Is there a moral consensus in Western society anymore?

[Maru]

And if there is, what do you think it is?

And if there isn't, do you think there will ever be able to come to a moral consensus and if so, what do you think it would look like?


I would vote no. I think we can see it when on both sides are operating on older standards, modes of thinking. People walk into strawmans and don't know how they have become valid discourse, (i.e. PC Police, etc), because as far as they knew it, they aren't operating outside what they themselves consider to be a societal norm.

I think society, albiet in a very self-destructive way, is coming about a revolution in terms of how we treat morality amongst each other and how we handle disagreements when there is a value disparity...

Obviously it's important to know the answer to this question, but whatever the consensus is, will dictate how law enforcement, communities, and even laws are managed and created in order to uphold a societal standard. However, if that standard is in question... then it makes it rather difficult to close the argument so to speak on what constitutes moral injustices in our society, and it makes it rather difficult for us to investigate deep-rooted issues in our communities if we're stuck at the surface fighting for the right to lead that search.

[Beso]

I just look forward to pay day maru...sorry.

[MTVN]

I think so. We all have fairly similar laws really and we all have similar means of upholding those laws. And we're largely agreed on things like religious freedom, gender equality etc. Obviously there will be differences and people who are more conservative than others but I think you could transplant someone from one Western country and place them in another and they wouldn't find themselves that taken aback by that country's values

[Kizzy]

Of course there is, young people are as woke af now.... change is coming :)

[user104658]

young people are as woke af now...

No more than ever to be honest Kizzy. I mean, have you been in Chat & Games lately? Or the on-season forums? :umm2:

[Kizzy]

No more than ever to be honest Kizzy. I mean, have you been in Chat & Games lately? Or the on-season forums? :umm2:

I tend to broaden my scope, that's how I know they are ... Did you watch the Brit awards?

:smug:

[Mystic Mock]

I don't think that I've ever known people be so divided since I've been alive like we are at the moment, it's utter chaos.

[Maru]

Very interesting poll answers and dialogue so far. Keep em coming. I want to hear from both sides

[Marsh.]

No more than ever to be honest Kizzy. I mean, have you been in Chat & Games lately?

Please don't judge today's youth on the disgusting sexual escapades of Lilbro and Sullen_Girl.

[Maru]

8 people voted? So is that the entirety of SD? :laugh: Well, it is a slow Saturday...

[user104658]

8 people voted? So is that the entirety of SD? [emoji23] Well, it is a slow Saturday...8? :think: ... Yeah I'm pretty sure everyone who understands the question has voted. :laugh2:

[Northern Monkey]

Such a big question really.Not a yes or no answer for me so i can’t vote.It depends how deep you wanna go.

From country to country within the establishments that have been built up thus far then my answer would be this -
Overall pretty much generally yes.But not totally and times are a changing with western countries all facing new pressures which may start to fracture cohesion.Plus we have Brexit.

Amongst the population i’d have to say -
No,There are multiple concensuses within each country and the gaps are getting wider with the internet playing a massive role.
This would be the short uncomplicated answer from my pov but you could write a collection of books trying to answer that question i reckon.

[rk3388]

No the problem is so many see issues as black and white.

The party system, particularly in the US, makes people support wrong ideas just because it's the opinion their party holds. For instance, Republicans who might not "believe" in climate change because it's Democrat's agenda to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Same with issues like Gun control and health care system etc

I think in the West it's the US in particular who have very poor morals - look who got elected! Here in Canada there are also many cities full of ignorant ignorant people

[Maru]

If it feels like a broad question, it's because it's meant to get people to think about their answer (I probably should've added a third & fourth option...)... How do we (or you) define our moral consensus for example? What makes up a unified identity/dialogue, etc..

[Brillopad]

And if there is, what do you think it is?

And if there isn't, do you think there will ever be able to come to a moral consensus and if so, what do you think it would look like?


I would vote no. I think we can see it when on both sides are operating on older standards, modes of thinking. People walk into strawmans and don't know how they have become valid discourse, (i.e. PC Police, etc), because as far as they knew it, they aren't operating outside what they themselves consider to be a societal norm.

I think society, albiet in a very self-destructive way, is coming about a revolution in terms of how we treat morality amongst each other and how we handle disagreements when there is a value disparity...

Obviously it's important to know the answer to this question, but whatever the consensus is, will dictate how law enforcement, communities, and even laws are managed and created in order to uphold a societal standard. However, if that standard is in question... then it makes it rather difficult to close the argument so to speak on what constitutes moral injustices in our society, and it makes it rather difficult for us to investigate deep-rooted issues in our communities if we're stuck at the surface fighting for the right to lead that search.

Less so I would say. More and more people are out for themselves and to hell with anyone else. The young in particular have been allowed to become very self indulgent and 'entitled' including men who say they feel like women being allowed to self-indulge to the point of complete selfishness and at the expense of many other people. It is not advancement in my opinion - just playing to people's self-indulgent obsessions. It does not bode well for the future.

[user104658]

Less so I would say. More and more people are out for themselves and to hell with anyone else. The young in particular have been allowed to become very self indulgent and 'entitled' including men who say they feel like women being allowed to self-indulge to the point of complete selfishness and at the expense of many other people. It is not advancement in my opinion - just playing to people's self-indulgent obsessions. It does not bode well for the future.

And yet at the same time, you also tend to brand most young people as "lefties", meaning socialists... when socialist policies are the OPPOSITE of being "out for oneself" and right-leaning capitalism is the very definition of self-serving. How can young people be both "only out for themselves", and ALSO "bleeding heart lefty socialists".

[Marsh.]

And yet at the same time, you also tend to brand most young people as "lefties", meaning socialists... when socialist policies are the OPPOSITE of being "out for oneself" and right-leaning capitalism is the very definition of self-serving. How can young people be both "only out for themselves", and ALSO "bleeding heart lefty socialists".

