On the subject of morality

[spartasman]

I have come to the belief that the traditional moral base in modern Western society, that being the Christian-influenced laws and moral standards, are ebbing away in standing amongst the newer generations. Though this may in fact be a misconception on my part, it seems to me as though the contemporary practices of moral rectitude amongst most people have been shunned in the face of modern education and luxury.

What I would like to debate, is whether or not there should be an effort to regain the traditional moral standards of Western culture, or if it is now more prudent to move towards another form of morality. What other forms of morality exist? As far as I have gone into the subject, Secular Humanism seems to be the most logical transition, but I would like to here any opinions of this sort.

[Simon_Jester]

I have come to the belief that the traditional moral base in modern Western society, that being the Christian-influenced laws and moral standards, are ebbing away in standing amongst the newer generations. Though this may in fact be a misconception on my part, it seems to me as though the contemporary practices of moral rectitude amongst most people have been shunned in the face of modern education and luxury.

What I would like to debate, is whether or not there should be an effort to regain the traditional moral standards of Western culture, or if it is now more prudent to move towards another form of morality. What other forms of morality exist? As far as I have gone into the subject, Secular Humanism seems to be the most logical transition, but I would like to here any opinions of this sort.

What I would like to debate is whether the traditional moral standards of Western culture were in fact all that moral. I mean, when half the human race is expected to shut up and pop out babies, and gets seen as a freak for doing anything else... when people are totally okay with physically beating someone over a philosophical difference... that's not moral.

So I think calling the old customs of the society we happen to live in "traditional moral standards" is giving them too much credit. They're traditions, and they're fairly standardized, but they bear only a tangiental relationship to actual morals.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I have come to the belief that the traditional moral base in modern Western society, that being the Christian-influenced laws and moral standards, are ebbing away in standing amongst the newer generations. Though this may in fact be a misconception on my part, it seems to me as though the contemporary practices of moral rectitude amongst most people have been shunned in the face of modern education and luxury.

More like shunned in the face of increasing civilized behavior. The only good "Christian morals" that I know of, are the ones that aren't original or unique to Christianity and so aren't really "Christian morals" in the first place. They certainly didn't invent the idea that murder and stealing are wrong.

What I would like to debate, is whether or not there should be an effort to regain the traditional moral standards of Western culture, or if it is now more prudent to move towards another form of morality.

The traditional standards that have been given up, to the extent they even have been rejected are horrific. Sexism, racism, homophobia, the hatred of sex for pleasure, conversion by the sword, genocide; that sort of thing. We shouldn't try to bring them back, we should push them farther away.

What other forms of morality exist? As far as I have gone into the subject, Secular Humanism seems to be the most logical transition, but I would like to here any opinions of this sort.

That's a good starting spot. But I think that animals deserve some consideration, as will nonhuman intelligences when they show up or are created. But whatever morality we have, unlike religious morality it should be based on objective reality and not fantasy.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I have come to the belief that the traditional moral base in modern Western society, that being the Christian-influenced laws and moral standards, are ebbing away in standing amongst the newer generations. Though this may in fact be a misconception on my part, it seems to me as though the contemporary practices of moral rectitude amongst most people have been shunned in the face of modern education and luxury.

What moral standards would these be? Misogyny, homophobia, and racism? I would hope they are going into decline. Since Constantine converted on his death bed, the moral standards of western civilization have been a bizarre mix of shame, command ethics which take no account of the consequences of actions, and a simultaneous deferred responsibility for good things (thank jesus that my business venture went well), self-loathing for bad things when you do poorly or misfortune happens to a loved one (I lied and thus fell to the temptation of satan/my sister died because I was insufficiently faithful), and pious (often self righteous) prattle when bad things happen to Other good people (The earthquake was part of gods plan/the earthquake happened to them because they were sinful). One would think that these things are going into decline, but while they are in some populations (read: the educated), among the plebes they are still common place and shape public policy to a worrying extent.

What I would like to debate, is whether or not there should be an effort to regain the traditional moral standards of Western culture

Why would it be prudent to do this?

