What Canadians really believe

FULL STORY: From the death penalty to same-sex relationships, a new poll shows huge shifts.

by Ken MacQueen on Friday, November 20, 2009 4:11pm - 80 Comments

Harvard’s Pinker often writes about the shifting moralization and “amoralization” of issues. Smoking went from a social activity with a personal health risk to a moral issue of second-hand smoke. Food became an ethical minefield, “with critics sermonizing about the size of sodas, the chemistry of fat, the freedom of chickens, the price of coffee beans, the species of fish and now the distance the food has travelled from farm to plate.” Meantime, once-loaded issues like divorce, children outside marriage, homosexuality and marijuana use have largely shaken off the bonds of immorality.

As for contraception, it’s made a conversion from sinner to saint. A recent report by the London School of Economics, titled “Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost,” concludes that money invested in family planning not only helps women in the Third World, but every unborn child lessens the eventual production of greenhouse gases.

Perhaps Canadians, with our low birth rate, already knew that. We’re a pragmatic bunch—as moral as possible, under the circumstances.

Angus Reid Strategies conducted online interviews with a representative sample of 1,003 Canadian adults on Oct. 7 and Oct. 8, 2009. The margin of error for the complete sample is 3.1 per cent.

Bookmark and Share
  • Justsayin'

    Walkuprightly,
    I truly do not believe that this is a causal between pedophilia and the gay lifestyle, my friend. I could just as easily say that there is a stonger correlation between "pedophilia and men of the cloth" or "pedophilia and married men involving underage girls" than "ped and gay men", specifically. I could say that but i wont because truthfully i don't know the facts. I'm drawing this crude logical map to make the point that we are all guilty of misconception (or selective perception) and unfortunately become set in these ungrounded beliefs (to the detriment of "society"). In your defense, you did express some fallibility by admitting that you're uncertain "is it just me?" I hope that instead of stopping there you went out in search of facts that corroborate your beliefs – if not then it is my opinion that you too have made a poor moral choice. I think that its important that we start being critical of the underpinnings of our deepest beliefs in the pursuit of the truth instead of interpreting the world based on these ungrounded half-baked notions (no disrespect intended).

    Im not suggesting you have to accept anything that you feel run aground with your moral beliefs – if you're not accepting of the gay "lifestyle" then so be it. I would caution you in making generalizations based on fluff though because we can only get so far on feelings. Im gay. I don't condone pedophilia and neither does a single one of my friends (for what we percieve to be logical reasons grounded grounded in "morality"). So how does your theory account for that? This is not an attack at all, im just curious to hear your response.

    You are entitled to your opinions and I commend you for expressing them. Honestly you would be surprised at how few people even HAVE opinions on matters like this. Reasonable and intelligent people should be able to have conversations like these without getting offended or freaking out because there is typically no resolution if we don't listen to each others points of view. Aside from that I agreed with the vast majority of your post – thanks for that!

  • M Gartner

    Canadian Birth rate < 2.1 children per female — We're dying as a society because we're too selfish to grow up and take responsibility for the future.

    Our selfishness explains most of the items in this survey. We value "what's good for me" more than what's good for our society, and we are paying for it with slow decline.

    And yes, abortion is murder. Based on numerous studies, it has been found that a significant portion of women (a majority in some studies) exhibit post-traumatic stress. If abortion were just ridding the body of a piece of tissue that is "Just a part of your body" as pro-abortion groups claim, I doubt they'd have PTS. (google: abortion post-traumic stress study)

    Deep down, we all know the truth and our society is amazingly adept at brainwashing itself with comfortable lies and self-interested crusades.

    • bode

      I used to live for 3 years in Canada, and i recognized your society as materialistic society. So many people around me at that time had only one great "Value". O yes, it's money. So, if you know how to get money, you're on top. Sometimes it was too boring watching people around me. Why? Generally, money was the main formula how people looked and understood their neighbours or some values. O yes, Canada "celebrates varieties", as great value. For example, Your society celebrates variety of races, beliefs, and that is good. But some "values" can't defend themselves for they do not have money. For example, unborn children can't make found raising dinner, or demonstrate for they reason, or they can't convince their mothers that they will be good children. They can't vote against politicians whose political campaigns include legal abortion as "something good".
      Eventhough Canada is not a perfect society I still like that wild, north country. greetings from europe to M Gartner

    • kathryn c

      Jeebus M Gartner – first of all you are conflating PTS with something called Post-Abortion Stress. Secondly, if you look a little into those studies (and I guess you haven't looked at all), you'll find there is precious little proof of this phenomenon although it is a favoured talking point of anti-abortionists.