:clap1:

[Kizzy]

One thing that has always puzzled me is why the left are slurred with labels that are suggesting that any moral or ethical consideration on any given topic is a negative?...
Very odd

[Twosugars]

One thing that has always puzzled me is why the left are slurred with labels that are suggesting that any moral or ethical consideration on any given topic is a negative?...
Very odd
It's not odd at all. The right are amoral and selfish, but they hate being called out on that hence their attempts to ridicule ethical approach to anything

the right dislikes: women rights, sexual equality, foreign aid, universal healthcare, enviroment protection, etc - things that are designed to benefit others or all of us

the right loves: tax cuts, guns, minimum financial regulation, etc - things designed to benefit individuals (only those in a position to benefit, so not everybody)

[Maru]

It's not odd at all. The right are amoral and selfish, but they hate being called out on that hence their attempts to ridicule ethical approach to anything

the right dislikes: women rights, sexual equality, foreign aid, universal healthcare, enviroment protection, etc - things that are designed to benefit others or all of us

the right loves: tax cuts, guns, minimum financial regulation, etc - things designed to benefit individuals (only those in a position to benefit, so not everybody)

Wow... we've gone off the rails if we've all started to paint each other with broad strokes. I know I see people on the right like Brillo, etc who are notorious with their broad strokes (sorry Brillo), but if more and more of us start thinking like this... we're on the wrong path imo.

The right doesn't have a higher moral or ethical authority, and I don't personally feel this way about the left either. For the left, I'm more concerned we're disregarding history when we try to achieve certain things, and ignoring the ill effects on society in the process as "unfortunate side effects" is sad in any case... but there is room to disagree in how to address those side effects... I think.

I've watched a lot of left (well, my generation was raised on it) and right media. One of the arguments of the right, is that socialism is theft... which to some degree is true. It's arguing someone who earned their way through merit is not allowed to enjoy their own fruits... that because they may be earning it in a way that is "opportunistic" (are they really???), then we have to take large portions of their earnings and give it to the rest of society.

With abortion for example, both sides of the argument would consider their arguments to have the moral high-ground or setting the "actual" standard...

I think if we think we have moral authority because we hold certain opinions, that's quite sad... we don't have moral "authority" for simply our views... as there is no singular moral "authority". I hope, that we own as individuals gain however a reputation of morality... but to say because we truly believe in something, that that somehow makes "you" lesser than "I", it's regressive because we're assuming that the intentions of the person make up more than their actions...

How many people are nasty to each other just because of what they believe? That to me is not a moral behavior... and I wouldn't think higher of them simply because they had better "intentions" (and that's arguable too if they're nasty to others in order to achieve some "moral" end?...). We've become corrupted by our beliefs if we've forgotten the point to having a value system or having any sort of moral guide at all, is how we treat each other as individuals when in our company?...

Anyway, not addressing your words specifically. Some realizations hit me at once is all... and your thoughts brought a couple of things to mind up in my own mind that I felt the need to touch on...

[Maru]

Less so I would say. More and more people are out for themselves and to hell with anyone else. The young in particular have been allowed to become very self indulgent and 'entitled' including men who say they feel like women being allowed to self-indulge to the point of complete selfishness and at the expense of many other people. It is not advancement in my opinion - just playing to people's self-indulgent obsessions. It does not bode well for the future.

To address you specifically, than talk about you in some round about way (:laugh:), I will reply specifically.... personally, I agree with this statement @Teal, but I think this is true for every generation, especially the past 50-60 so odd years. That has been a complaint, I'm not sure of the right or left... it may not necessarily be either?

@Purple Isn't that human nature though? And don't many people propose a different recipe for the antibiotic that will cure society of that ailment? Whose to say it's our beliefs that lead to this? Or is it our actions? Is it instead believing we each are immune from the disease of our very being (our human nature)... on the basis of our beliefs alone.

It would seem the most authoritative believers of the left/right would say that it is their goal to overcome our very nature, to become pure and morally clean subjects of society... but to gain this, we have to dirty our hands so to speak, by using ill words and suppressing the thoughts and opinions of those who are "contagion" to be dealt with...

You know, I'm not so worried about the core believers of either (or any) group. Those people simply have different beliefs and ideas of how to further progress society... but when we start to think it makes up for any shortcomings of our identity or makes up for our treatment of others (things we're not so proud of), then I think we are overcompensating, all people in this category, for our own shortcomings as human-beings when we staunchly hang onto our belief systems as some sort of emblem... and probably society too, especially in the case of America, she's having a small narcissistic fit atm, but slowly recovering I feel like... she is receiving a much needed come home to Jesus moment about the lack of depth to our core identity and how we actually treat each other as a society...

[Twosugars]

Anyway, not addressing your words specifically. Some realizations hit me at once is all... and your thoughts brought a couple of things to mind up in my own mind that I felt the need to touch on...
Oh, no worries. I find you are one of the most polite and thoughtful posters around, even if I may not agree with you on specific issues.

[Ammi]

..I don’t think younger people are self indulgent and entitled at all...I think they have to think differently to what was more typical for older people back in the day of their 20s/30s etc...because of all the negative changes ...younger people have to think more about pensions at an earlier age..much, much earlier ...because neither government or employer will be ‘looking out for them’ ..they don’t have the same opportunities of progressing in jobs without academic qualifications, it’s not impossible but it’s much rarer to achieve that now...investing in and striving for some type of pension in your 20s and 30s isn’t something that had to be addressed back in the day...at that early age...so the younger generation do have to consider ‘self’ quite a bit but for very good reason...I really do feel that it sucks for younger people now, compared to what I have known...

[Kizzy]

Post war people are 'entitled'... bahahaha!

In relation to 'the left' what are we disregarding historically?