, or if it is now more prudent to move towards another form of morality.

Yes. Yes we certainly should.

What other forms of morality exist?

We can split this into broad categories

Universalist

Universalist systems assume that what is and what should be are generally two different things and that what should be exists as a sort of Platonist ideal, a metaphysical property of existence. A state of being which we as thinking beings in the universe should strive toward. A universalist ethical system is supposed to stand on its own and need no revision, and apply equally to all people at all times etc. Examples of these are Utilitarianism, Rights Ethics, Virtue Ethics, and any number of Deontologies.

The problem with these is that we have no basis upon which to make the metaphysical claim regarding which one if any are better than others. As a result, arguments between philosophers tend to revolve around them constructing artificial conditions under which the ethical system constructed by another philosopher breaks. This break can happen in two ways. Either the conditions of the universe are changed such that the system breaks (like a deontologist arguing that utilitarianism is wrong because under conditions which do not exist, such as torture being effective, utilitarianism will prescribe torture which is clearly wrong), or the inclusion of a value not considered by the ethical system in question comes into play (Such as the utilitarian mentioning lying to Nazis when you are hiding jews in your basement, when the deontologist will claim that dishonesty is always wrong because it makes another person a means to an end rather than an end unto themselves)

Relativist

These are basically the Nihilists of ethical systems. Morality is completely arbitrary and depending on what scale the theorist prefers this can take the form of cultural or individual ethical relativism. However the two are extensionally equivalent.

There are no metaphysical problems with this. Only that any thinking person knows prima facia that it is wrong. This is because we know that all humans share certain moral values in common, though some may get emphasized in different cultures over another and a few have some things (that derive usually from historical prejudices or religious commandments) that are not shared in common with others.



Functionalist

This may take a bit... To speed it up, I will plagiarize myself. This is my own position, so I am allowed.

The moral principles we use are not arbitrary constructs, nor are they metaphysical properties. They are based upon our hard-wired empathy for other human beings (and other organisms), extracted from that and systematized into decision making systems. Notions like fairness, justice, that suffering is bad. All of those are the direct spawn of our social mammal brain. By way of example:

Psychotics and murderers actually are not metaphysically evil. Psychotic is the lay term for schitzoid disorders. They are delusional. In an evolutionary sense murderers often have very good reasons for murdering (not serial killers mind, they are mentally damaged). I will go into this in a second.

Social groups are characterized by a sort of internal tension. Ecological pressures force cooperation between individuals, otherwise social groups can never form

Over time, in competition between other groups, the group that cooperates best is the one more likely to survive. However evolution is not forward looking like this.

The individual wants to maximize their own fitness, sometimes this occurs through cooperation. If I help another person gather food, I get more food. However sometimes it involves fucking over others. If I can take advantage of everyone else cooperating to collect food without having to contribute myself, I should. As a result, every individual wants everyone else to cooperate with them under all conditions, and under certain conditions they want to cooperate, but under others, to cheat. Other individuals want to avoid being cheated. As a result social policing mechanisms evolve. In the individual they evolve in order to facilitate the enforcement of cooperation with them (to avoid being cheated, and to punish cheaters), and to project when cheating may be profitable and when it is not (to determine the risk of being caught and punished, and calculating the benefit. If the ratio is less than 1, risk cheating). In the case of the anti-cheating behavior, individuals will actually take enormous costs to prevent cheating (born out by experiments in game theory using humans and other social mammals like chimps)

This leads to a social intelligence evolving, a component of this is empathy (as well as theory of mind which in humans allows for the detection of third party deception). This ability to project the emotions of others and apply them to one's self is what every moral principle is derived from. The philosopher considers their moral intuitions, and condenses them into principles, then forms an internally consistent framework out of them.

