Reaction: What Else is New?

One Mr. Andrew Hanson has asked me to respond to this article written by David Brooks of the New York Times on the subject of kids these days and their morality. A summary quote:

It’s not so much that these young Americans are living lives of sin and debauchery, at least no more than you’d expect from 18- to 23-year-olds. What’s disheartening is how bad they are at thinking and talking about moral issues.

1. Soft prejudice of low expectations alert!
2. I'd contend that this poor moral reasoning is pervasive not just in 18- to 23-year-olds, but throughout American society, including some of our more famous war-mongering NYTimes Columnists. Is that petty of me? Maybe.

The editorial goes on to explain that young people lack the moral vocabulary necessary to articulate why something is right or wrong, so instead they make moral choices based on feelings, intuitions, and convictions. Morality is not decided by religious tenets (as I hold), nor is it decided on by a community through social mores and customs (as Brooks mentions later), nor is it reasoned out from categorical imperatives ("Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."), nor is it made on the basis of what will cause the greatest good for the greatest number (Andrew), nothing. It's just, like, what I feel in my heart is right, you know? And what's right for me might not be right for you.

Brooks says that at the heart of this thinking lies a deep belief in individualism. I'd say that it's less a matter of individualism, and more a matter of not offending anyone under any circumstances lest we be offended in turn. We are all pretty, pretty snowflakes with unique dreams, ambitions, hopes, and views on what's right and what's wrong, and anyone who rains on that parade can hurt our self-esteem.

A few cases in point on this phenomenon (and yes they'll mostly be religious because I find public reporting of religion fascinating and my moral thinking is inextricably tied to religious thinking):

1. Religious Ecumenism after Sept 11.

Imam Al-Hajj Talib ‘Abdur-Rashid of the Mosque of Islamic Brotherhood spoke of the terrorist attacks as a baptism not by water, but by ash, the results of which forced people around the world to become aware of their common humanity. No matter how people refer to God, he said, whether it be Allah, Yahweh, or any number of names, it is the same God, uniting all people.

Pretty self-explanatory, this view has been around a long time (when were the Unitarians around- 1850? Earlier? Isn't Ba'hai basically a synthesis of this but from much earlier?) Anyway, rather than making absolute objective religious or moral claims, ecumenism is an attempt to sanitize these claims and make them subjective.

2. Michele Bachmann's Church Says the Pope is the Anti-Christ

This was a fascinating story to me a few months ago when it popped up, not only because Michele Bachmann was a member of the same 'strict Lutheran synod with controversial views of Catholicism' that I am, but because it was an excellent lens through which popular views of religion could be viewed. The reason why the story was so sensational was that of course Michele Bachmann can't have these views- that would be offensive to Catholic voters! Is she really comfortable with offending the 120 million Catholics of this country!?!

But lost from most of the discussion was a recognition of what the Protestant Reformation was actually about. Is grace infused into us, or is it imputed? Are we declared not-guilty before God on the basis of our own righteousness which God graciously helps us to attain, or on the basis of Christ's righteousness which is credited to us through faith? Those are two really, really, really different beliefs, and strong conviction in either one of them flies in the face of this moral individualism that David Brooks is talking about.

3. Columnist Ann Coulter Shocks Cable TV Show, Declaring 'Jews Need to Be Perfected by Becoming Christians'

DEUTSCH: Tell me what — why this would be a better world? Let's give you — I'm going to give you — say this is your show.

COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they —

DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?

COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?

DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?

COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not.

DEUTSCH: I actually am. That's not true. I really am. But — so we would be better if we were — if people — if there were no Jews, no Buddhists —

COULTER: Whenever I'm harangued by —

DEUTSCH: — in this country? You can't believe that.

COULTER: — you know, liberals on diversity —

DEUTSCH: Here you go again.

COULTER: No, it's true. I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that's really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely unself-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it's like they have a chip on their shoulder. They're just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would. And —

DEUTSCH: I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that at all. Maybe you have the chip looking at them. I see a lot of interracial couples, and I don't see any more or less chips there either way. That's erroneous.

COULTER: No. In fact, there was an entire "Seinfeld" episode about Elaine and her boyfriend dating because they wanted to be a mixed-race couple, so you're lying.

DEUTSCH: Oh, because of some "Seinfeld" episode? OK.

COULTER: But yeah, I think that's reflective of what's going on in the culture, but it is completely striking that at these huge megachurches — the idea that, you know, the more Christian you are, the less tolerant you would be is preposterous.

DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not — we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or —

COULTER: Yeah.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Well, it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.

DEUTSCH: You can't possibly believe that.

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: You can't possibly — you're too educated, you can't — you're like my friend in —

COULTER: Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey.

DEUTSCH: No, no, no, but I mean —

COULTER: We have the fast-track program.

DEUTSCH: Why don't I put you with the head of Iran? I mean, come on. You can't believe that.

COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.

DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, "Let's wipe Israel" —

COULTER: I don't know if you've been paying attention.

DEUTSCH: "Let's wipe Israel off the earth." I mean, what, no Jews?

COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.

DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?

COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners —

DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued — when you say something absurd like that, there's no —

COULTER: What's absurd?

DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself —

COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.

DEUTSCH: Ann Coulter, author of "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans," and if Ann Coulter had any brains, she would not say Jews need to be perfected. I'm offended by that personally.