'I'm more concerned we're disregarding history when we try to achieve certain things, and ignoring the ill effects on society in the process'

I've watched a lot of left (well, my generation was raised on it) and right media. One of the arguments of the right, is that socialism is theft... which to some degree is true. It's arguing someone who earned their way through merit is not allowed to enjoy their own fruits... that because they may be earning it in a way that is "opportunistic" (are they really???), then we have to take large portions of their earnings and give it to the rest of society.

Are you asking or telling here?... If you are meaning the strangle hold that capitalism has had specifically on the UK over recent years in relation to our energy, infrastructure, transport and utilities ... and now health and education then yes there very much is a need to address that.

[Maru]

..I don’t think younger people are self indulgent and entitled at all...I think they have to think differently to what was more typical for older people back in the day of their 20s/30s etc...because of all the negative changes ...younger people have to think more about pensions at an earlier age..much, much earlier ...because neither government or employer will be ‘looking out for them’ ..they don’t have the same opportunities of progressing in jobs without academic qualifications, it’s not impossible but it’s much rarer to achieve that now...investing in and striving for some type of pension in your 20s and 30s isn’t something that had to be addressed back in the day...at that early age...so the younger generation do have to consider ‘self’ quite a bit but for very good reason...I really do feel that it sucks for younger people now, compared to what I have known...

I agree in general that young people have had to deal with some additional adversity with respect to generations in the past in certain areas. However, that doesn't give then give them rights to entitlements they 'feel' they deserve simply because they weren't given the start they would've preferred. We've all had our share of adversity in our beginnings... they have the benefits though of growing up on a foundation where a lot of paths have already been smoothed out and laid for them... so I don't think I can agree they've had it harder than any other generation. Maybe some things that used to be easier are harder, but then other things that used to be harder are much easier... but overall I'd argue it's much easier than it used to be...

And when we consider the state of our respective nations to others across the Earth, it feels a bit silly to talk about these as true "hardships" when you and I live in one of the healthiest, safety and freest countries on the planet... at least the youth have momentum at which to move forward with and be mobile as a generation... in other countries, their momentum would be quite restricted to certain fields and economic levels. I don't feel that is the case for the US, not at all with the luxuries we can enjoy, but I wouldn't really know for certain with the UK, because I know almost nothing about politics or the socioeconomic situation there...

So I can't say it sucks for the younguns... at least not here.

[Crimson Dynamo]

No more than ever to be honest Kizzy. I mean, have you been in Chat & Games lately? Or the on-season forums? :umm2:

or twitter

:skull:


woke as f my fckg arse

:joker:

[Kizzy]

or twitter

:skull:


woke as f my fckg arse

:joker:

Why do you think the govt are flooding social platforms with trolls?..... to counter the awakening to corruption.

The opinion that the left ARE the ones advocating corruption is as laughable as
it is transparent.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Why do you think the govt are flooding social platforms with trolls?..... to counter the awakening to corruption.

The opinion that the left ARE the ones advocating corruption is as laughable as
it is transparent.

have a day off Kizzy...

:skull:

[Kizzy]

have a day off Kizzy...

:skull:

I'll be back at work on Friday, will you miss me?

[Maru]

I see only one yes written here (MTVN, the lonewolf), where is the other yes?... I think the morality train has been fully stopped :laugh: If there's no consensus, there's no momentum (imo)... we need cooperation and mutual respect to better our society in a way that would be more productive and have more permanent change... (well, what is permanence anyway, probably thinking more 'semi-'permanent... we could all maybe die from a natural disaster in the near future

As LT would say...

:skull:

)

[Ammi]

I agree in general that young people have had to deal with some additional adversity with respect to generations in the past in certain areas. However, that doesn't give then give them rights to entitlements they 'feel' they deserve simply because they weren't given the start they would've preferred. We've all had our share of adversity in our beginnings... they have the benefits though of growing up on a foundation where a lot of paths have already been smoothed out and laid for them... so I don't think I can agree they've had it harder than any other generation. Maybe some things that used to be easier are harder, but then other things that used to be harder are much easier... but overall I'd argue it's much easier than it used to be...

And when we consider the state of our respective nations to others across the Earth, it feels a bit silly to talk about these as true "hardships" when you and I live in one of the healthiest, safety and freest countries on the planet... at least the youth have momentum at which to move forward with and be mobile as a generation... in other countries, their momentum would be quite restricted to certain fields and economic levels. I don't feel that is the case for the US, not at all with the luxuries we can enjoy, but I wouldn't really know for certain with the UK, because I know almost nothing about politics or the socioeconomic situation there...

So I can't say it sucks for the younguns... at least not here.

..I’m not really sure I understand what you’re saying, Maru...I don’t think younger people could be described as ‘entitled’ in my opinion of any younger person I know and have known...so I don’t understand the ‘feel they deserve simply because...’...yes we’ve all had our share of adversities through life and we’ve all had ‘foundations’ laid for us but I don’t think for younger people their foundation is any more or less smooth, though..but some things are certainly not much ‘easier’ for the younger generation, which I specified earlier in regards to pensions and how much earlier in life, younger people have to ‘plan’ and prepare...and how difficult it can be to progress in jobs in many areas unless academics are achieved...


...’hardships’ has me a bit confused as well...(..sorry, I’m very tired atm..)...but I didn’t infer ‘hardships’ at all, or didn’t intend to, if you feel I did...and yes, we do all live in apparent healthy, safe and free countries...but suicide rates of younger people in healthy, safe and free countries are quite disturbing also as is diagnosed mental illness in young people..in a way that I don’t recall these things so much as being the case back in the day.... of people in their teens and 20s etc...

