There are people who actually think western society hasn't morally degenerated since the 1950s

>I wish I lived in [PAST YEAR PRE-1990]

Top fucking jej, lads. You'd be fucked.

>No internet
How much time to spend each day doing things which require an internet connection?

>No worries, I'd find other things to do
You'd suddenly be able to cope without it? You'd suddenly be A-OK being limited entirely to what information you can gather from the place that you are and the media/people in it?

>No more sjws!!!!
Yikes, that's not good. A far less progressive society is killer to a lot of the people on this site. You're a man? I hope you work hard, know a lot about manual labour/cars/DIY. I hope you have a decent education, and if not, some sort of stable job.
You'd best be able to drive, too.

>Girls were BETTER back then
Sure, girls would cook, clean, and do all the domestic stuff. But they were also a lot pickier. You need to not only be attractive, but have prospects. The "skinny indie quiet guy" is no longer an option, nor is the "kind of overweight underachiever who's really nice."

Your arguments would have to be made in person as opposed to over the internet, your lifestyle would probably be wholly unsupported, and you'd likely go stir crazy from no longer being able to do the things you rely on so heavily.

>but silly user, if I was born then I'd be used to all that?
You'd be a different person entirely. YOU don't want to live back then, you just don't like who you are now so you wish you could have existed at a time when society molded you a little more, as opposed to today's "be whoever you want" thing, which you obviously fucked up.

>You'd suddenly be able to cope without it? You'd suddenly be A-OK being limited entirely to what information you can gather from the place that you are and the media/people in it?
But why is the assumption that you'll be transported back in time to whatever year it is. "I wish I lived in... " doesn't mean you as you are right now want to travel to that year it just means you wished you lived in that year.

there's literally nothing wrong with pediphilia either, the only reason they feel trauma from sex is because moralfags tell them to feel that way by implying that sex is inherently harmful

>everyone on Veeky Forums is le fat neckbeard

Oh my dear summer child

I'm sure you know better than the entire consensus of child psychologists, user. :^]

child psychologists are literally pawns of the state, they just regurgitate what the officials have to say on the matter

Those look like gypsies.

...

Veeky Forums was a mistake

>guaranteed replies

Are you sure that relationship doesn't go in the other direction?

I think the next logical step would actually be bestiality, people have sex with their dogs all the time in private anyway.

Plus the dogs themselves seem to enjoy it.

I (sadly) keked

I think the point of bestiality laws is to keep it in private.

There's nothing else you can do.

>Plus the dogs themselves seem to enjoy it.

How would you know?

What? Gypsies are scum.

this. all of it

Alt-righti edgy kids like to go on about SJWs and liberalism but goddamn they would hate it if they lived in past conservative societies. Puts things in perspective.

People see their own emotions reflected back at them from the eyes of animals all the time.

Accidentally replied to you, friendo.

The moral degeneracy meme is probably about as old as language. I imagine hunter-gatherers in the Savannah bitching because the current generation doesn't live up to the stories their elders tell about themselves.

>what do you mean you don't love our Progressive Society Free of Hate?

Holy fuck british women are disgusting

In some ways, morals did decline. People here just became too reactive to any suggestion that it did and started to dismiss mindlessly. Morals in regards to sex and other issues declined a lot.

To be fair, other issues morals improved.

That's not true. Sometimes people think morals are in decline, sometimes they think it is not.

You are the one spreading an idiotic meme.

>women

>But they were also a lot pickier

No.

I don't think you know child psychology very well. The consensus of child psychology is actually in agreement that you shouldn't project a victim complex onto an abused child.

I'm not a professional, but I believe if you're handsome and the girl liked it at the time, she'll almost certainly not regret it later as long as you don't invent a reason for her to.

By declined, you mean changed.

I see this thread is filled with the typical assortment of nihilists, pedophiles, historically ignorant and finally, dog-fuckers.

Always wondered what the other sorts of people who browse this board were like.

What about sexual morals declined?

Cuck is the hot meme right now, but honestly real actual cuckold Ryan has declined MASSIVELY since the 50s.

>putting pedophiles before dog fuckers

Come on now at least it's not like the dogs get mentally scared from some consensual owner sex

Spoilers: all of human history was just as filled with these kinds of people as it is right now.

You can be grossed out if you like, doesn't change that you will never I your life have anything worthwhile to argue about most of it.

but he's right

to take OP's example, there were people in the 50s who thought western society had been falling since WWI

Well yeah. Ryan is over 80 now. Not too much cucking to do.

>there were people in the 50s who thought western society had been falling since WWI

They were right too.

No, I mean declined.

Promiscuity is accepted or encouraged and being a slave to your genitals is expected. We also have a porn epidemic.
You can look at the large increase im single motherhood, for example.

Can you give examples or that this was a widespread opinion? As far as I know, complaints of moral decline were more common in the late 60's/70's. And they were not wrong.

>implying western morality hasn't been in decline since the enlightenment

Surprise surprise when you teach people that moral rules and practices must be rational, and can only be justified by individuals, they dispense with all their moral commitments and do whatever pleases them.

And most people wouldn't call any of those things a bad thing.

I say again, morals changed, not declined.

>and being a slave to your genitals is expected

You're fucking hysterical.

Also porn has always been a highly sought-after commodity.

>You can look at the large increase im single motherhood, for example.

nytimes.com/2015/05/09/upshot/out-of-wedlock-births-are-falling-except-among-older-women.html?_r=0

Second result in googling single motherhood rates.

Degeneracy is a meme but ethical thinking is definitely on the decline. It's rotten core is masked by emotional outbursts.

>you can't argue against my good dick fee fees guess dogfucking is cool checkmate heh :^)

kill yourself you revolting faggot

>morals change from 'do X' to 'do whatever you want'
>a change, not a decline!

With the exception of the historically ignorant, they're all equally beyond help.

>All of history was filled with these people

Yes I'm aware that this nonsense has existed all throughout history, but that does not mean that these acts have any legitimacy because of this. The greatest crimes known to man are also common-place in history, but I will continue to get mad about those as to do otherwise is to contribute to it occurring once more.

>You can be grossed out if you like, doesn't change that you will never I your life have anything worthwhile to argue about most of it.

I'd rather stand up and say something about this rubbish than join the ranks of the dim-witted who spout meaningless statements like "do whatever makes you feel good".

I'm more than happy to be the one who points out these acts as what they are; barbarism.

"Do whatever you want provided you're not hurting anyone" would be a more accurate description.

>le pol
Not even trying to hide it

>edgelord

Puh-fucking-lease. You're not allowed to cry about someone being edgy while decrying degeneracy you alt-right turd.

lol, very funny OP, get out of your traditionalist cocoon

How is apathy edgy?

People with the intellectual depth of a chimpanzee.

Take any magazine or TV series. For men, it is all about muh dick. For women, the concern is about getting the dick.

As for porn, there are increasing articles about the problem it is causing. People are getting addicted to it.

In the case of single mothers, I hope it decreases, but if you look at the medium run, it increased a lotover the decades.

>Do what you want as long as you allow others to do what they want

Has no more moral depth than

>Do whatever you want

Desperate liberals want to believe that they've found some moral doctrine of privacy and convince themselves by defining the public dimension of morality out of existence. Muh "spreading promiscuous attitudes, greed, laziness, aren't harming people!!"

And that is moral decline, you moron.

The next step is very obviously polygamy. There are plenty of SJWs already proclaiming that they're "poly" and open relationships are all the rage right now.

>Take any magazine or TV series. For men, it is all about muh dick. For women, the concern is about getting the dick.

People enjoying sex and seeking it out is not the same as being a slave to your genitals, you fucking knob.

>As for porn, there are increasing articles about the problem it is causing.

Weasel words. Which articles? From what groups? Can these be attributed directly to the prevalence of pornography, or the fact that this has only just been given serious study? Is it proven to be causal rather than merely a correlation?

>it increased a lotover the decades.

I wont deny that. It's been a huge problem in low income areas. But it has been recently decreasing. There's also no basis to assume that this is a result of some sort of "moral decline" rather than relating to material, economic, or political factors (for one thing, I'd wager that the massively expanding prison population has a hand in it).

>Muh "spreading promiscuous attitudes, greed, laziness, aren't harming people!!"

Nobody is being directly hurt, and you haven't proven it's hurting anyone. You see the problem with claiming indirect harm from ideas is that just about any idea can be construed to be harmful. Would you like to have things you hold dear silenced because someone thinks its harmful?

By what objective standard?

This. It's not like their weren't freaks and weirdos in the 1950s. Kiddie diddlers, serial killers, men who liked to dress up as women, and all the rest existed.

They just weren't able to parade it around or publicly discuss it on Veeky Forums.

Moral panics have happened over Elvis, women's skirts, texting, alcohol consumption, pot, and practically everything else. And we're still alive. Civilization hasn't crumbled.

We're a bunch of horny apes with big brains. We're always going to be a bit nasty and bent.

Most people who idealize a puritanical life would go insane after a month of godly living without porn, booze, and gross fantasizing.

You misconstrue me friend. I'm not complaining that any idea can be determined to be harmful, I'm complaining that an individualistic morality determines what is harmful according to a sordid mixture of whichever urge takes the individual's fancy at a particular time, and the traditions and habits which they haven't yet discovered to be harmful to said animalistic urges.

All these theories have no respect for the past, for tradition, for habit, for all the things that they don't know and for all the traditions that they rely upon without recognition. Crucially, they have no respect for the authority without which morality is meaningless. Have fun trying to salvage any practicable claims about what people should do when the only thing that binds them to doing these things is their own agency. Surprise, it will turn your morality into little more than an excuse for the particular activities of particular individuals

Here is the litmus test.

Ask "Will such degeneracy result in the reduction or reverse of technological progress?"

If the answer is no, then it doesn't matter.

That's all morality ever was, you fucking mong. People pick moral systems that exalt them and validate their lives. The main difference now is that the majority has less power to utilize their morals as legitimization for destroying or ruining people that disagree with them. But whether your morals are founded on your self or on tradition, it's still ultimately up to you whether or not to accept them, which means they are always, and shall always be founded on self.

My tablet's browser sucks, so I can't quote you.

People prioritizing sex and doing whatever they can to have "good sex" is being a slave to it. Let's take an example of marriage. How many people say "sexual chemistry" is a super important part of marriage? How many young men think "losing virginity" is an important part of being a man?

On the case of porn, you would agree that consumption increased a lot due to the internet. It also got more accepted to watch. People did watch in the past, but not as openly. As a result, people got hooked up on porn and addicted to it.
You will find that concerns about porn are starting to appear in the left and the right.

The issue of single parenthood is moral. Sex out of wedlock, people don't value families over sex and money, etc.

>technological progress
>epistemologicalanarchist.jpg

The Internet's success and fast adaption and the billions of dollars that went with it was due to the fact pornography was popular.

I mean in that respect Nietzsche was right. Might makes right.

We are having a conversation right now because of degeneracy.

I'm find with that.

Ethics are a guide to life.

If your morals don't say "you should not smoke crack because it is bad for you", your morals are shit.

Not to mention, usually, your "objective standards" of harm are pretty much hedonistic.

>Technological progress is all that matters

>People can reject moral obligations
>Therefore authority and social regulation are completely irrelevant to morality and whether they exist and the extent to which they exist is of no importance in understanding people and why they do the right things or the wrong thing

Okay user, truly you are a wise and dignified scholar

>People prioritizing sex and doing whatever they can to have "good sex" is being a slave to it. Let's take an example of marriage. How many people say "sexual chemistry" is a super important part of marriage? How many young men think "losing virginity" is an important part of being a man?

Considering something important is not the same as being a slave to it. You can only really be considered a slave when something rules you without chance to ignore it. Sexual chemistry is important to marriage because the reproductive act is an important part of romantic pair bonding. Young men consider losing their virginity important because it shows they'll be able to successfully find someone to eventually have children with. Neither of these indicates "slave" status, you histrionic idiot.

>On the case of porn, you would agree that consumption increased a lot due to the internet.

No. People just view a greater variety of it rather than being stuck with the same few smut mags they owned.

> It also got more accepted to watch. People did watch in the past, but not as openly. As a result, people got hooked up on porn and addicted to it.

Whether they did so openly or not is irrelevant. It's not like people typically broadcast the smut they watch to the whole world now either.

>You will find that concerns about porn are starting to appear in the left and the right.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

>The issue of single parenthood is moral. Sex out of wedlock, people don't value families over sex and money, etc.

You do realize things like teen pregnancy are more common in the more religious areas of the united states, right? The areas you'd consider more "moral."

Are you trolling or are you stupid? How do you even measure technological progress?

To be fair, its all that matters.

If you are fighting wars with sticks and stones, then however figured out how to make iron and then steel and then gun powder, will make you its bitch.

Once everyone has figured out how to maximize making others bitches, then the technology that makes you ok with being a bitch is the next best thing.