In the case of a murderer (barring serial killers who are just broken), they are typically individuals who gain little benefit from cooperating within the larger society (like a street thug) and thus compared to the gains of the murder (resources or social status within their sub-group generally) has little to lose. Alternatively they are individuals who are taking the prevention of cheating into their own hands (when we have larger systems built into society to do this, like police and divorce courts). So, punishing a cheating spouse, or killing someone who wronged them in some way. The response is disproportionate (usually) and the person is generally not thinking clearly. We punish them because they incur a social cost to us. All of this, save for the application of ethical systems is mediated via emotions. No one really sits around and calculates those costs and benefits... but I digress.

As a result, our ethical decisions would take this into account. Rather than trying to create an ethical system in which we use deductive logic to arrive at a proper course of action, we should basically use a mental path analysis to make moral decisions. We use our empathy to project how other people will be impacted and how they will perceive an action, each moral value including our own interests going into the consideration. In this case, ethical decisions are basically constrained judgment calls. Logic can and should be used in order to weed out faulty values (such as prejudices), but other than that, it is an intuitive process. We do this not because we are striving toward and ideal universe, but simply because we have to.

As far as I have gone into the subject, Secular Humanism seems to be the most logical transition, but I would like to here any opinions of this sort.

Secular humanism is not actually a coherent ethical system.

[Spoonist]

...whether there should be an effort to regain the traditional moral standards of Western culture...

As you can see by the other responses the most common answer from this board will be a resounding "Hell no" with the pun intended. But that is because we have our own idea about "western traditional morals".
So to be able to actually debate such a thing productively I will advice you to make a better definition of what you think are those "western traditional morals" and from which time period you think they are.
Without such a defninition this 'debate' will be over before it begins because as stated now everyone will argue from their own definition and thus discuss completely different things. This because there is no such thing as explicit "western traditional morals" but rather a lot of preconceptions of ideas in a false context.

[Modax]

As you can see by the other responses the most common answer from this board will be a resounding "Hell no" with the pun intended. But that is because we have our own idea about "western traditional morals".

My grandparents used to say things like "people today don't keep their promises as often as they did 50 years ago"; "people just don't care as much anymore"; people are more selfish, more desensitized to violence, more willing to cheat to get ahead, etc.

I have no idea how much truth there is to these observations. But even if they are true to some extent, I think they more likely reflect *cultural* changes rather than a rejection of "traditional western morality." In any case, this is probably the only line of argument that can't quite be dismissed out of hand, even if its false.

[Omeganian]

My grandparents used to say things like "people today don't keep their promises as often as they did 50 years ago"; "people just don't care as much anymore"; people are more selfish, more desensitized to violence, more willing to cheat to get ahead, etc.

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/ipuwer.htm

[Covenant]

The impotent aged have complained about the march of progress as far back as people could articulate it.

Basically, what morality that was based on Christian values was always a poor morality with a poor basis. We should look towards establishing a system of ethics that actually help real people with real problems, rather than perpetuate a system that punishes people for a bronze age theology.

Even divested from religion itself, ethics is something that we're long overdue to look into. I prefer not to term it morality because morals should be built around ethical concepts, not around theological ones, at least in a modern society like this. The most fair and least biased ethical basis would tend to favor the non-religious strictly functional basis a lot of non-theists (like a lot of us) would advocate... but that's not because we've craftily hedged the argument that way, so there's no reason to be embarrassed by it.

So another vote cast for no. It's not like an ancient morality is something to be proud of. We don't hold up ancient bigotries or military theories as something to be preserved. Nobody would question that it was right to let go of some of our "moral legacy" with regard to slavery or women's rights, would they? Nobody that we'd consider a 'moral' person, I wager. Obviously we've got a way to go, with other people being denied rights just like people have in the past. I'll worry about preserving a moral framework once something valuable is being threatened for the first time.

[Darth Wong]

I have come to the belief that the traditional moral base in modern Western society, that being the Christian-influenced laws and moral standards, are ebbing away in standing amongst the newer generations.

Here's an assignment for you:

1) List which moral values of western civilization are "Christian-influenced", as opposed to those which derive from common law or non-religious social influences.

2) Justify those classifications, keeping in mind that Christianity has been around for nearly two thousand years whereas most of the human rights reforms in western civilization are only a few centuries old.

3) Explain why you believe those particular values to be superior.