[Maru]

..I’m not really sure I understand what you’re saying, Maru...I don’t think younger people could be described as ‘entitled’ in my opinion of any younger person I know and have known...so I don’t understand the ‘feel they deserve simply because...’...yes we’ve all had our share of adversities through life and we’ve all had ‘foundations’ laid for us but I don’t think for younger people their foundation is any more or less smooth, though..but some things are certainly not much ‘easier’ for the younger generation, which I specified earlier in regards to pensions and how much earlier in life, younger people have to ‘plan’ and prepare...and how difficult it can be to progress in jobs in many areas unless academics are achieved...


...’hardships’ has me a bit confused as well...(..sorry, I’m very tired atm..)...but I didn’t infer ‘hardships’ at all, or didn’t intend to, if you feel I did...and yes, we do all live in apparent healthy, safe and free countries...but suicide rates of younger people in healthy, safe and free countries are quite disturbing also as is diagnosed mental illness in young people..in a way that I don’t recall these things so much as being the case back in the day.... of people in their teens and 20s etc...

I'll give an example of something more tangible, to try to keep it concise... Our generation, who we were less politically motivated, we felt entitled to cheaper education and unfettered access to college... so in the States, if you graduate from a community college (no bar to entry), we are generally given instant transfer to any public state college of our choosing in many states.

Well, that cost money, so to soothe that pain we were given grants and low-interest student debt by way of federally backed loans which protected the corporations in case those weren't paid back. However, it didn't come with sort of system of checks to be sure that the investment would even pay off for the student (i.e. a good degree choice). Bush then wrote a law that prevented student loans debt from being "expunged" at bankruptcy to avoid that inevitable balloon in unpaid debt... so those loans are now life-long burdens.

Now that education has skyrocketed in costs, largely influenced by the over-expansion of universities and colleges thanks to thirsty school administrations who pushed initiatives that was supposed to make education more "accessible" and catering as much to demand, many young folk now are asking it should all be free anyway... this is without ever having paid in and requiring no checks and balances in place to be sure the investment in them is even worth it... so someone who wants to take Philosophy or Ancient Chinese History for example as their degree of choice, full well knowing there's almost no job market for those individuals (i.e. no means to pay it back into the system)... is that anything but entitlement?

To add to this, they want to have higher wages for entry level jobs... because yes, they are absolutely coming out of school saddled with mountains of debt on their backs and some so bad, their payments for their student loans are in excess of most mortgages. It also limits their ability to settle down, to get loans to start a business, or even pre-qualify for a home loan at a not so predatory interest rate thanks to their debt to income ratio... while at the same time having to pay some form of rent if they're not living at home in order to maintain some meaningful existence or further their personal development out of the parental home.

As I see it, the system has been doing gymnastics to soothe the "whims" of the younger populations (including Gen X, baby boomers, etc), but it's not paid off. In fact it's backfired tremendously... ... I think in helping them to avoid certain pains, we've only caused more of it, like the mental health crisis as you say... and I feel this way about areas of their lives. Not just education. Many have been sold on a pack of lies... my great grandparents were wise enough to steer their children towards the right course for themselves thanks to the Depression, but we've been giving each generation more and more lofty societal burdens (such as create world peace, etc) that are weighing them emotionally rather than just on giving them skills or basic information necessary just to get them through life and do alright for themselves...

[Kizzy]

Sorry philosophers nose to the grindstone.... geddit? :)

[Marsh.]

Yes, let's use twitter as a stick to beat the youths with.

There's idiot tweeters from all generations, I mean you use it yourself LT. :hee:

[smudgie]

I don’t think much changes over the generations on a moral compass.
With the media and all this internet stuff we get to see more of what’s going on, or in the case of fake news what isn’t.
There will be, and has always been different degrees of morals right across the board generation wise.
I do see more of a feeling of entitlement now compared to my day, but in all honesty I think it is more down to expectations that have altered due to better chances we have in life, and its not just the younger generation that feel this way, we should all expect to have the chance to do well in our life.

[Twosugars]

Yes, let's use twitter as a stick to beat the youths with.

There's idiot tweeters from all generations, I mean you use it yourself LT. :hee:

:laugh3:
masterful

[Ammi]

I'll give an example of something more tangible, to try to keep it concise... Our generation, who we were less politically motivated, we felt entitled to cheaper education and unfettered access to college... so in the States, if you graduate from a community college (no bar to entry), we are generally given instant transfer to any public state college of our choosing in many states.

Well, that cost money, so to soothe that pain we were given grants and low-interest student debt by way of federally backed loans which protected the corporations in case those weren't paid back. However, it didn't come with sort of system of checks to be sure that the investment would even pay off for the student (i.e. a good degree choice). Bush then wrote a law that prevented student loans debt from being "expunged" at bankruptcy to avoid that inevitable balloon in unpaid debt... so those loans are now life-long burdens.

Now that education has skyrocketed in costs, largely influenced by the over-expansion of universities and colleges thanks to thirsty school administrations who pushed initiatives that was supposed to make education more "accessible" and catering as much to demand, many young folk now are asking it should all be free anyway... this is without ever having paid in and requiring no checks and balances in place to be sure the investment in them is even worth it... so someone who wants to take Philosophy or Ancient Chinese History for example as their degree of choice, full well knowing there's almost no job market for those individuals (i.e. no means to pay it back into the system)... is that anything but entitlement?

To add to this, they want to have higher wages for entry level jobs... because yes, they are absolutely coming out of school saddled with mountains of debt on their backs and some so bad, their payments for their student loans are in excess of most mortgages. It also limits their ability to settle down, to get loans to start a business, or even pre-qualify for a home loan at a not so predatory interest rate thanks to their debt to income ratio... while at the same time having to pay some form of rent if they're not living at home in order to maintain some meaningful existence or further their personal development out of the parental home.

