CDZ The Abandonment of Civility

[320 Years of History]

...I think that all adults have morals, ethics and standards. I think that the ones most adults have are too damn low. I could present an argument for what constitutes "too low" and how and why "too low" is deleterious to social wellbeing and progress; however, I'm not right now in the mood to do so. (I suspect several members are grateful for that. LOL)

Where do adults acquire their "morals, ethics and standards"? Genetically? Socialization? Nature or nurture?

From whence they come is irrelevant to my remark, and I right now have no willingness to discuss from where morals, ethics and standards come. My remark asserts the extancy of morals, ethics and standards in everyone and that I don't find that everyone's morals, ethics and standards acceptable, not with where they come from. I repeat. I have no desire to discuss where they come from.

Frankly, I don't really care if one's morals come from one's parents, teachers, Plato or Bugs Bunny. The fact is that every adult at various points in their lives is called to make choices based on their morals, standards and ethics. That they make the choice is clear evidence that they have some sort of morals, ethics and standards. If their moral compass says, for example, "screw the other guy before he screws you," well, that's what it says. You may consider that to be immoral, so might I. Your's and my judgment of the quality of another's morality does not remotely establish that the other person indeed lacks any morals. Our judgement that another is immoral merely indicates that we don't find their morals acceptable vis a vis our own.

More than a handful of folks have pondered and posited the source of morals, ethics and standards. Google is your friend and relying on it, you'll find ample material that coherently and cogently explains how individuals and societies come to have the morals, ethics and standards they do. Here are two writers' thoughts on the matter to get you started.

• Moral Reasoning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  
• http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4295&context=mulr

P.S./Edit:
Just in case I wasn't clear enough. I am unwilling to discuss the ideas you'll find at either of those links.

 

[Divine Wind]

If you are terminated from employment for something protected under the law, file a lawsuit. That is what laws are for. And 'social ostracism'? I wear such a thing as a badge of honor. You'll find the hardcore 'judges' out there aren't worth the time.

Not protected by law. Why would it be? Good. So what politically incorrect things do you say at work to earn that badge?

LOL You'll have to supply a list of what ruins your day I guess. I generally don't run into problems.

You claimed you wore political incorrectness as a badge of honor, but you have no examples? Okay then.

 

[320 Years of History]

FWIW, I think everyone has morals, ethics and standards. I just think that they are too damn low. LOL

You believe we're born with "morals, ethics and standards"? A two year old will stab another two year old in the eye with a fork over a toy. I think we have to be taught social behavior....and the veneer is very thin. Look at New Orleans after Katrina to see how quickly people revert.

A two year old doesn't have the capacity to understand 'harming' someone else, what blood is, or what a fork in the eye means. Argument de fallacy.

Yet a fork in the eye does harm whether the offender understands it or not. Do you really believe every criminal understands the pain they cause or do they just want their "toy"?

Off Topic:
I wondered how long it'd take before this thread becomes existential. Here we go...let the ontological "tweets" begin....LOL

How is human psychology and sociology purely existential. Are we born with "morals, ethics and standards" or are we taught them? I said we're taught them, yet you disagreed and now appear to be running from your own comment.

I'm not going to answer your questions.

I'm not going to answer them because I'm familiar enough with philosophy to know where answering them leads and I have no interest in contributing to taking this thread in that direction.

 

[MaryL]

The American people appear to have decided that civility is irrelevant.

Why Paul Ryan's Ode To Civility Is A Giant Fail

Are we abandoning diplomacy, both nationally and globally? Is the kind of ad hominem attacks which constitute 99% of the so-called discussion on this board becoming the norm of human communication?

Civility means behavior which reflects the values of civilization. How can we abandon these values so casually? These norms have evolved over thousands of years of human experiments in building and living in cities. Isn't their value obvious? Is the abandonment of civility likely to make the world a more violent or less violent place?

After reading posts on the "flame zone" (what the hell is that about?), Donald Trump's shtick isn't to outrageous or disgusting. I understand we have this black culture inspired trash talking that has become a phenomena. The nasty lyrics in modern music, rap, death metal in particular and in movies covered under freedom of speech. There is no sense of decorum anymore, everything is subject to a snarky joke, a put down and insults. I have to ask, were did all the adults in the room go?

