That’s not a very precise question. Do I say no if some are immoral? Many? Most? Language and culture are going to be significant distractions to the results.
I’m surprised the genocidal estate of Israel didn’t land in the pole position.
Its not asking whether your neighbors actually are immoral, its asking whether you think they are. Isreal seems fairly well united under the banner of genocide.
And that’s why I thought they’d be at the very top.
I bet countries that are like %60 vs %40, %50 vs %50 etc have generally two dominant parties and these percentages reflect rough vote percentages.
It’s kind of sad but I absolutely guarantee you that of those 56 percent over half are evangelical Christians.
The number 56 never appears on that chart so I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
What a dumb fucking question. What does that even mean?
moral /môr′əl, mŏr′-/
adjective
-
Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character.
“moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.”
-
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior.
“a moral lesson.”
-
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous.
“a moral life.”
Do you see the problem with those definitions?
Not so much.
To generalise, and to exclude those sitting at the extremes and talk more about the majority, I think we often all share a lot more in what is considered virtuous than either side is often willing to admit. That’s the core objective morality we share.
If one has a decent awareness, they can apply their compassion broadly, rather than just locally, thereby make moral decisions not just in their local reality, but for strangers as well.
When that awareness is lacking or has been intentionally or unintentionally dismissed, that’s when basic gut emotions can be stirred up, manipulated and used to other groups contravening objective morality.
I find this is often the difference between right and left thinking. Both are usually moral in basic terms and at the core, but it’s the breadth of the application of that morality that decides the quality of their morality. There’s much to agree on, and little that is truly up for subjective debate if that awareness is present.
Hence the idiocy of the term “woke” which is just another word for awareness.
It’s through this viewpoint I’ve found the most success in deprogramming radicalised right wing friends. But it takes time, patience and a lot of energy in gently expanding that awareness over large amounts of time.
-
What’s the problem?
I think he refers to the fact that morality is subjective and makes this graph confusing to interpret. I guess places with divided morality mean that people don’t agree much on what they think is “right” and “wrong”? I don’t know
That’s pretty much it.
Is this a joke?