As I see it, the system has been doing gymnastics to soothe the "whims" of the younger populations (including Gen X, baby boomers, etc), but it's not paid off. In fact it's backfired tremendously... ... I think in helping them to avoid certain pains, we've only caused more of it, like the mental health crisis as you say... and I feel this way about areas of their lives. Not just education. Many have been sold on a pack of lies... my great grandparents were wise enough to steer their children towards the right course for themselves thanks to the Depression, but we've been giving each generation more and more lofty societal burdens (such as create world peace, etc) that are weighing them emotionally rather than just on giving them skills or basic information necessary just to get them through life and do alright for themselves...

.....hmmmm, no...that doesn’t really answer my confusion or the post quoting my post...but no worries, Maru...I’m just going to leave the thread../..topic now...

[Maru]

.....hmmmm, no...that doesn’t really answer my confusion or the post quoting my post...but no worries, Maru...I’m just going to leave the thread../..topic now...

Gotcha

[Brillopad]

And yet at the same time, you also tend to brand most young people as "lefties", meaning socialists... when socialist policies are the OPPOSITE of being "out for oneself" and right-leaning capitalism is the very definition of self-serving. How can young people be both "only out for themselves", and ALSO "bleeding heart lefty socialists".

Because the youngsters you mention are not so much thinking of others as jumping on bandwagons and making their voices heard. That is their main motivation in my opinion which is based on self-interest and challenging the system.

[Kizzy]

Because the youngsters you mention are not so much thinking of others as jumping on bandwagons and making their voices heard. That is their main motivation in my opinion which is based on self-interest and challenging the system.

But if you are on a bandwagon it's not a self interest is it, it's a shared interest?....

[Brillopad]

But if you are on a bandwagon it's not a self interest is it, it's a shared interest?....

Rebellious teens who will say and do the complete opposite of what their parents say to piss them off. Real grown up stuff. They usually see the error of their ways further down the line when they actually have assets they value.

[Twosugars]

Rebellious teens who will say and do the complete opposite of what their parents say to piss them off. Real grown up stuff. They usually see the error of their ways further down the line when they actually have assets they value.

what assets? 25% ownership of a poky flat or mountain of student debt?
all curtesy of the older selfish generations who went to university for free and now sit pretty in their ever-increasing- in-value houses and enjoy their secure pensions

[Brillopad]

what assets? 25% ownership of a poky flat or mountain of student debt?
all curtesy of the older selfish generations who went to university for free and now sit pretty in their ever-increasing- in-value houses and enjoy their secure pensions

Ouch - you sound very bitter. You don’t have to go to uni to get a well paid job or get a mortgage. Get an apprenticeship and when qualified you can earn enough to get a mortgage if you manage your money properly. Too many people today want it all at once and for free. Older generations saved and went without to own their own house - many today aren’t prepared to do that.

Why should those that don’t go to uni pay for those that do - who will reap the financial rewards and earn more than those that paid for it for them. Is that your idea of fair? Sounds pretty damn selfish to me.

[user104658]

Why should those that don’t go to uni pay for those that do - who will reap the financial rewards and earn more than those that paid for it for them. Is that your idea of fair? Sounds pretty damn selfish to me.

Because countries with better levels of higher education have higher economic output, and therefore easy access to good quality higher education is beneficial to all citizens and not just those who actually gain qualifications from it, due to increased GDP and increased tax revenue across the board.

I agree that there are too many pointless degrees or, rather, too many people in certain degrees (no degree is really pointless, but thousands of people with the same degree when there are a limited number of opportunities in that field is pointless) and so I think that entry requirements should potentially be higher... and I also think that the VAST majority of people would do well to take two or three years after school to really think about their next steps. Quite honestly... I think in theory I would probably support a minimum age of 21 for University entry.

But in general... higher education is a good thing for all, Brillo.

[Brillopad]

Because countries with better levels of higher education have higher economic output, and therefore easy access to good quality higher education is beneficial to all citizens and not just those who actually gain qualifications from it, due to increased GDP and increased tax revenue across the board.

I agree that there are too many pointless degrees or, rather, too many people in certain degrees (no degree is really pointless, but thousands of people with the same degree when there are a limited number of opportunities in that field is pointless) and so I think that entry requirements should potentially be higher... and I also think that the VAST majority of people would do well to take two or three years after school to really think about their next steps. Quite honestly... I think in theory I would probably support a minimum age of 21 for University entry.

But in general... higher education is a good thing for all, Brillo.

If everyone has a uni degree they will lose their value and there simply won’t be jobs for everyone and salaries will go down surely. No economy can accommodate everyone having degrees. And those that benefit the most will be those with the degrees so I don’t agree it should be free as a right.

We need skilled people across the board - and it doesn’t have to be based on a uni degree but people also want the prestige of having a degree. It is always a selfish decision and has little to do with higher education generally being good for all.

[Twosugars]

Ouch - you sound very bitter. You don’t have to go to uni to get a well paid job or get a mortgage. Get an apprenticeship and when qualified you can earn enough to get a mortgage if you manage your money properly. Too many people today want it all at once and for free. Older generations saved and went without to own their own house - many today aren’t prepared to do that.

Why should those that don’t go to uni pay for those that do - who will reap the financial rewards and earn more than those that paid for it for them. Is that your idea of fair? Sounds pretty damn selfish to me.

I'm sorry but that's bs
your average person in full time employment can't just save and buy a house anymore :joker: have you checked average house price vs. average pay recently?

[Brillopad]

I'm sorry but that's bs
your average person in full time employment can't just save and buy a house anymore :joker: have you checked average house price vs. average pay recently?

So why should the average person pay for your education so you can buy a house? You want a house , you pay for it. Makes sense to me.

[Kizzy]

Rebellious teens who will say and do the complete opposite of what their parents say to piss them off. Real grown up stuff. They usually see the error of their ways further down the line when they actually have assets they value.

What.. So how do you explain left leaning people of all ages with 'assets they value'?...