      If you are so torn up about the potential for emotional distress in women post-abortion then unless you are just as concerned about the emotional and social outcomes of unwanted children – outcomes for the women, the children themselves and all of us. I suggest you read Freakonomics – they report a relation between access to abortion and an enormous drop in crime rates.

      Because in reality, abortion will continue to happen as it always has. When it's illegal, then only the wealthy will have access to safe procedures in hospital but the poor will resort to aborting themselves or – almost as dangerous – back-alley butchers, or become struggling to raise kids they cannot support. Any one of these outcomes is much worse than your spurious PTS.

  • TriadBob

    It is not surprising that a person would condone capital punishment but oppose killing animals for testing. It is not valuing human life less. A person facing capital punishment made a choice to take another life knowing the legal ramifications. It is just to remove that person.
    Animals do not have choices. Of course, we are sympathetic. It is not that we value a rat over a human.

  • Mike

    I agree with the justification for viewing animal life in a more protective light than that of criminals. One is a creature that is defenseless against people, so I think there's some ethical obligation to treat it with respect. The other is an individual who systematically targets others to do harm to them. Until bears and deer go around plotting to attack people, I'll side with the animal any day of the week.

  • Andrea

    It's not "paradoxical" to oppose testing on animals while accepting abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. The latter increse the enjoyment of life by humans while the former harm the lives of animals.

  • http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman Barry Wellman, FRSC

    I'm delighted that you used my concept of "networked individualism", and agree that it has become core in Canada (and elsewhere). I am surprised and saddened that you didn't attribute it me — and our NetLab research group — as both the concept and the research supported it were made in Canada at the University of Toronto over a decade ago. See my "Physical Space and Cyber Place" for example.

  • John

    1 in 5 are opposed to abortions, eh? Well that number is going down. Personal I don't care, a woman's body is here own business. (but i don't think it's a good idea for birth control)

    I think capital punishment should be allowed, except the death should be by a bullet. It gives the cops or other law enforcements something to do. Prisons are to crowded anyways. (with all the technology, they have a good idea if you are guilty or not anyways.)

    For the whole fur thing, I think they should be fighting over who looks hotter in clothes made from 100% recycled garbage and recycle. (watch that one episode on Dragons Den) Way better for everybody.

    I'm all for Stem Cell research, I think with technology nowadays, they can do wonders.

    Oh by the way, I know this isn't in this blog, but go out and donate blood today, especially if you have AB+, or 0-.

  • Alex

    Some people get the idea that those in favour of legalized abortion think that abortions are no big deal. This is not the case, ideally there would be no abortions, however in certain situations it is the best choice, and in the end it is the womans right to choose.

    Raising animals to kill for their fur so that we can have fancy clothing is wrong and I oppose it. I am not in favour of making it illegal, hopefully at some point people will choose not to wear fur and there will be no market for it.

    The death penalty is morally wrong, its essence is revenge. Criminals who are guilty of the most haenous crimes should be imprisoned with no chance of parole but not killed.

    Assisted suicide for critcally ill and suffering patients is a no brainer and of course should be legal and provided for.

    I do care if drugs are tested on animals, however animal testing is essential. After all we are animals right? and the drugs will be used on us so are humans supposed to be the first animals a drug is tested on?

    Medical research and treatment using human embryos is another no brainer. Of course we should do this and do it responsibly.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/CONSCIENCE1 CONSCIENCE1

    what is it that tells us we have full control over our existance here?
    Who decides where the moral standards begin and end?
    Whoever actually found out that we humans have the ability to determine our own beginning and end?
    Also consider if you will, where did your soul and mind come from???? Finally, what if you are wrong????????

  • BainerB

    The article says
    "the BC Supreme Court will decide if laws prohibiting polygamy can still be enforced".
    Each province will decide for themselves which Federal Criminal Code laws to prosecute . For example, polygamy may be illegal in some provinces yet be sanctioned in others. i.e Saskaatchewan actually sanctions and assists with the creation of multiple conjugal unions in clear violation of Federal criminal code. They use a conflicting law (provincial statute) that allows polygamy.
    The NY prediction is that all Federal criminal code laws will be unenforcable and that individual provinces will hence decide which Criminal Code laws they will enforce..or not enforce.

From Macleans