David Brooks, Moral Individualism, and the Millennial Generation

By: Hayley Campbell

September 27, 2011

David Brooks, in the spirit of many moral conservatives before him, takes up the present state of America’s youth in his recent New York Times op-ed, "If It Feels Right...". Responding to Christian Smith’s new book, Lost in Transition, Brooks narrows in on Smith’s data regarding the moral literacy of young America. Concern for the decay of virtuous society is in itself not a new point of contention. In a sermon given in 1274 AD, Peter the Hermit laments the failings of the youth, decreeing, “The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves… They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them.” In many ways, Brooks has simply joined a long tradition of criticizing the moral vision of young people.

However, unlike his predecessors, Brooks is appalled not just by the immoral choices of the youth, but by their apparent lack of moral vocabulary. He focuses on the inability of some of Smith’s respondents to identify, let alone sufficiently engage moral dilemmas. Drawing on Smith’s conclusions, he points to a generation defined by extreme moral individualism, where moral choices are driven by personal emotions. Brooks is concerned by sentiments that suggest young adults have exchanged broad and shared moral frameworks for isolated choices based on ephemeral intuitions, the unfortunate synergism of individualism and emotivism. He concludes, “Morality was once revealed, inherited and shared, but now it’s thought of as something that emerges in the privacy of your own heart.” In his eyes, the state of young people’s moral lives, is “depressing.”

Yet, it remains to be determined if Brooks’ distress is warranted. The current strain of individualism present in American culture is persistent. However, the consequences of such a development are not yet determined. Can traditional sources of moral authority adapt to better relate to a changing population? Does fault lie with character of young people or the failures of moral education? Is this so called epidemic reversible or are we doomed to suffer the costs of moral relativism? Does moral individualism in fact represent a progression in moral structures that has not yet fully developed an independent vocabulary? Or is Brooks simply out of touch with today’s youth and his critique alarmist? Brooks’ analysis of Christian Smith’s findings presents one picture of America’s moral future. The magnitude, volume, and diversity of the response to his piece suggests that he does not speak authoritatively for all sectors of American opinion. As such, the controversy surrounding “If it Feels Right” has provided a springboard for the discussion of such important values issues on college campuses, places of worship, in the home, and on the Internet.

We at Georgetown, as a young academic community, are privileged to take part in a greater debate for the future of America’s moral fabric. The Berkley Center seeks to engage issues of private and public morality, beginning this week with a more thorough analysis of the reaction to Brooks’ work. If anything, we hope to combat the common misconception, one propagated by Brooks, that young people are uninterested in tacking the issues of morality and virtue of the day.

Opens in a new window