Though this may in fact be a misconception on my part, it seems to me as though the contemporary practices of moral rectitude amongst most people have been shunned in the face of modern education and luxury.

What I would like to debate, is whether or not there should be an effort to regain the traditional moral standards of Western culture, or if it is now more prudent to move towards another form of morality. What other forms of morality exist? As far as I have gone into the subject, Secular Humanism seems to be the most logical transition, but I would like to here any opinions of this sort.

Are you saying you should go back to the stratified class system, institutional slavery, and religious intolerance which characterized western civilization throughout most of its history?

[spartasman]

Darth Wong,
I will admit, I had written a long answer for your question, but when I looked over it I realized that it simply wasn't good enough. If there is one thing that I have learned from reading on this site is that I know nothing, and that most of the people on here can pick apart whatever argument I attempt to make. For that reason, and since I would rather not have another of my threads included in the 'Hall of Shame', I will not attempt to justify or endorse my opinion with any false facts or pseudo-intellectual dribble, but I will attempt to explain what I meant.

The Christian influence I speak of is Puritanism, not the religion in general. Specifically was their promotion of individualism and self-interpretation of the bible, something which at the time was regarded by many to be heresy. I was not attempting to say that those values were superior, only that they are traditionally the basis of American culture. The question I put forward was whether or not it would be more responsible to reclaim those traditions (not all of them, mind you, but I do feel that in this modern age we have lost something important in the forms of self-reliability and responsibility), or to move forward and implement a secular form of ethics and morals into society.

Are you saying you should go back to the stratified class system, institutional slavery, and religious intolerance which characterized western civilization throughout most of its history?

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion, but I will say that I do not propose that we re-institute these practices.

[Covenant]

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion, but I will say that I do not propose that we re-institute these practices.

Those are the end results of a morality system of that era. He was just saying that if there was a moral framework of that era, the results of such moral framework did not not (by merit of the society they created) warrant preserving.

Plus, you're wrong about American Culture, something which SHOULD give you comfort. Puritans, with their crazy laws, seem to resemble the Taliban. And Puritanism was not the prevailing intellectual faith of the era. The fact that Puritans landed here first was really of less significance to the actual culture of America than the fact that Quakers and rich people landed here later on. You may not get that from your average highschool textbook, but I must impress upon you how correct it is. The puritans are not our cultural forefathers!

Basically, those people who did the most cultural formation were the wealthy and powerful businessmen of America, the group from which the Founding Fathers were a part of (in general) and specifically the early presidential core of American society that set the country off on it's initial wave of expansion. They weren't puritans by any means, they were men of the Enlightenment. An easily googled quote sums it up pretty obviously:

In a sermon of October 1831, Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson said,
"Among all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."

You can fiddle with the quotes a bit but it's generally the case, and there's enough evidence to show that their faith--as it were--was either deism, closet atheism, or a very metaphysical brand of Lutheran or Unitarian or such. The puritans, as an ideological group, were less important to our society than the Quakers, around which emancipation and equal rights movements formed. And while the whole "industry, frugality, self-reliance" thing can be seen broadly as a puritan construct, that's really, really stretching it. When you think of "American Frugality" in the years post 1699, your first thought will be to things like Poor Richard's Almanac, and Franklin was a tenuous member of the Church of England (ie, Episcopalian) and not a puritan.

I think it's clear that a lot of people have a "industry! frugality! self-reliance!" thing going on, regardless of religion, and continually attributing this to the Puritans is just insulting to everyone else. Look at all the hard-working, frugal, self-reliant sorts who came to this country and helped build it. Irish, German, Dutch, Chinese, Mexican, and all the people who got dragged here against their will, and everyone I'm not well read enough to remember. These aren't Puritans, and they've got a lot more to do with American culture nowadays.

So I think you should take heart--we're not losing anything. We'd already lost it by 1776, and those weren't the highpoint of moral behavior either. Really, unless you see something as being lost, there's no reason to mourn the passing of a worn-out moral standard. It's not lost, it's obsolete. It has proven insufficient to meet the newer, higher standards of moral behavior in this new and more enlightened era. We've upgraded.