[Beso]

Yeah....its payday...i voted no.

[Kizzy]

Ouch - you sound very bitter. You don’t have to go to uni to get a well paid job or get a mortgage. Get an apprenticeship and when qualified you can earn enough to get a mortgage if you manage your money properly. Too many people today want it all at once and for free. Older generations saved and went without to own their own house - many today aren’t prepared to do that.

Why should those that don’t go to uni pay for those that do - who will reap the financial rewards and earn more than those that paid for it for them. Is that your idea of fair? Sounds pretty damn selfish to me.

And you sound very sanctimonious, it's ok for you to bleat about the yoof and their perceived flaws but you have no idea of the issues they face today that past generations didn't have to deal with. There is much greater pressure now due to increased financial and economic changes.

Who reaps the rewards of education?....Society! The economy
It's dearer now to rent than buy, and who can survive on apprentice wages.. do you know what apprenticeships pay?

I'm sorry but as usual you post just smacks of an 'I'm alright jack' mentality you haven't given on thought to the changing educational or employment structures in the UK it's just one long bleat void of any logic or reason.

[Brillopad]

And you sound very sanctimonious, it's ok for you to bleat about the yoof and their perceived flaws but you have no idea of the issues they face today that past generations didn't have to deal with. There is much greater pressure now due to increased financial and economic changes.

Who reaps the rewards of education?....Society! The economy
It's dearer now to rent than buy, and who can survive on apprentice wages.. do you know what apprenticeships pay?

I'm sorry but as usual you post just smacks of an 'I'm alright jack' mentality you haven't given on thought to the changing educational or employment structures in the UK it's just one long bleat void of any logic or reason.

Talking of bleats - quite your forte!

As for apprenticeships - read the post properly - I said once qualified. If training in a valid skill you can earn a decent salary ONCE QULIFIED. Pay for your own education and buy your house - but don’t expect others to pay for it.

Besides you’e A hard left socialist aren’t - people aren’t supposed to own their own homes. They are all supposed to be the same, think the same and have the same. Owning one’s own Home that was paid for off the backs of others is very un-Corbynite Labour. Surely not another case of not practising what one preaches.

[Kizzy]

Talking of bleats - quite your forte!

As for apprenticeships - read the post properly - I said once qualified. If training in a valid skill you can earn a decent salary ONCE QULIFIED. Pay for your own education and buy your house - but don’t expect others to pay for it.

And what do you live on till you're qualified in this little utopia you have constructed in your fevered imaginings?

[Brillopad]

And what do you live on till you're qualified in this little utopia you have constructed in your fevered imaginings?

Others do it. Most still live at home as who the hell can afford their own home at that age.

[The Slim Reaper]

I think the golden rule is still a moral consensus that most of the world still agrees with.

[Twosugars]

So why should the average person pay for your education so you can buy a house? You want a house , you pay for it. Makes sense to me.

lol. no young person can't afford a house, no matter if they go to uni or not
the worst thing is that you must know that very well, but argue anyway to defend the indefensible,
young people of today have much harder start in life than previous generations, but saying that would prevent from lazy argument about young people wanting everything for free and supporting labour
if we can't agree on hard economic facts then there's no point prolonging this farce of a debate

[jet]

lol. no young person can't afford a house, no matter if they go to uni or not
the worst thing is that you must know that very well, but argue anyway to defend the indefensible,
young people of today have much harder start in life than previous generations, but saying that would prevent from lazy argument about young people wanting everything for free and supporting labour
if we can't agree on hard economic facts then there's no point prolonging this farce of a debate

I don't recall many young people of my generation, the 70's, 80's and through to the 90's being abe to afford a house either until they were well established in their careers or got married and bought a house with their shared incomes.
I think young people feel the need to leave the parental home a lot earlier too than they did in previous generations, before they have advanced in their jobs and have financial stability and savings.
It's odd, but all the young people I know who are friends of my daughter or sons who didn't go to uni got a better start going straight into an apprenticeship or job than those who went to uni - many of those feel they wasted years and came out to an over crowded job market and are unemployed whereas the ones who didn't are already well established in their jobs, have experience and are earning pretty good to very good wages.
So from what I've seen, many degrees are fairly useless and employers want actual work experience and these students are years behind in that.

[jet]

And what do you live on till you're qualified in this little utopia you have constructed in your fevered imaginings?

In my generation most people lived at home while doing their apprenticeship or working their first job, used a fair amount of their wages to save, save and save and then when qualified and earning better money, hey presto - they got on the property ladder with their first home and a good deposit. (And there was no help to buy schemes then.)
These things take time, patience and determination. If you want something badly enough, make it happen. Whingeing uses up energy you could be putting into realising your dreams.

[Brillopad]

lol. no young person can't afford a house, no matter if they go to uni or not
the worst thing is that you must know that very well, but argue anyway to defend the indefensible,
young people of today have much harder start in life than previous generations, but saying that would prevent from lazy argument about young people wanting everything for free and supporting labour
if we can't agree on hard economic facts then there's no point prolonging this farce of a debate

I’m not convinced it’s necessarily Harder but do believe many of this generation want everything now. This generation are not so hot on saving their money and staying in. If they want a house then, then as mentioned in another post, they will have to wait, save and do so with a partner when they have a joint income. Nothing was or is handed on a plate for most. Each generation has it’s difficulties but to whine this generation have it especially hard doesn’t wash with me.

[Brillopad]

I don't recall many young people of my generation, the 70's, 80's and through to the 90's being abe to afford a house either until they were well established in their careers or got married and bought a house with their shared incomes.
I think young people feel the need to leave the parental home a lot earlier too than they did in previous generations, before they have advanced in their jobs and have financial stability and savings.
It's odd, but all the young people I know who are friends of my daughter or sons who didn't go to uni got a better start going straight into an apprenticeship or job than those who went to uni - many of those feel they wasted years and came out to an over crowded job market and are unemployed whereas the ones who didn't are already well established in their jobs, have experience and are earning pretty good to very good wages.
So from what I've seen, many degrees are fairly useless and employers want actual work experience and these students are years behind in that.

