TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » Culture

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 26-01-12, 09:49 AM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default Drop in integrity in the UK

Dishonest UK: Lying, drug-taking, speeding and having an affair all seen as more acceptable in the modern age

British people are less honest that they were a decade ago, survey reveals. Younger people more likely to condone bad behaviour than older people. Lack of positive role models explains why young people are becoming more dishonest. Only 50% think having an affair is never justified - down from 70% in 2000

Declining integrity 'could hamper David Cameron's Big Society initiative'
By TAMARA COHEN
Last updated at 12:48 AM on 26th January 2012

The moral maze of life has never been easy to negotiate. But a survey suggests more and more of us are taking a wrong turn. According to researchers, Britain is experiencing a major increase in dishonesty with many of us willing to lie and cheat. Having an affair, lying to further one’s interests, buying stolen goods and having underage sex are all seen as more acceptable than they were a decade ago. Scientists at the University of Essex believe levels of dishonesty could get worse because the young seem more tolerant of it.

Model citizen? Take the integrity test yourself - and be honest!

They are so concerned about its future impact on society they have set up a Centre for the Study of Integrity devoted to the subject. In the year 2000, 70 per cent of us said an extra-marital affair could never be justified, but now it is just 50 per cent, according to the University of Essex study.

Cheats, spivs and small-time crooks: Britain is getting less honest, and it starts at the top
The proportion who say picking up money found in the street is never justified fell from 40 per cent to 20 per cent over the same period. In eight out of ten categories termed as ‘low level dishonesty’, rather than major criminal activity, the number who say each activity is totally unacceptable has fallen.

Less integrity: Researchers have found that having an affair, drink driving, underage sex and lying are more acceptable today than they were in the year 2000. Failing to report damage to a parked car and breaking speed limits appear to have become an acceptable part of life – with only a minority condemning them. There was more opprobrium attached to not paying a train or bus fare – one of the few activities which is seen as less acceptable – than having an extra marital affair. Women were shown to have slightly more integrity than men, but in both sexes it was unrelated to social class, education or income

Integrity study

Some things seem more outrageous today with falsely claiming benefits seen as less justifiable in these straitened times than in the boom years. Attitudes to dropping litter have remained the same. Accepting bribes and drink-driving have fallen a bit, but are still mostly condemned, however smoking cannabis or having underage sex are seen as more acceptable.

Professor Paul Whiteley, who led the study, said: ‘It is apparent that large changes have occurred in sexual mores, attitudes to keeping money found in the street and smoking cannabis. These activities are much more sanctioned than they were 11 years ago.’
An online survey was carried out in 2000, and another group of 2,000 people were surveyed last year.

There was a strong correlation with age – with just a fifth of under 25s saying lying is never justified compared with 40 per cent of over 65s. However, the researchers do not know whether this indicates we are heading for a less honest society or whether honesty increases with age. It comes as a ‘trust barometer’ by the PR company Edelman found two-thirds of us do not trust politicians to tell the truth, and just 38 per cent trust businesses. The researchers say integrity has a ‘profound effect’ on society, as communities who are reluctant to work together ‘have worse health, worse educational performance, they are less happy and they are less economically developed’.

Less integrity: This graph shows how acceptable certain activities were to people in 2000 (grey) and in 2011 (black)

Interesting: How different age groups scored on the integrity test

Read more: Affairs, drink driving and lying ¿more acceptable than they were a decade ago¿ study finds (but we can¿t stand benefits cheats) | Mail Online


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, it's the Daily Mail so they couldn't help put their spin on this. I note two interesting factors - The increased vilification of cheating benefits: Clearly the Daily Mail & Sun campaigns have had a marked effect since this is the only dishonest behaviour whose condemnation has increased.

And the greater tolerance of extra-marital affairs. The Daily Mail worries about the youth's morals but I think that this increased tolerance might be due to a welcome decline in romanticism. Love songs and Princess fantasies have done enough damage as it is. A reversal would be a good thing.
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 26-01-12, 09:55 AM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

The whole survey is retarded. The basic questions are all based on "Is X ever justified?" Everything is sometimes justified. It's a concept used to measure child development. Answering "yes" doesn't mean you're dishonest, it means that you're over six years old.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 26-01-12, 11:44 AM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

So, do tell, when is it justified to cheat on your spouse or on your taxes? Which conditions would make it one of these "sometimes"?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I am not a proponent of moral absolutism and I fully agree that you will sometimes do things morally debatable because considerations other than moral absolutes intervene. But I wouldn't say they remove the moral absolutes.
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 26-01-12, 12:11 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

Cheating on your spouse? Suppose you've got an open marriage, or you want a divorce but they're Catholic and will only allow a separation, or they've just run off and left you, if they've gone nuts and are in an institution...

Cheating on your taxes is more difficult. A priori if you live in a genuinely democratic state then the asnwer is a priori never, but it's still fundemantally the same problem as is faced be Heinz in Kohberg's moral development experiments, except that in this case I guess the equivalent would be that a majority of people in the town voted that the drug should be ludicrously expensive.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 26-01-12, 12:21 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Originally Posted by Zichao View Post
Cheating on your spouse? Suppose you've got an open marriage, or you want a divorce but they're Catholic and will only allow a separation, or they've just run off and left you, if they've gone nuts and are in an institution...
Apart from the nut case [where obtaining consent or outright reclaiming sexual independence is impossible], all others are not "cheating" - the other side knows that you've decided it was okay to re-take your sexual freedom or they've agreed to it or they've forced it upon you.

