did capitalism kill morality? it seems like, especially in the

>>2872918
Commercialism, public schooling, and family upbringing

we know that morality wanes eventually in every form of government

>capitalism

no.

>technology

yes

>>2872941
I'd say the oppressive and alienating nature of life under capitalism is exactly what pushes people to quick satisfaction, and the constant fight for survival against one's peers encourages selfishness. So I disagree with you.

>>2872955
>people would be less selfish if they were ruled by an enlightened police state argument

What is "morality"? and how can you even begin to make the claim that morals have been static over the course of human history? Which period are you looking back to as the "perfect" time period?

This time period is hardly more degenerate than any other in human existence.

>>2872959
People would be less selfish if we removed the barriers that force them to be selfish in the first place.

>>2872918
The USA is currently experiencing one of the most peaceful periods in world history. So no, I doubt that capitalism has killed morality. Keep in mind that history even before capitalism is in large part a chronicle of atrocities and murders.

>>2873058
>people would be less selfish if we made them less selfish
Really activated my almonds

>>2872918
that would imply that history pre-capitalism was a moral place

It was not- it was brutal, oppressive and terrifying.

>>2873071
This.

>>2873058
Welcome to planet earth bud.

>>2872918
Everything there ever will be, and anything there will ever be, can be used with a moral and ethical purpose. The engineering puzzle that when assembled becomes what we know as technology is just a gift that was meant to work before man ever discovered it. But whether you're talking about silicon transistors or the fucking hammer...both will be more useful in the hands of the moral.

Morality itself though gets dimmed for multiple reasons: When people take it for granted, which is arrogance. When personal desire is not kept under control, which is covetousness, which will lead to unethical behavior in relation to accumulating objects, ie avarice/greed.

So I mean morality is only kept when the individual wants it to be kept. But if you enter a society where no one is exercising self monitoring, and everyone is doing whatever they please and being stimulated by degenerate behavior like pride or sensual behavior for the sake of sensual behavior, or deception being fueled by greed, like dishonesty for the dollar, it creates the image and premise that it's all okay to do. But sooner or later it's all going to come to a head. People are going get schemed out of some money, find their loved one has been dishonest, you might be unable to correct a situation or dialog because the arrogant have taken over....from here only conflict upon conflict await. Which is chaos.

So yeah, morality dies with the individual. Without it we create hell. It's just so damn deceptive because time is so slow that it creates the illusion that nothing's wrong....until enough people are effected and begin to fight each other, which all stems from that earlier premise of "you don't have to exercise self control".....so when the fighting starts, guess what? "YOU DON'T HAVE TO EXERCISE SELF CONTROL".

I think this is the purpose of pain, too much pain and you'll fucking get the picture. You'll stop when the hurt is too much. Most people will anyway.

>>2873155
>>2873173

What?

You really don't think hunter-gatherers, who would share food with one another without expecting really anything in return, are as selfish as people today?

This even extends to early agricultural societies. It really was from each according to his ability, to each according to his need for a long time.

If you change the conditions under which people are living, their behavior will change as well.

>that would imply that history pre-capitalism was a moral place

You're right. The OP instead should say class society as a whole, as that's the root of these issues.

>>2873071
Eh, I don't really think that because technology can be weaponized and therefore nullify outside threats by it's presence alone, necessarily means there's "peace."

I think in a shielded confine like the US, there is the possibility of the inhabitants having issues with mental health.

>>2873071
A time of peace doesn't equal a time of great moral values.

>>2873071
peaceful =/= moral

>>2874715
>hunters would share food
Hunters wouldn't share food with other tribes. We share food with our "family circle". Marxist pseudoscience, get the fuck out of here you retard.
>extends
The basis of your argument is illogical.
>if you change conditions
The basis of your argument is still illogical
>you are right
Yes. But you aren't.

>2000 years ago Yeshua rebuked the Jews for being unforgiving and litigious.
Today people wanting to squeeze every cent possible out of each other in courts and Jerry Springer Judge Judy like mentalities everywhere especially in America where the mentality of football refereeing transferred over to treatment of slight infractions in everyday society.

>>2872918
Morality is an unabashed montrer ses plais [display of one's wounds, or "sour grapes"].

Complaints about loss of morality always come from revolting malcontents, descending lifeforms or cultures. Old people, young outcasts, even just people who are not on the bleeding edge of culture. Read /On the Genealogy of Morality/.

If you think a culture that is about to start printing human organs is descending, then the reality is that is only YOU are degenerating here.