Really, if society had technologically stagnated in the mid-1980's and Moore's law was never a thing, we'd have more problems with degeneracy and crime and economic troubles.

Technology is why you live a semi-comfortable life and get to use your free time bitching on the internet with random strangers.

Whether you choose to consider authority legitimate or social regulation important is still an individual decision. The choice of morality still remains founded on the individual. The only difference in such systems is that the majority has greater power to ruin people for disagreeing with them.

Considering I'd wager you're the sort of person that cries themselves to sleep over bakeries having to make cakes for lesbians, I'd like you to think of what such a society would mean for you.

>implying hedonism is wrong

Our brains are a carrot and stick arrangement. You're either pursuing a carrot or dodging a stick. Deal with it.

Even that is going to far.

Given a certain ethically charged behavior, you should ask:

Does this individual's behavior have any bearing on other people's lives?

If no, then disregard the behavior in question. If some bloke wants to shove a 12 liter bottle of coke up his ass, that's his business. It doesn't effect society besides making that man's doctor richer.

If yes, then that behavior should be stigmatized and punished so that it is not reinforced.

In the case of pedophilia, it happens to be the case that rape can seriously fuck with kids, and therefore the behavior has a practical and material negative consequences for more than just the agent enacting it.

Calling one act degenerate and another something else is a meaningless verbal miscue. It's simply signals that you believe some individual's actions have greater consequences than themselves. For example, butt-blasted Christians who were crying over gays getting married.

All of this does show people are being ruled by it.

Their concern on chemistry is "how much pleasure they can get", not how much closer they can be with their partner. As it turns out, they actually get far from their partner when they are not satisfying them in bed. When you leave the one you are married with for lack of sexual pleasure, you are a slave of sex.

As for the young men, they want pleasure and status (so that they can get more pleasure), they are not thinkkng about who they are going to marry. Many don't even plan to marry.

You disagree that porn consumption increased? Or that porn is considered more acceptable now?
And yeah, I can't post links because my tablet's browser sucks.

As for teen pregnancy, do you think that the ones getting pregnant more often are celibate girls? Areas mean nothing, the people do. Many Republican states have a large percentage of black people. Doesn't mean blacks vote Republican.

Of course an individual may refuse to abide by moral rules and standards. But it is absurd to fetishize the individual so much that, when he at best chooses between one rival moral tradition and another, and at worst uncritically accepts the only one he is offered, your moral analysis still comes down to "b-b-b-but what is right is reducible to individual choices"

Morality is about accepting the wisdom of our betters, and either abiding by their guidance or ignoring it. Morality itself is stripped of content if it is just about doing what satisfies us most, because then there is no rule to abide by or standard to live up to

Everything that matters in life is physical pleasure?

I don't know. Sexual abuse can ruin people who were going to be scientists or engineers so that's out.

But watching porn and having kids out of wed lock is fine is the scientists and engineers still get their job done.

You are confusing Ethics with "Liberal Law".

This is literally /pol/ with dates

>If you are fighting wars with sticks and stones, then however figured out how to make iron and then steel and then gun powder, will make you its bitch.

Until the opposite side discovers how to make iron and then steel and then gun powder.

>Once everyone has figured out how to maximize making others bitches, then the technology that makes you ok with being a bitch is the next best thing.

Figuring out "how to maximize making others bitches" is something humans have been trying to do since the beginning of our existence. There is no 'perfect' way of doing so.

Even if an overlord nation is technologically superior history shows that their subjects will revolt anyway, and this revolt can be caused by anything from wealth disparity to general hatred of overlording nation.

>Really, if society had technologically stagnated in the mid-1980's and Moore's law was never a thing, we'd have more problems with degeneracy and crime and economic troubles.

This is your opinion, and it can be argued that technology has contributed to degeneracy due to the reasons given by other Anons in this thread (wide-spread availability of pornography to give a single example).

Might makes Right is all well and good but when half of your populace are more concerned with self-gratification than defending their own country they will quickly find themselves subjects of a less benevolent overlord.

>Their concern on chemistry is "how much pleasure they can get", not how much closer they can be with their partner.

What basis do you have to claim that?

>As it turns out, they actually get far from their partner when they are not satisfying them in bed.

This isn't indicative of being a slave to your genitals, it's just human psychology. Good experiences make you think fondly of someone, bad experiences make you think poorly of someone.

>When you leave the one you are married with for lack of sexual pleasure, you are a slave of sex.

