Like in some of the replies, I also think change in societal ethics is a result of various factors. Though I think the main theme is that change is brought on by reaction rather than action. In fact, I would personally attribute most of the factors to the constant need for change in human hierarchy that I ranted about in another thread (not constant need for change in society, mind you, but change in hierarchy).

Trendsetters, for example, are people who react to and challenge existing societal arrangements. The success of a trend is measured by the impact on society, meaning that for a reaction to a societal arrangement to make sense and be accepted, it must meet a level of identification within members of society. It can be a slow process in that members of society may not be able to put their minds to or even identify with the trend before it has a real and visible impact as a challenge of an existing arrangement that currently influence their lifes. It can of course be ultimately slow if it comes to a standoff, for example by becoming a challenge to more existing arrangements than it bargained for. As, for example, abortion being a reaction to traditions of rigid sex roles in society but inadvertently reaching deeply into other arrangements, such as religion. Or it can be quick if it meets an overwhelming level of identification among the members (remember the 60's?).

I don't think knowledge and technology plays a direct part in changes of societal ethics. Knowledge and technology is in a way constant in time because we can't predict the future. At any which time we know what we know and we can what we can. Knowledge or technology can give rise to arguments for or against a certain change and thereby play an indirect part but the change is a reaction to existing ethical arrangements and is played out in that arena.

I am a conservative, but I cannot defend status quo. In my mind, status quo is nothing to fight for in it self. Conservatism has, in fact, never been about preserving status quo - except, probably, in the minds of some conservatives who does not think much about political issues.

Conservatism is about preserving the good things in society, but also about promoting changes for the better, as long as we can be reasonable sure it is an improvement. Conservativism is about never accepting change for the pure sake of changing that which exists.

Society needs time to adjust to new ideas. Conservatives want to give society that time.

I believe in equal rights for any sexual minority, as long as it does not involve anything but consenting adults. Homosexuality is sex between consenting adults.

There is an important point made by Thane:

In Sweden, we have had what you could call same sex marriages since the early 1990's. The type of contract provided by statute on this is equal to the common ("different sex") marriage in every aspect and for all practical purposes, except that the law does not call this contract "marriage". The contract is called "registered partnership".

Every homosexual person in Sweden is not satisfied with the solution by the Swedish legislators. Some want to be able to marry, even though entering registered partnership is, de jure and de facto, the same thing. Others say they marry when entering registered partnership. Well, maybe in some decades, language has changed, so the meaning of "marriage" means both "different sex" and same sex marriage. In that case, I can understand if the law is changed in order to reflect the current language. I am, however, always opposed to attempts at changing the meaning of words through legislation.

I believe the concept of "registered partnership" could be adopted in the USA as well, as it has been in Sweden, Denmark, and some other European countries.

There is two more things I would like to add.

In Sweden, registered churches and other such religious unities have been able to marry people for a long time. Some people want the legislators to force them to perform registrations of partnership as well, or forfeit their right to marry people. I believe this is wrong. Why should a church be forced to perform a service which is contrary to its beliefs and teachings? Why, also, would anybody want to register his/her partnership in such a church?

Some people have said we should do the same as in Germany, where officially sanctioned marriages can only be entered into in front of government officials, thus ensuring that everyone who has the right to marry people also has the right to register a partnership. (Swedish Government officials having the right to marry people cannot nowadays deny to perform registration of partnership.) Why shouldn't a priest, reverend, rabbi etc. be able to perform the act of marrying people with legal effect, when they marry them anyway? The German way (as I understand it) is ridiculous - religious people have to marry twice, in church and before a government official.

__________________
[U]President Josiah Bartlet:[/U] Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
[U]Leo McGarry:[/U] Maybe they don't and they can't add.

I think it’s a combination of both of these factors. I believe societal attitudes do change subtly, but clear shifts in ethical position generally occur when a trendsetting individual (or group) pushes the issue into the public spotlight. Most trendsetters don’t invent radical new ethical positions—they read public sentiment and emphasize the direction in which the sentiment is already pointing. They’re essentially catalysts for change.

__________________
[COLOR=DarkOrchid]If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?[/COLOR]

"Public sentiment" .. that's the phrase I was looking for (it could've shortened my post considerably). Too late now, though.

Anyway, I believe you're pretty close to an explanation of how change is implemented, SonofaHun. Do you also have an opinion of why change of societal ethics is/will be/should be implemented?

Tough question. Why is almost irrelevant. Changing ethics seem inevitable, because the way society interacts is continuously evolving in response to what I'll call environmental pressures (technological advances, population growth and migration, natural events, and countless other factors).

Not all ethical changes are changes for the better, in my opinion. Some tend to be regressive, seeking to restore bygone societal attitudes that run counter to other ethical values established more recently. I'm a strong supporter of moving forward, not backwards, so I tend to support progressive changes in ethics. But I agree with DGG that it's best to be conservative in implementing ethical changes--small measured steps made after careful consideration and supported by an overwhelming majority of society.

__________________
[COLOR=DarkOrchid]If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?[/COLOR]

I think you're confusing feminism with feminist extremism, or "feminaziism", for lack of a better word. Feminism is equality (social, political, and economic equality) of the sexes. Don't confuse the lesbians and man-haters (the extremists) with true feminists. Feminazis have an irrational hatred of men, whereas feminists just want equality of the sexes. At least that's the way I see it.

To try to keep this on topic: I believe Feminsim was a necessary ethical change in our society. As WarOnIgnorance pointed out, prior to the feminist movement, women barely had any legal rights. I'll admit that I don't actually know much about the women's suffrage movement, but it took years for that change to come about, with several trendsetters demanding the right to vote. It was a gradual change, brought about by the hard work of a few trendsetters, which provoked a change in the general attitude of society.

__________________
Hugs & Kisses, Jefe
xoxox

First, the "stalwart" to which I was referring was an argument and not a person. And secondly, the specifics of people's opinions on homosexuality, specifically, is beyond the scope of this thread. My comments were intended to provide a bit of background as to what made me think about this question.

I would imagine that the degree to which the status quo is altered is directly proportional to the ease with which it is altered, certainly. The issues themselves, however, probably make little difference in the scheme of things. If you look back through history, you could probably find a culture and a time when just about anything was considered acceptable. And, as for groups trying to push changes to fast, this only induces reactionary resistance, which will never prove lasting in the grand scheme of things. Reactionary philosophy is a desire to preserve the status quo for fear of change, and that has historically proven to be untenable in the long haul, as change is inevitable.

__________________
[b][SIZE=2]"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."[/b][/SIZE]

-Thomas Jefferson

To me, this seems unlikely. And, one man's progress is another man's regress. I'm interested in considering what it is that drives these things, and I agree with you that it is a combination of factors.

__________________
[b][SIZE=2]"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."[/b][/SIZE]

-Thomas Jefferson

Thank you.

Very well stated. Inasmuch as I had an opinion on the matter, I imagined it to be a series of forces working in conjunction in the general sense (though certain ethical shifts may have been the result of one or the other of these things). I had not considered the "human curiosity" angle, however, and now I feel silly for failing to consider it. It does seem that there is a large contingent of people who will buck the status quo simply for the sake of doing so, and I think that trait exists to some degree in all people.

If my facts are wrong, please let me know.

__________________
[b][SIZE=2]"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."[/b][/SIZE]

-Thomas Jefferson

I know it's unlikely. I live partly in fantasy-land The land of what should be but will probably never be. I feel that if we strive for perfection, at least we will get something better than we have. Shoot for the stars and get the treetops. As long as it's an improvement.