Viewing Single Post From: Morality

Viewing Single Post From: Morality
*Sentenal*	Jan 1 2008, 11:03 PM
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat. Posts: 15,616 Group: FEFF Emperor Member #1 Joined: May 16, 2005	Quote: Morality effects technological regression. To provide a sample, let us say that society was based on the morals of 1500s Rome. The Church is always right is one of the morals. Galileo Galilei's theory of a heliocentric universe would be rejected and we would still think everything revolved around us, hindering our knowledge of space. Pope Boniface VIII banned cadaver dissection in the 13th century. If this held true, modern medicine wouldn't be anywhere close to where it is today because we wouldn't know how the body works. Morals often get in the way of progress, moreso than the converse. If society was defined by morals then we wouldn't have the same medical or astronomical knowledge we have today. Wait, I'm not seeing any regression. The Church didn't stop Galileo from making his theory. The Pope didn't stop cadaver dissection. All those things happend. I'm not seeing where morality made anything go backwards. Quote: I still think a loving influence is the best way to have a family and we can argue this all day and all night. The establishment of a set provider and set nurturer has embedded one of the overlooked stereotypes -- the one surrounding fathers -- into society. While, granted, this will fade over time if society continues to change, we're creating divisionns as well. I've met great kids who come from families ridden by divorce and I can't say that the traditional family is the most effective way to raise children. Are those kids better off due to the divorce? Are those kids better off not having their single parent gone all day due to work? You talk about how a loving influence is the best way to have a family, and you talk about it like thats an alternative to a traditional one. Time will tell how much society has been damaged by the destruction of the family. As I've already said/you've ignored, the African American community has been plagued by it big time, and its only a matter of time till the entire country is. Quote: Wrong. It's not about the number of parents, it's about how the family functions. Single mothers and fathers can raise a child to be just as healthy and regular as any child from a nuclear family; look at any child who has lost a parent at a young age and continued to grow up to be a standard citizen (Dexter Scott King, son of Martin Luther King Jr., lost his father at the age of about 7-8). According to that article, its not the number of parents in the family per se. Its economic issues and functional problems of the single parent family. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but maybe those economic issues comes from there being only one parent in the family trying to provide for themselves, their kids, and their life-style? And maybe those functional problems comes from the fact that there is only one parent trying to do all those things? lol? Not to mention its one study, going against conventional wisdom (the article even says that, btw, so its by no means fact). Quote: I bring it up because it proves my point: what a family consists of is irrelevant, everything is dependent on how a family functions. All one needs is a nuturing environment to grow and learn in for a family to be "functional." You bring up exceptions, and there are exceptions to just about anything. Most of the people I know who were brought up in a traditional family have turned out to be good adults. Should I just start listing off people like that? Quote: Responsibility isn't taught anymore. Sex education should focus around responsibility and not "don't have sex!" or saying "we advise not to have sex but use a condom if you do!" rather than discussing the effects of impregnating a girl and those burdens. I completely agree; before people have sex they need to be ready for the responsibilities paired with it. liek omg them there morals gonna eat ur society


Morality · Debate Forum