Excellent post Jet and completely correct.

[Ammi]

..some of this thread has made me think of the Living Years lyrics...


Every generation
Blames the one before
And all of their frustrations
Come beating on your door

[Beso]

And what do you live on till you're qualified in this little utopia you have constructed in your fevered imaginings?

Your weekly wage i would imagine...not sure how much they get but if they dont smoke or take drugs they will get by.

[Ammi]

what assets? 25% ownership of a poky flat or mountain of student debt?
all curtesy of the older selfish generations who went to university for free and now sit pretty in their ever-increasing- in-value houses and enjoy their secure pensions

..that’s not true for many though, Twosugars...the ‘secure pensions’...I think the older generation now, as in the middle generation would be more accurate...will be a ‘new generation’ of less secure pensions...and that I think will progress or regress through younger and future generations...of my peers, there are many, many whose pensions remain uncertain...many pensions were ‘promised’ and felt to be secured...?...but the reality is quite different as the years have passed and pension companies have not been able to ‘fulfill’...then there are females of my generation who had choices ...a career or a full time parent..?...for those who chose full time parenting and then maybe went back to work part time as time progressed...’short falls’ in pensions are now having to be addressed by many...so now working full time at much older ages and large proportion of income going straight into a pension....

...anyways...just a few musings...when my dad died, my mum was fine in terms of finances...he balanced his ‘luxuries’ in life and material things in life with ensuring her financial security, should she lose him first etc...the same with my father in law...that was something that was more possible in the pensions ‘back in the day’ of my parent’s generation....for companies to ensure reasonable pensions for their employees...it was more ‘typical’...for my generation, it’s less ‘typical’...I do know a few people who have been able to secure a great pension in their retirement and have even opted for ‘early retirement’, but that I think is more ‘unique’ and exceptional to the ‘rule’...for the next generation, the younger generation...I just don’t know how a reasonable pension through a working life and employment will be possible...their thoughts will have to be more investment, type things..and then only if there is spare income to invest...spare income is always hard for younger people when they have still yet to ‘climb’ so much in all areas of their lives...there really just isn’t any sense of ‘entitlement’ there at all in my opinion, other than specific individual personalities, probably...but not as a ‘generalisation’ thing...what there is, is a huge struggle to secure ‘future’...:sad:...my experience of younger people is of frustration and of ‘hopelessness’, sadly ...in many cases anyway, far too many to feel the younger generation could be termed as feeling ‘entitled’....

[Twosugars]

So from what I've seen, many degrees are fairly useless and employers want actual work experience and these students are years behind in that.
I agree. Uni education is often useless.
Don't get it why government can't force universities to limit or expand number of places on different courses according to predicted demand by employers. I know it would take some investment but it would be better way to spend tuition money than reward vice-chancellors with obscene salaries and bonuses.
But even more important is restoring prestige of non-degree technical education and professions.

[Twosugars]

...my experience of younger people is of frustration and of ‘hopelessness’, sadly ...in many cases anyway, far too many to feel the younger generation could be termed as feeling ‘entitled’....

this

You also have a point in the rest of your post. Mine was genralizing in response to others generalizing.

[Twosugars]

I’m not convinced it’s necessarily Harder but do believe many of this generation want everything now. This generation are not so hot on saving their money and staying in. If they want a house then, then as mentioned in another post, they will have to wait, save and do so with a partner when they have a joint income. Nothing was or is handed on a plate for most. Each generation has it’s difficulties but to whine this generation have it especially hard doesn’t wash with me.

Well, housing crisis is at its worst, house price/salary ratio at its worst, job insecurity as never before, pensionable age increasing, extra debt if you go to uni. I'm sure there's more but can't think of it now.
It's just not true that they have it easy.
I fully understand why they vote Labour, Tories have nothing to offer to them.

[Brillopad]

Well, housing crisis is at its worst, house price/salary ratio at its worst, job insecurity as never before, pensionable age increasing, extra debt if you go to uni. I'm sure there's more but can't think of it now.
It's just not true that they have it easy.
I fully understand why they vote Labour, Tories have nothing to offer to them.

Are you kidding. Corbyn is a socialist and socialism doesn’t support home ownership. No one will own their own property if Corbyn and his cronies have their way.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Well, housing crisis is at its worst, house price/salary ratio at its worst, job insecurity as never before, pensionable age increasing, extra debt if you go to uni. I'm sure there's more but can't think of it now.
It's just not true that they have it easy.
I fully understand why they vote Labour, Tories have nothing to offer to them.

Young people have always voted labour until they get jobs, mortgages and children and then they vote conservative

always happens

[Brillopad]

Young people have always voted labour until they get jobs, mortgages and children and then they vote conservative

always happens

When they finally get it. :laugh:

[Withano]

Young people have always voted labour until they get jobs, mortgages and children and then they vote conservative

always happens

Not really, there used to be an age and education divide, the 2015 election showed that this doesnt really exist anymore, and now theres just a 'household income' divide.

Lets take a deep think about why richer people wanted tories, and not labour in :think: tax and greed
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-06-08/est-income.png

Also not surprisingly, a newspaper divide
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-06-08/est-newspaper.png

[Twosugars]

Thought of this thread when I read this:

The three crises of liberal democracy
Ganesh Sitaraman
We now swim in dangerous waters, and we can no longer take the persistence of liberal democracy for granted
Sat 17 Mar 2018 08.00 GMT Last modified on Sat 17 Mar 2018 11.32 GMT

Over the past few years, I have frequently been reminded of David Foster Wallace’s commencement address at Kenyon College in 2005. Wallace began with the story of two fish swimming together, when an older fish swims by and says “Morning boys, how’s the water?” After the old fish swims away, one says to the other, “What the hell is water?”

