Why Young Americans Can’t Think Morally (Moral standards have been replaced by feelings)

National Review ^ | 09/20/2011 | Dennis Prager

[SeekAndFind]

Last week, David Brooks of the New York Times wrote a column on an academic study concerning the nearly complete lack of a moral vocabulary among most American young people. Here are excerpts from Brooks’s summary of the study of Americans aged 18 to 23. It was led by “the eminent Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith”:

● “Smith and company asked about the young people’s moral lives, and the results are depressing.”

● “When asked to describe a moral dilemma they had faced, two-thirds of the young people either couldn’t answer the question or described problems that are not moral at all.”

● “Moral thinking didn’t enter the picture, even when considering things like drunken driving, cheating in school or cheating on a partner.”

● “The default position, which most of them came back to again and again, is that moral choices are just a matter of individual taste.”

● “As one put it, ‘I mean, I guess what makes something right is how I feel about it. But different people feel different ways, so I couldn’t speak on behalf of anyone else as to what’s right and wrong.’”

● “Morality was once revealed, inherited and shared, but now it’s thought of as something that emerges in the privacy of your own heart.” (Emphases mine.)

Ever since I attended college I have been convinced that “studies” either confirm what common sense suggests or they are mistaken. I realized this when I was presented study after study showing that boys and girls were not inherently different from one another, and they acted differently only because of sexist upbringings.

This latest study cited by David Brooks confirms what conservatives have known for a generation: Moral standards have been replaced by feelings. Of course, those on the left only believe this when an “eminent sociologist” is cited by a writer at a major liberal newspaper.

What is disconcerting about Brooks’s piece is that nowhere in what is an important column does he mention the reason for this disturbing trend: namely, secularism.

The intellectual class and the Left still believe that secularism is an unalloyed blessing. They are wrong. Secularism is good for government. But it is terrible for society (though still preferable to bad religion) and for the individual.

One key reason is what secularism does to moral standards. If moral standards are not rooted in God, they do not objectively exist. Good and evil are no more real than “yummy” and “yucky.” They are simply a matter of personal preference. One of the foremost liberal philosophers, Richard Rorty, an atheist, acknowledged that for the secular liberal, “There is no answer to the question, ‘Why not be cruel?’”

With the death of Judeo-Christian God-based standards, people have simply substituted feelings for those standards. Millions of American young people have been raised by parents and schools with “How do you feel about it?” as the only guide to what they ought to do. The heart has replaced God and the Bible as a moral guide. And now, as Brooks points out, we see the results. A vast number of American young people do not even ask whether an action is right or wrong. The question would strike them as foreign. Why? Because the question suggests that there is a right and wrong outside of themselves. And just as there is no God higher than them, there is no morality higher than them, either.

Forty years ago, I began writing and lecturing about this problem. It was then that I began asking students if they would save their dog or a stranger first if both were drowning. The majority always voted against the stranger — because, they explained, they loved their dog and they didn’t love the stranger.

They followed their feelings.

Without God and Judeo-Christian religions, what else is there?

— Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist.

[MEGoody]

Sounds like exactly the sort of society you'd expect after a hundred years of the dominant Christian majority teaching their doctrine of each individual interpreting Scriptures and Truth for themselves according to whatever spirit they listen to.

Yes, it was much more moral pre-Luther, wasn't it?

::::rolls eyes::::

[yldstrk]

Psychobabble has replaced ethics

[Rashputin]

There were clearly defined standards, that's the actual topic of discussion, not whether mankind was more or less sinful. And yes, things were more “moral” among average folks before Luther espoused the theory that you could sin boldly and still be right with the Lord. Luther himself said things were worse once every “plow-boy and milk maid” was interpreting Scripture for them self but I guess since Luther was there and didn't have the advantage of revisionist history ...

[MEGoody]

There were clearly defined standards, that's the actual topic of discussion

Yes, and of course, you had to bring in the Catholic church - as if God Himself didn't have moral standards long before the Catholics arrived on the scene.

Sheesh.

[Rashputin]

Eye roll and sheesh all you like but until the Catholic Church the moral standards outside of the Jews were pagan standards, the standards this country and the Western world have returned to. You know, infanticide, abortion, situational ethics, individual definitions of right and wrong, homosexual and bisexual behavior accepted as chic, etc., etc.

Like it or not, it was the Catholic Church that built the Western World and the moral standards that were adopted by those outside the Church as Christian Morality. As soon as the Catholic Church in the US ceased to defy public opinion and hold higher standards those outside the Church began a race to see who could rationalize pagan standards first with the "mainstream" Protestant denominations leading that race from day one.

It's a real shame you don't have much understanding of history rather than a personal bias that denies reality in favor of your own personal revisionist view of reality and history that avoids the key factor in understanding both the rise, and now the fall, of Western Civilization.

have a nice (eye roll) day (sheesh)

[MEGoody]

Yeah, Pope Alexander VI, Pope John XII, Pope Benedict IX, Pope Boniface VIII, Pope Urban VI, Pope John XXII, Pope Gregory XII, Pope John XXIII - all paragons of virture, exhibiting those wonderful Catholic morals you talk about.

In my opinion, it was actually the rejection of the Catholic Church as THE face of Christianity that has done the most to bring it's leadership around to a more moral stance. You should be thanking non-Catholic Christians for helping to keep your church in check.

[Rashputin]

"... the rejection of the Catholic Church as THE face of " Christianity..."

Alas, that opinion and the attendant heresy of there being no way to avoid sin and therefore you should sin boldly is one of the best lies Satan ever planted as "opinion" in those those who frolic along the wide and easily navigated highway to their own eternal damnation with. Enjoy the ride because you're not going to like the destination.

Sheesh, eye roll, and even a belly laugh at the absurd notion that avoiding Christ and refusing to take up your cross makes you a "non-Catholic Christian".

have a nice day

[MEGoody]

I see. So the "morals" of those Popes I mentioned previously was just fine with you. After all, they were the leaders of the church you claim was the arbiter of morality prior to Luther.

No thanks.

[Rashputin]

That's OK. You're free to deny Christ but still call yourself a Christian, that's been the Protestant way since Luther.

have a nice day

[MEGoody]

That's OK. You're free to deny Christ but still call yourself a Christian

Please site the post where I ever denied Christ. Oh, that's right, you can't.

Gee, I thought at least the modern Catholic Church morality called for adherence to "thou shalt not bear false witness". Based on your behavior, apparently that's gone by the wayside.

[Rashputin]

You're Protestant, therefore, you deny what Christ taught and substitute what you yourself want to believe. Simple.

Really, you can put the straw man stuff up and knock it down all you like. I understand. It's how you convince yourself you're still a Christian in spite of denying what Christ taught. It's no problem, I only mention it to you so you can no longer plead ignorance. Of course, when push comes to shove as it most surely will for you, you'll still be claiming to have been right all along but that's the way it'll be for hordes of people. Just enjoy your heresy, shake your little head, roll your eyes, and keep on beating the straw man.

What you thought about the Catholic Church is obviously total BS across the board so citing a single Christian tenant you like after a lot of picking and choosing based on your own inclinations is laughable. You've been spoon fed anti-Catholic BS for your entire life or that you chose to believe such BS so you can continue to delude yourself. So, what you thought or what you think of me and what I've said is just hot air. As for false witness you're just seeing your faults in others that's all. You are Protestant, therefore, you deny at least a portion of what Christ taught. Nothing false in that.

Roll on down the highway and have a really nice day.

[MEGoody]

LOL You and those like you are among the huge reasons I could never be Catholic.

[Rashputin]

I completely understand. You and those like you cannot give up putting your self and your understanding ahead of your own salvation. It's sad but true and it's why this country has followed the Protestant precedent of each individual interpreting everything for themselves into the wonderful mess we're now in. People who are sure they can each individually interpret the Word of God aren't going to bat an eye and interpreting laws and moral standards of societies for themselves, usually, interpreting them to apply to others but not them. Hence, the very Protestant world of revisionist history and each individual having their own definition of right and wrong.

I hate to see another one of you folks sliding into Hell, but you just can't get past that whole self issue that Eve was the first to fall for. To do so you have to deny the deity of Christ while claiming to follow Him. It's not "people like you" who are keeping you from being Christian, it's your own selfishness. So, party on, Dude.

Have a nice day

[MEGoody]

The Catholic Church does not save - Jesus does. Sadly, you’ve put your denomination ahead of Him.

[MEGoody]

By the way, even your Pope does not claim that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church - yet you do. Interesting.

[Rashputin]

Actually, I claim that people who have to interject themselves into a conversation to roll their eyes over a fact that is clearly in evidence in history are also incapable of interpreting Scripture sufficiently to be saved no matter where they stand in relation to the Church.

Now come on, what's really “interesting” is why you couldn't just let someone state an opinion without granting yourself the pleasure of mocking the Catholic Church and the role it played in history. Of course, your eye rolling and rote repetition of lies along with your inability to understand simple sentences is laughable. Outside the Catholic Church? Well, yes. Outside of Christ based on your own personal interpretation when it's clear you can't read well? Not a chance?

have a lovely day

[MEGoody]

I see, so because I rolled my eyes at your silly comment, you claim I can't be saved. Got it.

What a model Catholic you are. LOL

[Rashputin]

You deny Christ, that's the problem. Not your poor taste, lack of reading comprehension, and a miserable lack of knowledge about Western history. You're a model Sola Yourselfa idol maker.

Eye roll, snicker, chuckle, yuck, yuck. LOL, har, har. Wow, you're such a perfect example of a Self Worshiper. LOL. Har, Har.

Party on,. Dude.

[MEGoody]

You deny Christ, that's the problem.

That is the second time you've made that claim. The first time you posted that, I asked you to copy/paste where I ever did such a thing. Of course, you didn't do that because you couldn't. You still can't, because it never happened.

Because of your repeated lies, I can only presume that lying is part of the morality taught by the Catholic Church. Or are you simply being a hypocrit?

[Rashputin]

You're Protestant, right? So, by definition you deny that Christ is one with the Father. How else can he admit anyone or anything into heaven when they're impure by simply hiding them in his diplomatic pouch so the Father won't “see” the sin and unrighteousness in them? Without that little joke Protestants have to admit a lot of things they'd rather not admit. So, there you have it, the denial of Christ.

Now, just to stay on the same plane as someone who has to jump in and make with snark, .... Har Harr, Bwaaaaaa Hahaha, LOL, Liar, Liar, Harr, Harr, hypocrite, LOL, LOL

Party on and enjoy the road you're on because you won't enjoy the destination.