Pursuant to my last post, it seems that modern commentators think that the times we live in now are morally superior to the past, and that people who say otherwise are afflicted by the 'rose-coloured glasses on the past' syndrome.

I always have a good think about criticism like this and the point made can apply in many cases. The 'good old days' posts that regularly pop up on social media are undoubtedly looking back through a biased lens, one that confirms the prejudices already held. Posters comments reinforce this. I have spent a good part of my life fighting such skewed views of the world. Moreover I don't think the time of my youth was any kind of halcyon period.

The key thing about views of moral good or evil is the metric by which it is measured. It came as a surprise to me then that contemporary analysts (philosophers, sociologists etc) are on quite a different page to me. For whereas I am looking at the moral from the point of view of a more ancient aspect (murder, lying, sexual misconduct, avarice, jealousy, pride, love of neighbour etc) they are more inclined to consider the greater good, progress in medicine and hygiene, a reduction in prejudice, increased compassion, access to clean water, a reduction in suffering and so forth. These are all very noble goals and I support them heartily. Who wouldn't?

But we are talking at cross purposes. When your yardstick is grounded in materialism and the metaphysical is irrelevant, then you are always going to have a different view of whether we are in moral decline. I don't think either side is wrong - we are just talking about different things and how you measure them.