The State of Moral Decay

A hypothetical example would be a history lesson about Stalin. The class is told Stalin was a communist dictator of the USSR and was a very bad man. He was oppressive and people suffered under him. Communism was a great evil that the US fought.

The questions not asked are why Stalin's policies of oppression were bad. What makes communism evil? Why were we fighting him? What made Stalin bad? What gives the US the moral high ground? What are the differences between communism and capitalism?

A strong feeling about such questions is that they lead to moral relativity and pandering to thoughts that are detrimental to a good, healthy outlook on people and life. One could reply back that if you let students think about such things and reach a rational conclusion as to why they are bad, they will gain something vastly more important than merely learning about the actions of a dead man.

There is an inherent danger in silencing such questions as well. Indeed, it is more dangerous to attempt to silence such questions as wrong in of themselves as opposed to letting viewpoints from such questions become morally wrong.
A few serious questions are brought up by such views. Who decides what is moral? Do parents have the right to install their world views upon their children?

As it stands we turn to clergy and government to define what is moral or not. The US Constitution is considered by many to not only be a governmental document, but a document that instills morals upon our codified laws by simply existing. It is my view that such exultations are dangerous.

When you place such rules as untouchable doctrines you develop a dogma that surrounds them. Religion is king of such dogma, but the US Constitution comes in close as something revered as being perfect. It is, in essence, a traditional dogma that permeates through the view points of many Americans without second thought.

Take, for example, any debate on the right to bear arms in the US. It quickly becomes a subject of the moral authority of the constitution and to argue against the right to bear arms ultimately becomes an argument against the constitution. The defenders of this right often reach heights of fervor rarely seen outside of the most religiously devout.

To them the question is already completely resolved and settled in their minds. Any questioning of this becomes, in their minds, dangerous and a threat. They will defend it at all costs, including marginalizing and ostracizing any that question their right. In effect, they quash any rational discussion on the matter and it becomes a blind faith in the moral authority of the constitution. If the right to bear arms is morally set in stone, then the NRA is indeed the church that protects this dogma.

If we should not turn to the Constitution for guidance or as the moral authority, where should we turn? I would posit towards rational discussion and logical thinking. How does the right to bear arms impact society and what is the human cost? What is the impact of losing said right?

We could come to a conclusion in time with some debate and that conclusion is not necessarily set in stone. In essence, it loses its dogmatic appeal and becomes subject to question and testing, something found in the foundation of scientific thought.

This leaves us at another point: if we should not turn to the Constitution as a dogmatic moral authority, should children be expected to turn to their parents as a dogmatic moral authority?

Much like many view the moral authority of the Constitution should observed by society a view is held that children should view the moral authority of their parents in much the same way.

At a young age children do observe a sort of dogmatic following of their parents viewpoints. This is very evident in evangelical churches where children are taught about the evils of abortion by both parents and clergy. They latch onto these causes with a blind fervor and lack of understanding and find themselves entrenched in these views without any choice.

This, once again, leaves out any rational processes. They are taught simply the moral end without any means to reach such a conclusion. It is in my view that this robs the children of crucial faculties in which to engage the real world outside of such morally absolute settings. This is dangerous to their development as critical thinkers.

One solution to this conundrum is the infiltration of the ideas of rational thinking and logical morals in mass media via children's shows, movies, and other forms of entertainment. Many may feel this is pervasive, but the choice will ultimately be up to the children. Do they follow their parents' every word or do they engage in thinking of their own.

Again, I would maintain it is better to come to the wrong conclusion than to be told not to think at all. It is society's job to engage each other into thinking and the discourse should be a daily thing. If one can find time to gossip about who is sleeping with who, one could find the time to ask the moral question of adultery and its impact on society.

So the broad question left is why is America, despite its strong moral traditions, left in the dust in statistics ranging from abortion to homicide. We teach the strongest about abstinence yet lead the industrialized world in teenage pregnancy and abortion. We teach strongly about the danger of fire arms and yet lead the world in murder via guns.

This could be traced back to the fact we often hold a dogmatic view of morals. When one grows older they begin to question on their own, and may reject morals. If they don't have the mental capacity to reach moral conclusions in a rational manner, what is left? What safety net is there to catch them when they find the dogmatic answers lacking?

Teen pregnancy is high because girls and boys are taught that sex is wrong before marriage, but are not taught why they should hold this view. There is no discussion on the matter. They are simply told it is bad and then sent on their way.

So when they are on their own they have the dogmatic instillation that the act about to be committed is wrong somehow, but when they think it through they come to the fallacious conclusion that it isn't so terrible and they fail to think ahead to the logical conclusions of their actions both physically and mentally. Sure,they know the risk, but in face of the lack of critical connection the conclusion of their actions becomes trivialized.

In spite of all of our tradition and moral values, it becomes meaningless when critical thinking is attempted without a strong foundation. We are building skyscrapers without scaffolding and wondering foolishly why the buildings are tilted and falling. We find ourselves blaming everything and everyone we can. Some blame the liberals, some blame the conservatives, some blame mass media, and still others blame video games.

Nobody seems to be blaming who we should be rightfully blaming: the architects. The people instilling these moral values without instilling critical thinking skills as to how to come to those moral values. The government, the clergy, the teachers, and the parents are to blame. When we learn to take responsibility for our actions and begin to rectify the mistake, perhaps America will start becoming a bastion of freedom of the truest sense: moral freedom and a true sense of self, one with the ability to see a direct logical link from actions to the impact on others and self.

[1]: "Percent atheists, agnostics, non-believers in God by Country" http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/8244121