A person’s worth nowadays seems to be judged according to social status and material possessions. Old-fashioned values, such as honour, kindness and trust, no longer seem important.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
The moral burden of modernism has always been given as a typical example for the philosophical critique of the times. However, there should be a distinction between mere golden-age nostalgia and the objective criticism of contemporary moral codes.
It might be a fallacy to think of social status as a modern construct. After all, the nobles, the aristocrats, and the Brahman caste were no less a social status than, for example, the American 1% nowadays. These are cross-cultural terms that prove the ancient nature of the social status. However, it is still fairly plausible to highlight the increasing weight of economic value in today's social status, perhaps due to basic human needs being more and more dependent on affluency.
Yet, contrary to the common belief, such focus on monetary capacity is not necessarily in conflict with a fixation on morality. In fact, the technological advances and the accumulation of knowledge that were brought about by modernism have made financial capacity be an indispensible prerequisite of any sincere moral position.
This can be easily shown on state level: economic and miltary power always precede their educational and cultural counterparts. Further, this is still true on an individual level. Unless financial independence is granted, one's own autonomy, and consequently morality, would be seriously threatened.
All in all, while it is easy to spot a shift in attitudes and customs towards bare old-fashioned values, such transition is not necessarily due to a degrading morality. Contrarily, given the incresaing competition in today's labor force and how it showcases the role of material categories in one's autonomy and creativity, such focus might actually indicate an indirect emphasis on ethics.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 293, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...ases the role of material categories in ones autonomy and creativity, such focus mig...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, consequently, however, if, so, still, while, after all, for example, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 7.30460921844 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 24.0651302605 42% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 41.998997996 79% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1489.0 1615.20841683 92% => OK
No of words: 274.0 315.596192385 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.43430656934 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0685311056 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05442184065 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 176.041082164 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.63503649635 0.561755894193 113% => OK
syllable_count: 484.2 506.74238477 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.2964220072 49.4020404114 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.538461538 106.682146367 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0769230769 20.7667163134 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.61538461538 7.06120827912 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.144296605704 0.244688304435 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.047513196339 0.084324248473 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0272686253091 0.0667982634062 41% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0654073362793 0.151304729494 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0398550987567 0.056905535591 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.0946893788 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 50.2224549098 66% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.44 8.58950901804 122% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 78.4519038076 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.