I have absolutely no idea what Ann Coulter meant when she says that Christianity is like Judaism plus Federal Express. But that's not really my point. My point is that Donny Deutsch is absolutely flabbergasted that anyone besides the head of Iran could believe that their religion is true, and that as a corollary in a perfect world all people would practice that true religion.

Yes, kids, that's part of my thesis: America today in a lot of ways is kind of like Donny Deutsch. Stop the presses.

Anyway, those are just three things that popped into my head immediately. I could waste even more time finding others including bad arguments against gay marriage and abortion, but I won't because I think you get the point, and I think David Brooks would agree with me that those examples I cite are the sorts of things he's talking about.

I'll instead let fly a few armchair ruminations as to why I think this moral individualism among Americans has increased of late.

Armchair Rumination #1: Self-Esteem is King

Back in the day (by which I mean the 1950's having never lived through them) children could be expected to be raised in a harsh environment of criticism, violence, and cruelty. And just as the harsh environment of Arrakis gave rise to the powerful and strong Fremen, these children grew up to be moral giants. Teachers, parents, and peers didn't care about your feelings. They just cared if you were right. So if you said something morally stupid like 'It's ok for humans to have sex with animals because they probably have fun having sex with us, so no harm no foul' you would immediately be punched in the face, verbally harassed, etc., etc.

But then people got all hot and bothered about Self-Esteem. Maybe it was Abraham Maslow and his pyramid of needs, or that one psychologist with the pigeons and the bells, or maybe it was Raffi, I don't know. Some psychologist/children's musical artist from the 50's and 60's. And all of a sudden, no one can tell anyone else to shape up or ship out because that hurts their self-esteem. And that's why kids these days are water-soft.

Armchair Rumination #2: Moralistic Therapeutic Deism

David Brooks writes that once upon a time people did some moral thinking by grounding it in religion: this action is good if God says it is good, this action is bad if God says that it is bad. Therefore, it would logically follow that if society becomes less religious and more secular, we would lose this important source of moral decision-making.

But it's not just the case that fewer and fewer young people in America are going to church. Moral decision making skills are being hurt because even those young adults that do go to church aren't being taught very well there. The go-to book on this is probably Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers which says that kids these days are very weak on many points of doctrine and instead have religious beliefs that are a mashed-up jumble, but mostly have these parts in common (stolen shamelessly from Wikipedia):

1. There is a God or a higher intelligence, but he's mostly watching over you and me like Santa Claus.

2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions. (Remember what I said about ecumenism?)

3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself. (Remember what I said about self-esteem?)

4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem. That is, God is kind of like a giant vending machine that you only need to go to when you're hungry for some M&M's (or a job, or a girlfriend, or healing from cancer).

5. Good people go to heaven when they die.

This is called moralistic therapeutic deism. Please note that anyone denying the existence of moralistic therapeutic deism may be a moralistic therapeutic deist themselves!

But wait. Surely the Moralistic part of the Moralistic Therapeutic Deism catchphrase means that kids these days are all over the subject of morality, right?

Weeeeelllllllll...not really. Just because you believe that people should be moral or will be rewarded for being moral doesn't mean that you have a good basis for determining what is moral and what is not. And when you jettison the heavier parts of Christianity like doctrine and creeds, you're not left with much of anything with which you can make those decisions. Let's see this effect in action:

I mean, yeah, the Bible talks about how homosexuality is wrong and stuff, but I'm not going to be a bad person and get all in your face about it. The Bible was written by old men 2000 years ago, so not all of it applies today. And gay people are just acting the way they were made and the way they feel, so who am I to tell them differently? They can't change who they are.

If all of the theological tools were in our toolkit, we could critique this statement by saying that it contradicts a few very important doctrines: the inspiration of Scripture, Original Sin (or Total Depravity), regeneration, the sixth commandment. But if you don't know what those are (and Moralistic Therapeutic Deists probably don't, or don't think much of them) then you're just left with saying that that might work for you but it doesn't work for me.

And stuff.

Armchair Rumination #3: Changing Media Landscape

If the main driver of moral individualism is that you don't want to offend anyone, moral individualism may increase if the costs of offending people increase or the risks of offending people increase.

Let's take a simple situation: you think that it's wrong for people to wear Nike shoes because Nike hires slave kids in China to make them. Therefore, you see a person wearing these shoes and you tell them face-to-face that they support child slavery. They get pretty offended at you, but you don't care because it's just one guy.

Then you end up writing in to the paper and they publish your editorial about child slavery. You've now offended like 100 people who wear Nikes and will never buy the paper ever again.

Then you end up publishing an article on PolicyMic and end up offending 10,000 people who wear Nike shoes, all of whom leave PolicyMic in disgust.

If every schmo with a cause does this, Media outlets then end up having to adopt one of two strategies as their available market grows:

1. Don't say anything important that could offend anyone, lest it reduce viewership.
2. Do make really aggressive moral claims, but have it drive all of your offended readers away so that you're just preaching to the choir. Hopefully you'll have enough people left to be profitable, and those people will never leave because they think other media outlets are wishy-washy.

I call these the CNN and FoxNews strategies.

Both strategies tend to dull our moral reasoning. In the first case, it's because you're by definition not allowed to say anything offensive (and hence of moral interest). In the second case, it's because everyone already agrees with you: why supply reasons?

Three unfalsifiable ruminations? MY JOB HERE IS DONE.

(Update: added a link to Andrew Hanson's discussion of the same topic. How we arrive at similar conclusions using diametrically opposed reasoning is one of the hallmarks of our friendship.)