>Maybe we're succeeding at passing on these character qualities to our kids at a higher rate than at any time in the past?
Not judging by the behaviour people one sees in any major city, or their kids, compared to historical norms of behaviour one can read about in history books.
One small example: attitude and rudeness like you see today from high-schoolers, would be totally unfathomable in a 1930 or 1950's school.
>There were thieves and liars and murderers and lazy people and scum bags 200 years ago too.
Sure. That doesn't mean societies are stationary. They change with the prevalent motives of the era, the changed ethical norms, the economic and political situation, etc.
Which history books? I bet I can find history books that talk about streets filled with pick pockets, muggings, fights, drunks, homeless people, all being rude to each other, threatening each other etc.
This happens today and it happened in the past. I'm not going to believe any claims that it's worse today than in the past without evidence. It's certainly not self evident.
Do you have any better examples than school children? You can't really compare the force behaviour of oppressed children who are scared of being tortured, to the behaviour of children today in schools today. Maybe we could make them less rude by beating them into submission, but that's not a reasonable compromise.
Couldn't it be that history books give a sanitized view of society, and gloss over relatively minor issues such as disobedient youths? The books might say, "young people were expected to be x, y, and z", and tactfully omit, "but they were frequently a, b, and c despite our best efforts". As an alternative viewpoint, look at works of fiction from the time, which are willing to be more gritty. For example, Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn were disobedient in spite of societal pressure. (disclaimer: I have not read The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, But I did see a retelling of it on "The Simpsons" ten years ago)
Also, the following is commonly attributed to Socrates: "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise". If this is to be believed, rude kids with attitude have been a constant for at least the last 2400 years.
>Couldn't it be that history books give a sanitized view of society, and gloss over relatively minor issues such as disobedient youths? The books might say, "young people were expected to be x, y, and z", and tactfully omit, "but they were frequently a, b, and c despite our best efforts".
Frequently yes. Kids will be kids. We're talking about societal norms, and those have changed tremendously. Even in your example, the important thing is "young people were expected to be x, y, and z", not if they actually were x,y and z 100%. Why? Because today they cannot even be expected to be x, y and z in the first place. A lot of the past's x, y and z sound unbelievable today in themselves.
Anyway, regarding all this, if people have doubts, try talking to older people, your grandparents if they are still alive.
>Also, the following is commonly attributed to Socrates: "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise".
That's nothing of the scale you see today. Plus, he was speaking in an Athens that was about to go down the drain, i.e in a society that has lost the "connective social tissue" and people were becoming more selfish and greedy. So, if you see a parallel maybe it's not because it's been like this for 2400, but because we live in a similar era of societal decline. Things do reappear in history, after all.
Can you elaborate on which societal norms you feel have changed for the worse? And can you explain your criteria for eras of societal decline?
Aside: speaking metaphorically for the moment, you could characterize the early history of the United States as: young upstarts (puritans) disagree with the social norms of their forebears (the Church of England), run away from home (colonization of America), and misbehave often in violent ways (the American Revolution). The English may have regarded that time period as a societal decline, even as Franklin was writing his 13 virtues!
Not judging by the behaviour people one sees in any major city, or their kids, compared to historical norms of behaviour one can read about in history books.
One small example: attitude and rudeness like you see today from high-schoolers, would be totally unfathomable in a 1930 or 1950's school.
>There were thieves and liars and murderers and lazy people and scum bags 200 years ago too.
Sure. That doesn't mean societies are stationary. They change with the prevalent motives of the era, the changed ethical norms, the economic and political situation, etc.