 

[Divine Wind]

From whence they come is irrelevant to my remark, and I right now have no willingness to discuss from where morals, ethics and standards come. My remark asserts the extancy of morals, ethics and standards in everyone and that I don't find that everyone's morals, ethics and standards acceptable, not with where they come from. I repeat. I have no desire to discuss where they come from.

Frankly, I don't really care if one's morals come from one's parents, teachers, Plato or Bugs Bunny. The fact is that every adult at various points in their lives is called to make choices based on their morals, standards and ethics. That they make the choice is clear evidence that they have some sort of morals, ethics and standards. If among their moral compass says, for example, "screw the other guy before he screws you," well, that's what it says. You may consider that to be immoral, so might I. Your's and my judgment of the quality of another's morality does not remotely establish that the other person indeed lacks any morals. Our judgement that another is immoral merely indicates that we don't find their morals acceptable vis a vis our own.

More than a handful of folks have pondered and posited the source of morals, ethics and standards. Google is your friend and relying on it, you'll find ample material that coherently and cogently explains how individuals and societies come to have the morals, ethics and standards they do. Here are two writers' thoughts on the matter to get you started.

• Moral Reasoning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  
• http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4295&context=mulr

Hence the dodge on your part. No worries.

The topic of the thread was about whether or not we are abandoning civility. To fully understand whether or not we are, we would need to know where civility comes from; nature or nurture. My studies show it is primarily nurture, but there is some nature there too such as a herd/social desire to belong to a group. Isn't it funny how teenagers all talk about "going radical" and breaking out to make their own path yet they all end up looking like each other?

 

[Divine Wind]

...I'm not going to answer them because I'm familiar enough with philosophy to know where answering them leads and I have no interest in contributing to taking this thread in that direction.

You choice to not answer, but it's science I'm discussing, not philosophy regardless of where you want it to go.

 

[BlackSand]

From whence they come is irrelevant to my remark, and I right now have no willingness to discuss from where morals, ethics and standards come. My remark asserts the extancy of morals, ethics and standards in everyone and that I don't find that everyone's morals, ethics and standards acceptable, not with where they come from. I repeat. I have no desire to discuss where they come from.

Frankly, I don't really care if one's morals come from one's parents, teachers, Plato or Bugs Bunny. The fact is that every adult at various points in their lives is called to make choices based on their morals, standards and ethics. That they make the choice is clear evidence that they have some sort of morals, ethics and standards. If their moral compass says, for example, "screw the other guy before he screws you," well, that's what it says. You may consider that to be immoral, so might I. Your's and my judgment of the quality of another's morality does not remotely establish that the other person indeed lacks any morals. Our judgement that another is immoral merely indicates that we don't find their morals acceptable vis a vis our own.

More than a handful of folks have pondered and posited the source of morals, ethics and standards. Google is your friend and relying on it, you'll find ample material that coherently and cogently explains how individuals and societies come to have the morals, ethics and standards they do. Here are two writers' thoughts on the matter to get you started.

• Moral Reasoning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  
• http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4295&context=mulr

P.S./Edit:
Just in case I wasn't clear enough. I am unwilling to discuss the ideas you'll find at either of those links.

Identify the source and you can identify the reason they are by your measure too low ... Or as you stated in the OP (whether or not you want to discuss it) ... The abandonment of civility.

Personally ... I think it comes from the birth and general acceptance of the perpetual excuse (always someone else's fault) and the proliferation of immediate gratification compounded throughout our daily existence by everything from fast food restaurants (if I shall use the word restaurant loosely) to Google Search.

.

 

[bripat9643]

The American people appear to have decided that civility is irrelevant.

Why Paul Ryan's Ode To Civility Is A Giant Fail

Are we abandoning diplomacy, both nationally and globally? Is the kind of ad hominem attacks which constitute 99% of the so-called discussion on this board becoming the norm of human communication?

Civility means behavior which reflects the values of civilization. How can we abandon these values so casually? These norms have evolved over thousands of years of human experiments in building and living in cities. Isn't their value obvious? Is the abandonment of civility likely to make the world a more violent or less violent place?

Libs like you are whining because you're finally getting a dose of what you've been dishing out for over 100 years.

Get used to it because a lot more of it is coming your way.

 

[320 Years of History]

To fully understand whether or not we are [abandoning civility], we would need to know where civility comes from; nature or nurture.

I disagree. To figure that out, one need only know that civility at some point existed, whether it exists now, and whether it's prospects for existing in the future are diminishing, increasing or holding steady. Where civility -- morals, standards and ethics -- come from isn't necessary to know.

Knowing where morals, ethics and standards come from may inform one on what tactical and strategic modalities might abate or speed civility's decline, preservation or flourishing, but that it. You noted after all that the question is whether we're abandoning civility. That means that what to do about it if we are or are not isn't pertinent.

 

[Two Thumbs]

"Political correctness" is a myth because it fails to "silence" anyone.

knows you're a liar.

Among many, many other honest liberals....
.

I can always rely on clayton to keep lying to the point I can disprove him with pictures.

 

[Two Thumbs]

civility?

you're concerned about civility in a society that claims killing the unborn is just and moral?



really bro, look around, the left decent into madness was called years ago.

Yes. The notion that the abandonment of civility in all dealings is justified by abortion is absurd. Justifying poor impulse control and emotional immaturity because certain issues make you mad is completely circular reasoning. People do not serve the causes they espouse when they act like angry children. Civility is only casually dismissed by the uncivilized. Civility is a part of a system of conflict resolution which has evolved over thousands of years. You see no value in it whatsoever? You really live your life that way? Don't you get into constant fights?

you missed my point.

You are upset by the lack of civility now.

When you should have been upset 30 years ago when people were acting likes fools to get the right to murder the unborn.

when people acted like fools to limit arms rights

when people did anything not to be drafted into a war that the man they elected wanted to send them off to.

but lets be specific to today and recent history;

Who is being truly uncivil? What group? And what group accuses the other of being able to be uncivil?


They are the same people that murder the unborn, take away rights, and refuse to serve their country.

 

[Votto]

The American people appear to have decided that civility is irrelevant.

Why Paul Ryan's Ode To Civility Is A Giant Fail

Are we abandoning diplomacy, both nationally and globally? Is the kind of ad hominem attacks which constitute 99% of the so-called discussion on this board becoming the norm of human communication?

Civility means behavior which reflects the values of civilization. How can we abandon these values so casually? These norms have evolved over thousands of years of human experiments in building and living in cities. Isn't their value obvious? Is the abandonment of civility likely to make the world a more violent or less violent place?

I think talking is a complete waste of time. It's all about what you believe and if you are willing to fight for what you believe.

So will you fight or not?

 

[Elvis Obama]

The American people appear to have decided that civility is irrelevant.

Why Paul Ryan's Ode To Civility Is A Giant Fail

Are we abandoning diplomacy, both nationally and globally? Is the kind of ad hominem attacks which constitute 99% of the so-called discussion on this board becoming the norm of human communication?

Civility means behavior which reflects the values of civilization. How can we abandon these values so casually? These norms have evolved over thousands of years of human experiments in building and living in cities. Isn't their value obvious? Is the abandonment of civility likely to make the world a more violent or less violent place?

Libs like you are whining because you're finally getting a dose of what you've been dishing out for over 100 years.

Get used to it because a lot more of it is coming your way.

Here we have the enemy of civility. The real enemy of civility is, of course, thoughtlessness. A lack of a real philosophical underpinning to a person's life. Instead, some adopt this bizarre, knee-jerk hyper-partisanship which too often substitutes for thought in the US.

Civility is abandoned by the foolish. They know what it is. They've been told all their lives that they don't have it. That they are uncouth or white trash or rednecks. They either were not raised with a respect for civility or else they consciously decided to abandon those teachings. Hard to see how they could. If their parents and grandparents taught them properly they would insist that people be treated exactly as they would have their own parents and grandparents be treated. To abandon that principle makes the world a crass, vulgar place, for everyone, liberal or not. It makes the world a crass place for their own parents and grandparents. Where's the logic in that?

 

[Elvis Obama]

To fully understand whether or not we are [abandoning civility], we would need to know where civility comes from; nature or nurture.

I disagree. To figure that out, one need only know that civility at some point existed, whether it exists now, and whether it's prospects for existing in the future are diminishing, increasing or holding steady. Where civility -- morals, standards and ethics -- come from isn't necessary to know.

Knowing where morals, ethics and standards come from may inform one on what tactical and strategic modalities might abate or speed civility's decline, preservation or flourishing, but that it. You noted after all that the question is whether we're abandoning civility. That means that what to do about it if we are or are not isn't pertinent.

I think it's very important to understand the roots of all human behaviors and institutions. I think the notion of abandonment is important. How can we do so this casually? How can we abandon something which has evolved over such a long period of time? One of the other posters mentioned Chivalry and Courtly Love as antecedents to modern concepts of civility, and they are. They are two points on the timeline, which stretches back to the earliest human social groups. Their purpose has always been simple, to prevent us from killing one another. It's crazy to abandon it. Viewing it though the perspective of history could help people understand just what it is they are abandoning and just how valuable it is.

 

[Elvis Obama]

civility?

you're concerned about civility in a society that claims killing the unborn is just and moral?



really bro, look around, the left decent into madness was called years ago.

Yes. The notion that the abandonment of civility in all dealings is justified by abortion is absurd. Justifying poor impulse control and emotional immaturity because certain issues make you mad is completely circular reasoning. People do not serve the causes they espouse when they act like angry children. Civility is only casually dismissed by the uncivilized. Civility is a part of a system of conflict resolution which has evolved over thousands of years. You see no value in it whatsoever? You really live your life that way? Don't you get into constant fights?

you missed my point.

You are upset by the lack of civility now.

When you should have been upset 30 years ago when people were acting likes fools to get the right to murder the unborn.

when people acted like fools to limit arms rights

when people did anything not to be drafted into a war that the man they elected wanted to send them off to.

but lets be specific to today and recent history;

Who is being truly uncivil? What group? And what group accuses the other of being able to be uncivil?


They are the same people that murder the unborn, take away rights, and refuse to serve their country.

Well, if you are going to characterize groups of people as being more or less civil, no, I would have to disagree with you. The uncouth are the Jerry Springers, the White Trash and the Rednecks. The Hip Hop Nation. The less educated and those who had less successful and less competent parents. Poor people. It has nothing to do with liberalism. The real abandonment of civility is in the media, which creates a distorted notion of how bad this problem is. The media concept of reality is a cancer which replicates itself in the real world. The media has given us Donald Trump with its 3 billion dollars worth of free publicity.

 

[bripat9643]

The American people appear to have decided that civility is irrelevant.

Why Paul Ryan's Ode To Civility Is A Giant Fail

Are we abandoning diplomacy, both nationally and globally? Is the kind of ad hominem attacks which constitute 99% of the so-called discussion on this board becoming the norm of human communication?

Civility means behavior which reflects the values of civilization. How can we abandon these values so casually? These norms have evolved over thousands of years of human experiments in building and living in cities. Isn't their value obvious? Is the abandonment of civility likely to make the world a more violent or less violent place?

Libs like you are whining because you're finally getting a dose of what you've been dishing out for over 100 years.

Get used to it because a lot more of it is coming your way.

Here we have the enemy of civility. The real enemy of civility is, of course, thoughtlessness. A lack of a real philosophical underpinning to a person's life. Instead, some adopt this bizarre, knee-jerk hyper-partisanship which too often substitutes for thought in the US.

Civility is abandoned by the foolish. They know what it is. They've been told all their lives that they don't have it. That they are uncouth or white trash or rednecks. They either were not raised with a respect for civility or else they consciously decided to abandon those teachings. Hard to see how they could. If their parents and grandparents taught them properly they would insist that people be treated exactly as they would have their own parents and grandparents be treated. To abandon that principle makes the world a crass, vulgar place, for everyone, liberal or not. It makes the world a crass place for their own parents and grandparents. Where's the logic in that?