Cheating involves deception.

Quote:
Cheating on your taxes is more difficult. A priori if you live in a genuinely democratic state then the asnwer is a priori never.
Bingo.

Hence my point. You may still decide to adopt non-moral behaviours and justify them on reasonable grounds but this doesn't remove the existence of a clear moral reference.
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 26-01-12, 12:26 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

The example of the drug, imho, is quite complicated because I don't think you've got an absolute moral point involved.

It's about property rights, mutual cooperation and tolerance of greed vs. the well-being of other people.

Thus you can easily see the pharmacist's greed as immoral and justify all kind of retaliation against him, the outright confiscation of his drug being the least of it.
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 26-01-12, 12:33 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

Quote:
Apart from the nut case [where obtaining consent or outright reclaiming sexual independence is impossible], all others are not "cheating" - the other side knows that you've decided it was okay to re-take your sexual freedom or they've agreed to it or they've forced it upon you.

Cheating involves deception.
Well that's your definition of cheating. Other people might define it differently. What about polygamy? How about if you're in a forced marriage in Pakistan or something?

Quote:
Bingo.

Hence my point. You may still decide to adopt non-moral behaviours and justify them on reasonable grounds but this doesn't remove the existence of a clear moral reference.
Unless you cheated on your taxes to pay for drugs for your dying wife.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 26-01-12, 12:50 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Originally Posted by Zichao View Post
Well that's your definition of cheating. Other people might define it differently.
I don't think so.

Quote:
What about polygamy?
That's not cheating as the multiple partners stuff is clearly in the open. Like polyamory.

Quote:
How about if you're in a forced marriage in Pakistan or something?
Then clearly your consent is irrelevant but the question would still be - are you being deceived? i.e. is your husband not meant to seek sex outside the marriage that was forced on you/him?

If, after being forced into a arranged one man/one woman marriage, both spouses have a talk and one of them say "look, I am going to have sex outside of this marriage because, well, you're not really to my tastes and we'll just be married and have a business-like albeit friendly relationship when it comes to household spending, kids and the like", that's not cheating because there is no deception.

Quote:
Unless you cheated on your taxes to pay for drugs for your dying wife.
Not remotely realistic. The time lags don't work & I am pretty sure you can negotiate with tax authorities in extreme cases.
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 26-01-12, 04:46 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

Quote:
I don't think so.
A lot of religious people would say that any infidelity at all is cheating.

Quote:
Then clearly your consent is irrelevant but the question would still be - are you being deceived? i.e. is your husband not meant to seek sex outside the marriage that was forced on you/him?

If, after being forced into a arranged one man/one woman marriage, both spouses have a talk and one of them say "look, I am going to have sex outside of this marriage because, well, you're not really to my tastes and we'll just be married and have a business-like albeit friendly relationship when it comes to household spending, kids and the like", that's not cheating because there is no deception.
But what if one of them's totally in favour of forced marriage and the other one isn't?

Quote:
Not remotely realistic. The time lags don't work & I am pretty sure you can negotiate with tax authorities in extreme cases.
Well okay, what if you're a hardline communist and believe that liberal democracy is inherently undemocratic?
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 26-01-12, 05:25 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Originally Posted by Zichao View Post
A lot of religious people would say that any infidelity at all is cheating.
Cheating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia : Cheating constitutes doing anything, whether verbal or physical, that one would not do in front of their significant other. Such examples would include: expressing attraction to another person, talking, electronic communications, texting, data, kissing, making out, and sexual relations.

Basically, the matter of "deceit" is central. If your significant other either doesn't care, is made aware and is okay with your behaviour, it is not 'cheating'. It means you have a non-monogamous arrangement.


Quote:
But what if one of them's totally in favour of forced marriage and the other one isn't?
Then, surely, cheating isn't the biggest issue you have. Marital rape and/or domestic violence and/or honour killing and/or in-family kidnapping are probably higher on the agenda.

I mean, how is a marriage where one of the spouse supports forced marriage and the other doesn't is even supposed to happen?

Quote:
Well okay, what if you're a hardline communist and believe that liberal democracy is inherently undemocratic?
Then, as I said, you argue on "reasonable grounds but not moral ones" - you state "all property is theft" and thus feel entitled to steal the medicine because you've redefine your theft/confiscation as "redistribution" or whatnot rather than 'theft'.

The Soviets may have 'stolen' everything from the Russian aristocracy but they validate it as saying it's a fair confiscation, a redress. OTOH, they were perfectly happy to execute peasants hiding grains on the basis that they were stealing from the community/soviet.

Thus, the moral absolute against thievery remains but you just vary the definition of thievery to suit your needs/thinking.
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 5
AnonymousIdiotSavant, contracycle, Gilles de Rais, psyche, Zichao
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0