As I said, the reproductive act is a major component of marriage. If it's not satisfying, than a major part of the marriage is not satisfying. They are not ruled by it like some sort of mindless drone, you unempathetic autist.

>As for the young men, they want pleasure and status (so that they can get more pleasure), they are not thinkkng about who they are going to marry. Many don't even plan to marry.

And the basic instinctive drive here is to prove that they can acquire a mate, you goddamn simp. Status is definitely a component of it, because it demonstrates to their peers that potential mates view them as desirable.

>You disagree that porn consumption increased?

Yeah, actually, because there'd be no way to actually measure that. Do we have good statistics on how often your grandfather looked at his old nudie mag?

>Or that porn is considered more acceptable now?

I don't disagree with that, I just think it's irrelevant, because porn viewing is still a predominantly private affair.

>As for teen pregnancy, do you think that the ones getting pregnant more often are celibate girls?

No, I think they're predominantly religious girls who haven't received a sex education that wasn't designed by histrionic assholes like yourself.

Is a comfortable life the objective of society?

What matters in life is what we say matters in life, but barring the habitual and instinctual, boils down to pleasure versus displeasure due to the way the reward mechanisms of our brain work.

You are perfectly free to buy some land in the Amazon and make mud huts and scrap the shit off your but with tree bark.

Also have plenty of time with your mates to pick and eat the lice out of your hair.

>"b-b-b-but what is right is reducible to individual choices"

It's the truth. In the absence of an objective external standard (and due to the limitations of human perception, objectivity is fundamentally impossible) only the individual can ever decide what is and is not moral. Also very classy. Try growing up a bit.

>Morality is about accepting the wisdom of our betters, and either abiding by their guidance or ignoring it.

Deciding whether they are indeed our betters is still an individual choice. You can do all the fake stuttering in the world to make it appear like I don't have a point, but it still comes down to individual choice. Whether you want to derive your morals from Plato or Stirner, it's still on YOU to make that choice. As far as morality is concerned, there literally is nothing beyond the individual.

>Morality itself is stripped of content if it is just about doing what satisfies us most, because then there is no rule to abide by or standard to live up to

Morality is always just doing what satisfies us most. Do you think people really stick to moral systems that leave them feeling unsatisfied with their choices that are utterly antithetical to their beings?

You brought important point but don't follow it far enough. Actually most things that are visible in society, changes society if only by moving Overton Window in one direction or another. For example, rampart sexual freedom is the cause of so many single mother out there and there is little enviroments more toxic for children than single mother household. So by being too sexually rampart women can provide society with disfunctional people that not only fuck their own lifes but also bring misery to other people and introduce bad habbits like drugs usage, beatings, criminal activities.

I don't think so. Objective of society if to survive and provide it's members with best life possible while still giving their children and society as a whole best chance for surival.

For example you might postulate that some lifechoices are great for that particular individual but they would make his children dysfunctional. Because of that society should scorn such a lifestyle in favour of lifestyle that is as good as possible for adult while also giving best possible chances for children and society as a whole to survive.

What you are calling "human psychology" is basically being a slave to your genitals. Being a slave to your genitals is so ingrained in your mind that you consider it human nature. Just like considering "how much sexual pleasure I can get from my partner" as extremely important shows how much people are slaves to sex. Pleasure beats family.

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing or do you really believe thay porn consumption didn't increase? Or that something being considered more acceptable don't lead to it being done more?

And why do you think religious girls will ignore the part about "no sex before marriage" but remember "no condom"? Isn't the problem that people actually had sex out of wedlock?

Wouldn't the solution be a technological one instead of a moral one?

Say birth control or abortions?

I mean if we had 100% effective birth control that either men or women could take that would be so cheap as to be free and was freely distrusted to everyone, then we wouldn't have the problem of single mothers.

>OH MY GOD, I CAN SEE THOSE WOMEN'S THIGHS! HOW CAN CIVILIZATION CONTINUE UNDER THESE CONDITIONS?

Would you say Charlie Sheen or Lindsay Lohan won at life?

You would still have the problem of broken marriages and the effects that being promiscuous has on yourself.

And on top of that. I suppose our civilizations current success is due to technology and not moral character or ethics.

In fact, when looking for a solution, a technological solution always trumps a moral or ethical one.

Because humans have a shit history on being upstanding people.

Which is why its better to own a gun and alarm system with a steel door than let congress pass more laws on how you shouldn't home invade people.