Libs like you only talk about "civility" when you are the receiving end of the lash. I've never seen any of you complain when liberals are dishing it out, and they do so frequently. "Civility" is just leftwing propaganda technique designed to get their opposition to shut up. Any right winger who buys into it is a sucker.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The American people appear to have decided that civility is irrelevant.

Why Paul Ryan's Ode To Civility Is A Giant Fail

Are we abandoning diplomacy, both nationally and globally? Is the kind of ad hominem attacks which constitute 99% of the so-called discussion on this board becoming the norm of human communication?

Civility means behavior which reflects the values of civilization. How can we abandon these values so casually? These norms have evolved over thousands of years of human experiments in building and living in cities. Isn't their value obvious? Is the abandonment of civility likely to make the world a more violent or less violent place?

I think talking is a complete waste of time. It's all about what you believe and if you are willing to fight for what you believe.

So will you fight or not?

Hmmmn, no. Fight who? Fight for, I guess. Fight for Planned Parenthood. Fight for the idea that every child should be born to people who are capable of being good parents. Who can teach their children the Golden Rule. Otherwise, punching rude people in the face is emotionally satisfying, but it's counter productive, in the civility game.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The American people appear to have decided that civility is irrelevant.

Why Paul Ryan's Ode To Civility Is A Giant Fail

Are we abandoning diplomacy, both nationally and globally? Is the kind of ad hominem attacks which constitute 99% of the so-called discussion on this board becoming the norm of human communication?

Civility means behavior which reflects the values of civilization. How can we abandon these values so casually? These norms have evolved over thousands of years of human experiments in building and living in cities. Isn't their value obvious? Is the abandonment of civility likely to make the world a more violent or less violent place?

Libs like you are whining because you're finally getting a dose of what you've been dishing out for over 100 years.

Get used to it because a lot more of it is coming your way.

Here we have the enemy of civility. The real enemy of civility is, of course, thoughtlessness. A lack of a real philosophical underpinning to a person's life. Instead, some adopt this bizarre, knee-jerk hyper-partisanship which too often substitutes for thought in the US.

Civility is abandoned by the foolish. They know what it is. They've been told all their lives that they don't have it. That they are uncouth or white trash or rednecks. They either were not raised with a respect for civility or else they consciously decided to abandon those teachings. Hard to see how they could. If their parents and grandparents taught them properly they would insist that people be treated exactly as they would have their own parents and grandparents be treated. To abandon that principle makes the world a crass, vulgar place, for everyone, liberal or not. It makes the world a crass place for their own parents and grandparents. Where's the logic in that?

Libs like you only talk about "civility" when you are the receiving end of the lash. I've never seen any of you complain when liberals are dishing it out, and they do so frequently. "Civility" is just leftwing propaganda technique designed to get their opposition to shut up. Any right winger who buys into it is a sucker.

If you cannot conceive of anything, of any issue, which is non-partisan, which does not pertain to political ideology, then what is left? What is the point of anything? If you want war, if you want society to tear itself to pieces, then civility is certainly a minor issue. Civility is for people who don't want conflict to get out of hand. Civility, my extraordinarily single-minded good man, is a NON-PARTISAN issue. If you can't see that, then, wow.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of person are you? Do you know no one who holds a single "liberal" notion? Do you hate "liberals"? Do you want to kill them? What do you have to do to qualify as a "liberal"? Score less than 100% on some kind of test which is apparent to no one but you?

Let me try to offer you an alternate view of reality. Humanity falls along a spectrum from extreme left to extreme right. Most people are in the middle. They hold many positions which could be called liberal and many which could be called conservative. Do you hate people who lean slightly left?

 

[Mac1958]

"Political correctness" is a myth because it fails to "silence" anyone.

knows you're a liar.

Among many, many other honest liberals....
.

I can always rely on clayton to keep lying to the point I can disprove him with pictures.

Yeah.
.

 

[there4eyeM]

A form of 'civility' is inherent in proper use of language. For precision and clarity, one needs to speak with some objectivity. That necessitates the avoidance of immediately inflammatory and pejorative expressions. Morality and ethics are almost apart, another subject. They will affect the use of language, but not necessarily effect it.