[Sarevok]

The Christian influence I speak of is Puritanism, not the religion in general. Specifically was their promotion of individualism and self-interpretation of the bible, something which at the time was regarded by many to be heresy. I was not attempting to say that those values were superior, only that they are traditionally the basis of American culture. The question I put forward was whether or not it would be more responsible to reclaim those traditions (not all of them, mind you, but I do feel that in this modern age we have lost something important in the forms of self-reliability and responsibility), or to move forward and implement a secular form of ethics and morals into society.

If you like your interpretation of the bible better than follow it yourself.

But what gives you the right to impose it on others ?

[Covenant]

Well, plus, if anything we have more of a sense of responsibility and self-reliability nowadays because we actually have people around to point out when you don't. No matter how bad you call the banks nowadays they're nowhere near as bad as the robber baron, coal kings, and so forth. We don't have people machinegunning you for demanding to be paid in actual US currency. What else are people less "self-reliant" about?

Spartasman isn't evil, he's just misinformed, and I think that if he really looks at the numbers and studies the facts he'll realize that the mantra of "people aren't self-reliant anymore" is actually fallacious and the people who keep beating that drum are ones with an agenda, like the Wall Street financed douche-squads trying to make you angry at the government for regulating an industry or asking for taxes.

Who are the people hurt most by the self-reliance thing? Small businesses, the elderly, parents... anyone that depends on a larger group to take some of the load off of them. Basically anyone who requires a loan or a safety net. We're no less self-reliant than we used to be, we're just infinitely more humane to those people who fail.

[Darth Wong]

Darth Wong,
I will admit, I had written a long answer for your question, but when I looked over it I realized that it simply wasn't good enough. If there is one thing that I have learned from reading on this site is that I know nothing, and that most of the people on here can pick apart whatever argument I attempt to make. For that reason, and since I would rather not have another of my threads included in the 'Hall of Shame', I will not attempt to justify or endorse my opinion with any false facts or pseudo-intellectual dribble, but I will attempt to explain what I meant.

The Christian influence I speak of is Puritanism, not the religion in general. Specifically was their promotion of individualism and self-interpretation of the bible, something which at the time was regarded by many to be heresy. I was not attempting to say that those values were superior, only that they are traditionally the basis of American culture. The question I put forward was whether or not it would be more responsible to reclaim those traditions (not all of them, mind you, but I do feel that in this modern age we have lost something important in the forms of self-reliability and responsibility), or to move forward and implement a secular form of ethics and morals into society.

Could you elaborate on why you believe "individualism and self-interpretation of the Bible" form "the basis of American culture" or all of the other unnamed social traditions that you appear to be referring to?

Are you saying you should go back to the stratified class system, institutional slavery, and religious intolerance which characterized western civilization throughout most of its history?

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion, but I will say that I do not propose that we re-institute these practices.

I came to that conclusion because traditional Christianity did all of those things. In fact, the most devoutly religious part of the US was the last part to give up slavery, and even then, it did so only at the point of a gun. Also, the Puritans you mention are famously intolerant: so obnoxious and intolerant that the Brits couldn't stand them, thus forcing them to come to America.

[Samuel]

Puritanism promoted individualism? These were people who left the Netherlands because their children were becoming Dutch.

Self-sufficiency was considered a virtue in the colonial days because the comparitive lack of people that could assist you. Now it wouldn't work as you can't just take land from ts current owners and start up a farm. Having to deal with other people sort of messes with self-sufficiency. That and electrical wiring, plumbing and chemistry discourage it.

[spartasman]

Could you elaborate on why you believe "individualism and self-interpretation of the Bible" form "the basis of American culture" or all of the other unnamed social traditions that you appear to be referring to?

The Puritans' practice of public education is one of the major ones, as is their usage of a democratic church system and its translation into political democracy in America; Alexis De Tocqueville wrote about how these practices formed the basis of democracy, and the democratic culture, in "Democracy in America". By establishing a system in which individual people were free to learn and interpret scripture, the Puritans began the cult of individualism that helped to form the culture of America at large in later centuries.

