Berkley Center

The multitude of perspectives on the research that inspired David Brooks’ op-ed, "If It Feels Right...," are limitless, but for the sake of brevity we will focus a more substantial review on two opposing viewpoints that are particularly thought provoking. As we recently explored, for some, Christian Smith’s findings are actually a sign of moral progress being interpreted by an actor stuck in an old moral framework. Their optimistic defense of a new moral paradigm is intriguing, but ultimately for many, too rosy an understanding of human nature. What evidence is there to suggest that man has evolved beyond the need for structures of moral restraint? Yet, these same writers approach the current moral vogue of individualism and possibly even relativism with more hope than Brooks. They reject Brooks’ inflammatory language as the rhetoric of an older generation tainted by nostalgia.

Youth culture has been traditionally infused with rebellion against the rules and regulations of their fathers and mothers. Yet, despite its many different forms and flavors, moral upheaval is greatly restrained, as the youth become mothers and fathers. Adam J. Copeland titles his post “Young Adults are amoral heathens, but what’s new?” Amorality of the youth is a constant theme of history; it is the content of their rebellion that changes. Even Copeland concedes that this generation faces an increasingly complex set of moral choices in “our consumeristic [sic] pluralized technologically-advanced globalized world.” Yet despite the new challenges modern societies bring, such writers find a sense of security in the patterns of history. Man will overcome these moral obstacles just as he has for centuries before.

Such writers are quick to point out that combating moral decay requires adaptation, particularly in the way moral values are taught. Rabbi Geoffrey A. Mitelman, writing for the Huffington Post, suggests that young people must engage moral issues at a deep and critical level in order to “own their sense of morality.” However, traditional sources of moral authority - parents, teachers, and religious institutions - are in the present day more likely to try to give students virtue. They are more inclined to give a top-down response than provide a student with the tools necessary to work through an issue on their own. Oversimplifying nuanced dilemmas robs a young person of the opportunity to think analytically. Fundamentally young America’s lack of moral vocabulary is a failure of education. What Mitelman proposes is “the Ikea affect.” The term borrowed from Dan Airley’s work in behavioral economics contends that when we create something, we have a deeper attachment to it. Just as when we build something ourselves, like an Ikea bookshelf, we are more likely to appreciate the outcome. For this generation, the solution to moral individualism is its transformation to moral ownership.

Additionally, as Peter Coyote points out in his Letter to the Editor, strong moral role models are essential in order to mold young adults into virtuous citizens. The recent financial crisis weighs heavily on the minds of many young people. It is difficult to ignore those who have been rewarded for their moral bankruptcy. In order to expect a flourishing moral vocabulary from young America, one must first demand the same from those in positions of authority. The point, however, is that society has the opportunity to transform young America’s moral vision. Unlike Brooks, who seems to have left little hope for the current generation, or the moral progressives who accept a new moral paradigm, a group of Americans believes that with adaptation absolute moral decay can be avoided because history has routinely produced elements of moral revival.

Traditional sources of moral authority have the power to address these issues, but they must adapt appropriately. Places of worship, families, teachers, and civic institutions can be culturally relevant without buying into the potentially negative consequences of moral individualism. Mockingbird, a widely read blog by 'Lutheranized Episcopalians' David Zahl and Ethan Richardson, addresses the roll of the American church in these issues. They suggest that the true freedom that young people seek in moral individualism is actually found in the traditional teachings of the church. Authors such Zhal, Richardson, and Rabbi Mitleman attest that a close understanding of present culture allows traditional institutions to continue to serve as the foundation of American society, while reforming to best meet its needs. The American people face incredible challenges, but the fabric of a moral society is not yet lost.