Over the last year or two, there’s been a lot of discussion about what drove Trump voters and Brexit voters to the polls. There’s been concern as specific constitutional and political norms break down. But with so many people running from tweet-storm to tweet-storm, there has been comparatively less attention to what happened to the water – to the root causes of the global crisis of democracy.

Yascha Mounk’s extraordinary new book, The People versus Democracy, provides a clear, concise, persuasive, and insightful account of the conditions that made liberal democracy work – and how the breakdown in those conditions is the source of the current crisis of democracy around the world. He reveals the water in which liberal democracy has been swimming unthinkingly all these years.

The success and stability of liberal democracy, Mounk argues, was premised on three assumptions about social life. First, the citizenry had a relatively similar worldview because broadcast news, newspapers, radio, and the like were all one-to-many forms of communication in which gatekeepers ensured that news and information remained within the mainstream. This meant that even diverse communities were part of a shared conversation based on shared facts.

The second assumption was broadly-shared economic growth and relative economic equality. For most of the history of the world, there was basically no economic growth. Only since the dawn of the industrial revolution has growth skyrocketed, meaning that people could aspire to (and expect) higher living standards. And in the few decades after the second world war specifically, growth combined with low levels of economic inequality meaning that the rising tide actually did lift all boats.

The final assumption was social homogeneity. Eras of stable liberal democracies around the world, Mounk argues, have largely been characterized by relatively homogeneous populations. In Europe, for example, the rise of democracy and the breaking of empires – like the polyglot Austro-Hungarian empire – were inextricably tied to nationalism.

In the last generation, and in particular, in the last fifteen or so years, Mounk argues that all three assumptions have come under severe stress. Social media has turned any individual into a broadcaster, and allowed people to hear only the news, facts, and opinions they want to hear. This in turn has expanded the reach of radical and fringe ideas and conspiracy theories. Growth has been stagnant for the average worker for a generation, and people are anxious that their kids’ generation will make it financially. Finally, immigration has increased since the mid-twentieth century, sparking racial and cultural anxiety in locations that have seen particularly rapid increases in diversity.

The consequence, Mounk argues, is that liberal democracy is coming apart. On the one side, we see the rise of “illiberal democracies” – governments that claim to represent the “real” people of the nation, but have little regard for individual rights or constitutional norms. Many refer to these movements as populist. At the same time, others flirt with what Mounk calls “undemocratic liberalism,” a style of governance which preserves rights but at the expense of democratic engagement and accountability. Think of this as government by elite technocrats who have little faith in ordinary people.

What is so troubling is that these two responses might be mutually reinforcing. Mounk, a lecturer at Harvard University, doesn’t make much of this point, but it is worth resting on for a moment. When populists gain power, their opponents are likely to see the virtues of undemocratic liberalism. When undemocratic liberalism gains steam, many ordinary people will feel locked out and that public policies are unresponsive to their demands – pushing them to want to overthrow the elites. In the ensuing cycle, the loser is liberal democracy, which is assaulted for both its liberalism and its democracy.

One of the great strengths of Mounk’s book is that he eschews simple, singular explanations – and as a result, easy solutions. Mounk offers three directions to save liberal democracy from its enemies. The most worked out is an economic reform agenda to alleviate the unequal distribution of economic growth and mitigate the insecurity that stems from technology and globalization. The least worked out – perhaps because it is the most difficult – is an agenda to revive “civic faith,” our shared set of facts and information, trust in political institutions, and our sense of civic decency. This arena deserves more attention because it is unclear how to achieve policy changes of any kind in a polarized society that has few shared facts and whose civic muscles are atrophying.

The most interesting suggestion, however, might be Mounk’s call for imagining a new form of nationalism, which he calls “inclusive nationalism.” Instead of responding to the rise of nationalism with its polar opposite, utopian cosmopolitanism, Mounk says we need to “domesticate nationalism,” and he offer a vision for an integrated society in which nationalism unites people, rather than divides them.

All three parts of this agenda might seem uncomfortable to those who wish to continue politics as usual. Economic reforms threaten the most powerful people and interest groups in society. Restoring civic faith means breaking out of tribalism in society, politics, and education. Inclusive nationalism challenges the conventional rhetoric on both right and left. But we now swim in more dangerous waters, and we can no longer take the persistence of liberal democracy for granted.

Ganesh Sitaraman is a Guardian columnist. He is the author of The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution

[Marsh.]

Talking of bleats - quite your forte!

As for apprenticeships - read the post properly - I said once qualified. If training in a valid skill you can earn a decent salary ONCE QULIFIED. Pay for your own education and buy your house - but don’t expect others to pay for it.

Besides you’e A hard left socialist aren’t - people aren’t supposed to own their own homes. They are all supposed to be the same, think the same and have the same. Owning one’s own Home that was paid for off the backs of others is very un-Corbynite Labour. Surely not another case of not practising what one preaches.

Others do it. Most still live at home as who the hell can afford their own home at that age.

And... the ones who aren't lucky enough to come from a wealthy family and can't afford uni/higher education should just live at home forever?

[Maru]

Thought of this thread when I read this:

:clap1: Wonderful article (sadly I can't quote it). I think actually, our culture is going through a sort of genesis. That in time, it'll all reach equilibrium again (in a general sense) once all the smaller chemical reactions are allowed to occur and the unstable disturbances are set off... Western has been in need for upheaval for quite a long time now. I tend to think of our societ(ies) as having undergone an narcissistic fit, when for years certain philosophical differences were left unaddressed and too many assumptions left untested...

[Twosugars]

I must agree. But I'm worried if we manage to keep it together. There's a lot of good that could be lost in the upheaval.