I came to that conclusion because traditional Christianity did all of those things. In fact, the most devoutly religious part of the US was the last part to give up slavery, and even then, it did so only at the point of a gun. Also, the Puritans you mention are famously intolerant: so obnoxious and intolerant that the Brits couldn't stand them, thus forcing them to come to America.

That depends on what your concept of "devoutly religious" is; New England during this period was devoutly religious, and yet they were some the the most vocal and vehement in opposition to slavery. Also, it was my understanding that the Puritans fled England because they themselves were persecuted against by the Church of England; and that this persecution was not bred out of the Puritans own intolerance (which I will not deny existed), but because they wished simply to practice their own denomination freely.

Puritanism promoted individualism? These were people who left the Netherlands because their children were becoming Dutch.

Your point would seem to have more to do with cultural intolerance than individualism. Only a small portion of Puritan settlers came from the Netherlands, most of them came from England during the reign of Charles 1st; just before the English Civil War. Their promotion of Individualism was not something that is easily recognizable, but in an era where most religions and European communities relied on blind obedience or fear their promotion of education and self-interpretation was individualistic.

Anyway, I believe that the purpose that I intended for this thread to fulfill has been sidelined. The only one who came close to answering my question was Alyrium Denryle. I really do not seek to promote or defend Puritanical concepts of morality, only to surmise whether they are superior to modern ones.

[dworkin]

Of course our morals have declined.

Teen pregnancy rates skyrocketed once girls were not forced into work houses and swept under the carpet. They've climbed again now that bastardy is not considered shamefull and people seek help.

Divorce rates have soared ever since it was made legal to leave a spouse rather than suffer for the rest of one's life. It climbed again when being a divorcee was no longer treated as shameful.

Murder has escalated alarmingly ever since it was decided to report / give a shit about people who were mad, poor, wrong skin tone / religion or in a job people pretended did not exist.

Domestic violence has been on the rise ever since the law was changed and you couldn't 'discipline' your wife. For some odd reason the Christians in my country started screeching when it was suggested the law keeps you from beating your kids as well.

And of course now that you have to treat homosexuals as actual human beings it's all gone to pot.

And these are examples from how we've gone downhill since the 20th century!

[Samuel]

as is their usage of a democratic church system and its translation into political democracy in America;

Except the church didn't form the political unit. In fact democracy sprang up from the upper class agreeing to share power and form a non-monarchical system with the lower classes eventually getting a share of power in the 1830s.

By establishing a system in which individual people were free to learn and interpret scripture, the Puritans began the cult of individualism that helped to form the culture of America at large in later centuries.

And yet at the same time the Puritans had doctrines which implies that you were expected to interpret a certain way. People who disagreed tended to end up in Rhode Island or Philadelphia which DID practice individualism.

New England during this period was devoutly religious, and yet they were some the the most vocal and vehement in opposition to slavery.

New England was the most involved in slave traffing (and shipping in general) until it was banned in 1809. They didn't become opposed until later, long after the Puritans were no longer important.

Also, it was my understanding that the Puritans fled England because they themselves were persecuted against by the Church of England; and that this persecution was not bred out of the Puritans own intolerance (which I will not deny existed), but because they wished simply to practice their own denomination freely.

I'm almost positive they supported the Lord Protector- such an act would not sit well with the monarch when the throne was restored. Treason rarely is.

Your point would seem to have more to do with cultural intolerance than individualism. Only a small portion of Puritan settlers came from the Netherlands, most of them came from England during the reign of Charles 1st; just before the English Civil War. Their promotion of Individualism was not something that is easily recognizable, but in an era where most religions and European communities relied on blind obedience or fear their promotion of education and self-interpretation was individualistic.

By that standard Chinese Confucionism would also be individualistic. After all you had sages who argued that everyone could become a sage through self-reflection and scholary education was upheld as the highest ideal.

