Talk:Moral value

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who called for a merging of family and moral values? Common usage would regard both as synonymous but that would be flagrant redefinition of "moral values" and its origins; moral values don't necessarily have to originate from the family.

I would agree that to should remain separate articles. Moral values can apply to individuals not living as part of a family. An issue like whether it's moral for a bachelor to have premarital sex would not be an issue of family values but might be viewed as an issue of moral values. --Cab88 10:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

In ref. to "An issue like whether it's moral for a bachelor to have premarital sex would not be an issue of family values" The girl's father might not have the same opinion, since a member of his family might be engaging in an act that often results in a new family, especially if that father owns a shotgun ;) --Jim 04:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I vote keep seperate

There are moral values outside the family, not related to family life that apply whether you belong to a family or not. 'Family values' is a phrase often used by religious people and groups, especially those that emphasize the importance of the traditional family as a basic social unit. In my thinking moral values is the larger category and family values a subcategory. --Jim 04:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, keep this page. Moral values are a basic human phenomenon, to be studied in the field of evolutionary psychology and sociology. Family values is a phrase used predominantly in the US, with special meaning. --Lindosland 00:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I'm going to edit this page. First of all I object to the "as has tended to be the case historically" clause since it is not at all certain that this is the fact. If someone wants to keep that part, he/she should cite neutral sources.

But I object even more to the wording "degraded by consumerism into a show of wealth and power". "Degraded" implies a value statement that is not suitable for Wikipedia, while the veracity of the proposition as such can be doubted, too. So I will remove it as well.

DE

[edit] Sources

This thing needs them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.66.172.38 (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC).