogue, sharing of ideas, good social habits, work ethic, peaceful coexistence with other cultures and races, and the Not destruction of the human race by species infighting.



n_s

This question may not be possible to answer, when as a parameter for said answer, one is bound by a definition of “right” that we may not agree upon....

By all means, please feel free to define "right" and "wrong" as you choose and believe. I had hoped most would do so in the body of their answers. Of course my thread starter was biased; how can one not be? I'd rather save my glacial objectivity to put out the last marshmallow cooked in the last bonfire of Western civilization.

Irreconcilable differences regarding social morality are typically caused by Religious dogma; however, as we can see with the Christian Bible ~ secular morals become increasingly better in terms of evolution and even most modern Christians would find that following the literal morality of the Bible is barbaric in many cases.

Modern Christians cannot follow biblical morality literally--within the constraints placed upon them by modern society's laws. As we drift back through history, however, societies existed where that was more of an option, at least from the top down.

 

[G.T.]

Remember now, we're talking "Right" as being that which enables, promotes, nourishes, enlightens and defends; truth, human life, individual freedom, education, personal responsibility, compromise through dialogue, sharing of ideas, good social habits, work ethic, peaceful coexistence with other cultures and races, and the Not destruction of the human race by species infighting.



n_s

This question may not be possible to answer, when as a parameter for said answer, one is bound by a definition of “right” that we may not agree upon....

By all means, please feel free to define "right" and "wrong" as you choose and believe. I had hoped most would do so in the body of their answers. Of course my thread starter was biased; how can one not be? I'd rather save my glacial objectivity to put out the last marshmallow cooked in the last bonfire of Western civilization.

Irreconcilable differences regarding social morality are typically caused by Religious dogma; however, as we can see with the Christian Bible ~ secular morals become increasingly better in terms of evolution and even most modern Christians would find that following the literal morality of the Bible is barbaric in many cases.

Modern Christians cannot follow biblical morality literally--within the constraints placed upon them by modern society's laws. As we drift back through history, however, societies existed where that was more of an option, at least from the top down.

Thats because of the social evolution I was talking about, and thank the Universe for that! Stoning folks is barbaric, let alone killing babies and codifying slavery.

 

[WinterBorn]

Funny story about limiting access online.

My first wife and I divorced when our kids were entering their teenage years. To say my kids are bright would be an understatement. Anyway, my ex realized the kids needed a computer for school. So she bought an HP desktop model with a printer. She spent the entire evening setting up all the parental blocks and passwords. Plenty of frustration involved (she called me 3 or 4 times for help) and she was worn out by the time it was done. But she felt good about having the computer and having set up all the protections and limitations to keep the 11, 12, & 13 year old safe. She goes to bed.

Next morning she gets up and finds Post-It notes all around the screen listing all the passwords for every block and every access point. The boys spent a couple of hours hacking the entire system. According to them, they didn't go anywhere bad. They just wanted to see where all that stuff was stored.

This is why you should get to beat your kids senseless at least twice a year.

Why would we beat them? They didn't do anything they were told not to do.

 

[night_son]

Remember now, we're talking "Right" as being that which enables, promotes, nourishes, enlightens and defends; truth, human life, individual freedom, education, personal responsibility, compromise through dialogue, sharing of ideas, good social habits, work ethic, peaceful coexistence with other cultures and races, and the Not destruction of the human race by species infighting.



n_s

This question may not be possible to answer, when as a parameter for said answer, one is bound by a definition of “right” that we may not agree upon....

By all means, please feel free to define "right" and "wrong" as you choose and believe. I had hoped most would do so in the body of their answers. Of course my thread starter was biased; how can one not be? I'd rather save my glacial objectivity to put out the last marshmallow cooked in the last bonfire of Western civilization.

Irreconcilable differences regarding social morality are typically caused by Religious dogma; however, as we can see with the Christian Bible ~ secular morals become increasingly better in terms of evolution and even most modern Christians would find that following the literal morality of the Bible is barbaric in many cases.

Modern Christians cannot follow biblical morality literally--within the constraints placed upon them by modern society's laws. As we drift back through history, however, societies existed where that was more of an option, at least from the top down.

Thats because of the social evolution I was talking about, and thank the Universe for that! Stoning folks is barbaric, let alone killing babies and codifying slavery.

Agreed. Where do you think the evolution of human moral reasoning is headed in the near future? Better or worse places than the barbarism of antiquity?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Funny story about limiting access online.

My first wife and I divorced when our kids were entering their teenage years. To say my kids are bright would be an understatement. Anyway, my ex realized the kids needed a computer for school. So she bought an HP desktop model with a printer. She spent the entire evening setting up all the parental blocks and passwords. Plenty of frustration involved (she called me 3 or 4 times for help) and she was worn out by the time it was done. But she felt good about having the computer and having set up all the protections and limitations to keep the 11, 12, & 13 year old safe. She goes to bed.

Next morning she gets up and finds Post-It notes all around the screen listing all the passwords for every block and every access point. The boys spent a couple of hours hacking the entire system. According to them, they didn't go anywhere bad. They just wanted to see where all that stuff was stored.

This is why you should get to beat your kids senseless at least twice a year.

Why would we beat them? They didn't do anything they were told not to do.

For mental health reason.

I mean, you could laugh at how easy it was for them, but a good beating leaves a lasting impression.