Also how is cultural intolerance not related to individualism? You can do anything you want... as long as everyone else approves of it. That is called conformity.

I really do not seek to promote or defend Puritanical concepts of morality, only to surmise whether they are superior to modern ones.

What you are talking about is hard work, thrift, education and "individualism". When you snip out the last, it sounds exactly like the traits that some of the immigrants the US recieves has.

Murder has escalated alarmingly ever since it was decided to report / give a shit about people who were mad, poor, wrong skin tone / religion or in a job people pretended did not exist.

Going off of Freakanomics, the murder rate has dropped over the centuries. Locally
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html
it has fluctuated between 4 and 10 per 100,000.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The Puritans' practice of public education is one of the major ones, as is their usage of a democratic church system and its translation into political democracy in America; Alexis De Tocqueville wrote about how these practices formed the basis of democracy, and the democratic culture, in "Democracy in America".

And the concept of democracy was first pioneered by the greeks, and then, as it was in the colonial americas, it was only landowners who could participate.

By establishing a system in which individual people were free to learn and interpret scripture, the Puritans began the cult of individualism that helped to form the culture of America at large in later centuries.

And if you "interpreted" it the wrong way they exiled you. Or they tortured you to death. That also happened when your neighbor wanted your land. You were a dead man (or woman) as soon as you were accused of witchcraft.

That depends on what your concept of "devoutly religious" is; New England during this period was devoutly religious, and yet they were some the the most vocal and vehement in opposition to slavery.

Source for that? Because the puritan doctrine of salvation through grace (and outward signs of inner grace) would seem to contradict this. A slave was a slave because they were not favored by god.

Also, it was my understanding that the Puritans fled England because they themselves were persecuted against by the Church of England; and that this persecution was not bred out of the Puritans own intolerance (which I will not deny existed), but because they wished simply to practice their own denomination freely.

And not let anyone else do so.

I really do not seek to promote or defend Puritanical concepts of morality, only to surmise whether they are superior to modern ones.

And they are definitely not.

[Samuel]

And the concept of democracy was first pioneered by the greeks, and then, as it was in the colonial americas, it was only landowners who could participate.

Don't forget the Netherlands or the Vikings. Heck, if you confine democracy to "the nobles can vote" than some of the city-states in Germany and possibly Poland count.

[Liberty]

The Puritans' practice of public education is one of the major ones, as is their usage of a democratic church system and its translation into political democracy in America; Alexis De Tocqueville wrote about how these practices formed the basis of democracy, and the democratic culture, in "Democracy in America". By establishing a system in which individual people were free to learn and interpret scripture, the Puritans began the cult of individualism that helped to form the culture of America at large in later centuries.

That depends on what your concept of "devoutly religious" is; New England during this period was devoutly religious, and yet they were some the the most vocal and vehement in opposition to slavery. Also, it was my understanding that the Puritans fled England because they themselves were persecuted against by the Church of England; and that this persecution was not bred out of the Puritans own intolerance (which I will not deny existed), but because they wished simply to practice their own denomination freely.

You sir, have clearly not studied history. As a historian of American religion, I want to make a few points.

Btw, if you want to know the history of this time, read Hatch's The Democratization of American Christianity and Butler's Awash in a Sea of Faith and Heyrman's Southern Cross.

1. The puritans were not democratic or believers in true individualism (as in, people choose their own beliefs), and they were very intolerant. Ever heard of Anne Hutchison? She was killed because she said she could read the Bible and interpret it herself, and that God could reveal things to her directly. Roger Williams got run out as well. Oh, and if you couldn't prove you were a true Christian, like prove it, you couldn't be in the church or vote. With the exception of the Quakers, all denominations were very authoritarian during this time.

2. Some historians have argued that America was not actually very religious at all from 1700 to about 1800. Church membership was actually very low. See Butler.

3. American religion became democratic and committed to individual interpretation during the first great awakening, 1800 to 1840. And even then it lost some of this democracy and individualism toward the end of this period. See Hatch and Heyrman.

This stuff is actually really fascinating. You should read the books I recommended if you find it at all interesting.