CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The onset of the Liberal progressive movement is the main reason for higher divorce rates. Liberals hate the very word morals and therefore usher in the no fault ideology where anything goes in today's culture. Self love supersedes the good of the children. Liberals will make ludicrous statements like it is better for the kids if their parents divorce and there will be more harmonious living. LOL, ASK THE KIDS! They say they would rather their parents do not divorce. But as with all subjects, Liberals will deny reality and go their own selfish way.
"Liberals hate the very word morals and therefore usher in the no fault ideology where anything goes in today's culture. " What do you base that claim on? Is it not possible that they simply have morals that differ from yours?
"LOL, ASK THE KIDS! They say they would rather their parents do not divorce. But as with all subjects, Liberals will deny reality and go their own selfish way." I have personally talked to many children from divorced homes that said it was better for their parents to be divorced, because when they were together it was a very hostile environment. What do you have to say to them?
What do you base that claim on? Is it not possible that they simply have morals that differ from yours?
Liberals promote relativism. The first to be confused by this contradictory notion was a Greek named Sophist Protagoras, who required no less than Plato to unwind his confusion.
FW has a valid theory in proposing that a moral shift which weakens incentive to work through "incompatibility" issues within a marriage has potential to increase a divorce rate.
First, no, liberals do NOT promote relativism. Some liberals promote non-cognitivism, but that is not inherent in liberal political philosophy and ideology and can be found in a far higher proportion in libertarianism.
And please, provide a solid argument for this "valid theory" of his and how it is liberals that are to blame for it.
Seems the argument is already solid. There used to be very strong social disincentives to divorce. The sexual revolution and feminism attempted to dissolve the norms that put restrictions on sexual behavior and married women respectively. Furthermore, the feminist movement encouraged women to be more independent. This means that women in a bad situation have more options and less reason to make the marriage work. These factors did weaken the social norms that put pressure on married couples to stay together. Whether this is a benefit or a detriment is a different argument.
no, liberals do NOT promote relativism
During the 19th and 20th centuries “ a number of factors converged to make moral relativism appear plausible. These included a new appreciation of cultural diversity prompted by anthropological discoveries; the declining importance of religion in modernized societies; an increasingly critical attitude toward colonialism and its assumption of moral superiority over the colonized societies; and growing skepticism toward any form of moral objectivism”
The above quoted issues are primarily liberal issues. Though liberal don't specifically promote moral relativism, it is part of other aspects of liberal philosophy.
I am having difficulty understanding how your source indicates that liberals adhere to an ideology that espouses or at least includes moral relativism. The issues you refer to could be ones that someone believes without being moral relativists. In fact, one could be a moral realist and still quite easily be a liberal. Could you elaborate, please?
The quote that I presented cited specific factors which lead one to moral relativism. These factors are primarily liberal in nature. While it is true that one could be a moral realist and a liberal, we must take the ideology as a whole. While one could espouse certain liberal issues without adopting moral relativism, they could not adhere to all liberal ideas and maintain moral realism without being inconsistent in their reasoning; which the source implies.
But my confusion comes from how those issues lead one to moral relativism. Can you elaborate on that please? And liberalism as a whole as just as suspectable to moral realism as liberals individually.
Out of curiosity, which aspects of Liberalism do you think can not be adhered to without moral relativism? Specific issues do not address aspects of Liberalism, so if you could please give separate explanations on your opinion of this that would be great.
There should be social tolerance of different peoples' ways of living within a society. There should be tolerance of various cultures of other societies. When considering various cultures and how they interact within their own society, we should consider their society on their terms, the way we consider our society in our terms. Some cultures do things that we don't agree with, but this doesn't make it wrong in the context and terms of their own society. To their mind and in their society, it is right.
The above is my understanding of liberal moral relativism. While it is surely the case that many liberals do not think this way. Consider Bill Maher and the stance he took on Islam. He has dropped moral relativism and got a lot of liberal backlash for it.
"There should be social tolerance of different peoples' ways of living within a society. There should be tolerance of various cultures of other societies. When considering various cultures and how they interact within their own society, we should consider their society on their terms, the way we consider our society in our terms. Some cultures do things that we don't agree with, but this doesn't make it wrong in the context and terms of their own society. To their mind and in their society, it is right." All of this can be believed whilst also being a moral realist. Recognizing that people have different concepts of morality is not, itself, being a moral relativist. One has to not only accept that people have different concepts of morality AND accept that those have the same amount of moral "truth" to them as any others.
However, MANY multiculturally oriented liberals hold their own concept of morality that they think is the correct one, yet recognize that those morals are not universally held. How would that make them moral relativists?
MANY multiculturally oriented liberals hold their own concept of morality that they think is the correct one, yet recognize that those morals are not universally held
If they believe that a moral principle should be universally held regardless of culture, they will be considered intolerant. Bill Maher is the only prominent liberal that I have heard drop the relativism. For this he was attacked by other prominent liberals for his intolerance. Through vocal support of general tolerance, as a value for its own sake, the adherence to relativism isn't explicit, it's implied.
Fair enough, that was poor wording on my part. One can hold that there are universal moral truths, which would imply that, ideally, everyone should follow them, without thinking that another society is being truly "wrong" for holding to a different set of morals.
Morality is a system of oughts and/or ought-nots. One cannot believe that it is true that some things ought not be done while simultaneously believing that it is ok for them to be done. At least not while being consistent.
Actually, one can rather easily believe that something shouldn't be done, but not truly hold it against someone if they do. One can hold to a code of morality without judging others for not adhering to it, even if you believe your code of morality is the objectively right one. You are talking in rather extreme terms here.
One can be understanding of another who does something that one believes they ought not have done, but they still believe the person ought not have done it.
To believe there are things that you or your society ought not do, but that it is ok for others, is moral relativism. I am talking in fundamental terms. We are talking about the fundamentals of modern liberal thought.
So let me clarify: Are you claiming that, in the instance of Islamic Fundamentalist societies, you believe liberals think it is okay for, for example, men to treat their women as chattel, despite not thinking it is okay for us to do so in the U.S.?
I think that the fundamentals of modern liberalism creates cognitive dissonance concerning Islam. While no liberal would say they are ok with certain aspects of many Muslim societies, they simultaneously wish to avoid appearing intolerant. As a result, they focus on how most Muslims are good people and remain, for the most part, silent concerning those issues which run counter to their internal narrative.
Liberals also tend to support those whom they consider to be the underdog or victim. They view Islam as a whole as the underdog on the current world stage. This leads to more cognitive dissonance concerning the internal narrative.
This is why I keep coming back to Bill Maher. Anyone would agree that he is a liberal. But to eliminate the cognitive dissonance, he took a consistent position against the principles of Islam that run counter to his liberal morality. The following quote from him maintains many liberal principles, but sounds intolerant and thus, does not sound like something a liberal would say:
"President Obama keeps insisting that's ISIS is not Islamic. Well, maybe they don't practice the Muslim faith the same way he does. But if vast numbers of Muslims across the world believe, and they do, that humans deserve to die for merely holding a different idea or drawing a cartoon or writing a book or eloping with the wrong person, not only does the Muslim world have something in common with ISIS, it has too much in common with ISIS."
So you are saying that feeling that a minority is wrong, while supporting a majority, leads to cognitive dissonance? If I am wrong please correct me, because that seems to be what you are saying.
As for Bill Maher, he is not a liberal, though he is of the left. That being said, I agree with his comments regarding ISIS, and as a member of the left (in fact further to the left than Liberalism), I have huge issues with the way certain groups on the left have tried to characterize Islamic extremism.
So you are saying that feeling that a minority is wrong, while supporting a majority, leads to cognitive dissonance?
No, I'm saying that feeling that someone is wrong while thinking that expressing it would lead to intolerance creates cognitive dissonance. That feeling that a minority is wrong while thinking you should support the underdog leads to cognitive dissonance.
As for Bill Maher and his label, the word liberal is made of rubber and can be stretched or compressed. It's sufficient that he is on the left.
You may also want to look into moral cognativism vs non cognativism, because much of this whole debate is predicated on a rather incorrect usage of the term moral relativism. If you want to say that liberals are more likely than conservatives to be moral noncognativists, I may agree with you, but only because liberals are more likely than conservatives to be atheist/agnostic.
You provide no actual facts to support your statements, and for good reason. You have none.
You may have noticed a few other things have changed since the 1950s. The most significant in my mind is that we moved from the Industrial Age to the Information Age, but there are myriad others. Discounting everything but liberal progressivism as the cause for increased divorce rates is truly ludicrous.
Also, arguments by anecdote are suspect at best. What kids of divorced parents? What liberals hate the very work morals, or believe self lover supersedes the good of children? This sounds like nonsense.
What you just did is how people use numbers to make themselves right. What has happened since 1980? People are living together without marriage so of course there would be fewer divorces. Living together is another result of Liberalism whereby the traditional moral values with marriage vs living together are being laughed at by Liberals.
No, what you just did is play with numbers. The graph shows a decrease in rate, not the number of divorces. The percentage of people who stay married has increased. The number of divorces is not actually shown. There may be more divorces than 1980.
How so, out of curiosity? And who is "we"? When the British got here? In that sense, are you saying we adopted traditional 18th century British marriage values?
The realization that after divorce all your annoying habits will have gone, or at least go unnoticed. Also, there's no law against divorce, but there is for murder.
Why would any guy put up with the bitches the feminist movement has made of them? Before a woman respected her man instead of spitting in his face and you would why the divorce rate has increased.
So you base gender politics purely on divorce rate?
So if there was a period of time where women were essentially slaves and were not allowed to divorce for any reason, that would be an even more ideal period of gender politics? According to the chart, I mean :P
My parents married in 50's and they stayed married until my mom's death. For almost 60 years they were together and showed no signs where she was a slave. She worked, raised 5 kids, was on the school board, ran for county commissioner, pretty much did what she wanted to do. Didn't slavery end after the Civil War?
That generation seemed to believe that work was a way to accomplish things including marriage. Today, one thinks work is something one does when there is nothing better to do (Raining, can't go fishing. Guess I'll go to work). Because this is the attitude in regards to work, one can assume the same attitude is applied toward marriage.
Your parents may have enjoyed such a marriage, but many others didn't, and many were stuck in incredibly unhappy and unhealthy marriages. Now, when I asked you when was the ideal time for gender politics, you indicated the 1950's (based on the chart). If one was using divorce rates as a metric, the my question follows: Hypothetically, if we were in a time where marriage was essentially just a woman being a slave to a man, but the divorce rate was 0, then wouldn't that, according to the metric you indicated, be the most ideal situation for gender politics? If not, is there another metric that you believe should be taken into consideration?
It is not only my parent generation, but their parents as well. Both sets of my grandparents were only married once and were together until their deaths. All of them worked. I'd say a commitment to work or the very nature in the need to survive leads to longer marriage. None of the three examples provided had any wealth. Look at how the standard of living has increased over time. Looks like good times, means higher divorce rates. When things begin to tighten up, marriages seem to last longer. How long does the average Hollywood marriage last?
I am a little confused as to why you are not addressing my question about the appropriate metric one should use in determining the optimal gender politics. What is your opinion on the hypothetical I referenced in my last post?
Maybe you should define gender politics and metric as you conceive them to be. Metric used here I define as a variable used to determine why marriages last.
Gender politics? Is that the pickup line and/or method one uses to get laid?
I used the term gender politics for lack of a better term. If you'd like, I can use the term gender relations. This thread started after you said "the way things are going", so I was trying to figure out what period of time you thought was ideal, and what metric you used to determine that. The only metric you have given me was the divorce rate, which led to my hypothetical. "Hard work", for example, is not a metric one can use to measure this sort of thing, it is a subjective concept that is far too nuanced to be used as a metric.
The feminist movement is one variable in the relatively recent increase in divorce rates, though if you take the time line much further back you will find similar increases and decreases.
