If older generations paint morality in black and white, young people's palettes are disappointingly grey.
At least that's how David Brooks explains it in a recent New York Times editorial about the morality of emerging adults. Brooks discusses a new book entitled "Lost in Transition" and uses data from it to argue that young people have no compass with which to traverse moral terrain.
Brooks states that instead of being able to differentiate right from wrong, those in their late teens and early twenties are apt to be non-judgmental and less willing to condone or condemn, unlike older generations. "Who am I to judge?" seems to be the motto of this group, and for Brooks, this kind of relativism indicates moral decline.
Now, my primary job hazard is that I speak with young people about moral issues. I teach religion at the college-level, where questions of right and wrong are the basis of discussion. In other words, my job offers a prime viewing spot for how youngsters navigate their moral landscape.
From being immersed in this supposedly amoral melting pot, here is what I've found: Brooks is right that many college-aged individuals do not have a traditional framework for tackling morality. Many are not immersed in religious traditions; few have taken ethics or philosophy courses.
That said, they are far from impotent when it comes to discussing right and wrong. First, they are deeply curious. They want to know what it means to live a good life. They want to know how to better our world. So while they may not be immersed in traditional moral frameworks, young people still invest themselves in moral questions.
Moreover, when they engage ethical questions, they have a tendency to think in incredibly creative ways because their perspectives have not been tainted by outside sources like philosophy or religion. That grants them a certain kind of innovation, though it also means they need to engage more traditional sources if they want to communicate with other generations for whom they are authoritative.
Second, as Brooks points out, young people have a tendency to be less judgmental and more empathic towards perspectives that differ from their own. This is not a bad thing. A comment like, "Who am I to judge?" shows an awareness that people do not make choices in a vacuum. They realize that violent upbringings or peaceful ones, sound school systems or dysfunctional ones, friends, money and opportunity all influence individuals. That awareness makes young adults less judgmental, but it does not make them morally illiterate. Instead, they base their beliefs in different sources, in compassion, psychology and lived experience instead of abstract thought.
Of course, it's no surprise that young adults are crafting moral models differently than their elders when vitriol taints our moral climate. One need only look to recent words spoken by politicians or, dare I say it, op-ed writers to see that. Young people watch these leaders, and they're disheartened. They see themselves surrounded by a Venus flytrap of toxic judgmentalism that older adults feed as if they were Seymour Krelborn in Little Shop of Horrors. Meanwhile, young adults see this kind of morality failing them. They see judgment trumping cooperation and resulting economic instability. Now wonder they're searching for a better way forward.
Of course, it is a timeless truth that every older generation thinks the younger one inheriting their legacy will destroy it. Whether there is any truth in this, I cannot say, as it is impossible to measure morality the way you would a cup of sugar. But what is clear is that young adults refuse to live in the black-and-white world painted by older generations and they have good reason to because it has not served them well. Perhaps, then, their morality is less grey than it is pink, purple and aqua. And maybe a little color, at this stage, is a good thing.
Follow Danielle Tumminio on Twitter: www.twitter.com/revdtumminio
The Barna Group - Young Adults and Liberals Struggle with Morality
Feature Articles - A NEW GENERATION OF ADULTS BEND MORAL ...
Young adults left adrift in sea of moral relativity - David Brooks ...
Young adults are amoral heathens, but what's new? | The Christian ...
It's All Greek to Them » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog
Good article, thank you.
Funny, I'm 75 and I really feel close to today's young people. I thought the boomers and the yuppies were too often dreary clods. This crop has some pizazz! I have hopes they may even turn out to be a new Woodstock generation.
On the other hand, the oh, so, moral adults have been on their best behavior, haven't they? With divorce rates among Christians at a much higher rate than among atheists, with the greed, the political activists who shout "Let him die!" about a man in a coma without health insurance, the hatred of older white Americans against blacks and latinos, the "Left Behind" novels gloating in the destruction of non-Christians after Christ's return, the wars in the Middle East, the work to deprive people of the vote, to reduce unemployment insurance, to take away Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and a host of other social ills.
Oh yes. Compared to the sins of older Adults, young adults are "moral".
None of us are completely moral. But if I had to make a choice, I would trust the moral compass of the young more than the scarred and bitter morality of the old.
The indictments against young adults are mostly deflection. Too many want to exercise control for selfish purposes, but be seen as moral anyway.
Jesus said to the Pharisees that the sinners and the tax-collectors would get into heaven before they would. There is a truth in that for this generation as well.
But, "older adults" do not "indict young people" from a moral vacuum, but from a Biblical perspective. And since you quoted Scripture, Jesus condemns just about everything you say the young are acvocating. Just because Jesus took on the Pharisees, does not mean that He condoned immoral lifestyles by those whom the Pharisees dispised.
Jesus said marriage was to be between a "man and a woman."
Jesus also condemned: adultery and fornication [sex outside of marriage] which automatically condemns "children out of wedlock."
I am not certain about what you mean by "alternate beliefs," but Jesus Himself said: I AM the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Me."
Regarding abortion, since Jesus is the giver of life, it would be impossible to make a moral case that Jesus would condone the killing of one of His little children (I find it irreconciable, that many Liberals who are anti-death penalty, are, at the same time, pro-abortion).
Granted, many in the older generation have had failures (although you far overstate your case).
Even in their failures, the older generation largely has a Biblical understanding of what is moral and what is not...which many of today's young people sadly lack.
Say what? Anyone who spends five minutes listening to the debate on any important moral or political point will see that there is no black and white world. Forget the grand International or National stage. Go to a town budget meeting where competing groups want more or less money spent on the schools, the dump, public works, etc., and you will hear multiple moral perspectives. If young people are getting an "everything is black and white" vibe from the older generation, they are not paying attention.
By the way, Brooks' main point is that young people were not learning the mental furniture necessary to coherently choose and argue moral choices.
Brooks ignores Buddhism, in which the dharma, or teaching, is one of the three arms of morality. But the ultimate goal in Buddhism in the understanding of cause and effect, not the hollow and often hypocritical posturing of the Abrahamic cults--which Brooks has written of as being superior--especially his. Buddhism requires each individual to reflect and be responsible not only for themselves but also for the world they touch. But morality begins not with the group, or dogma--it starts with the individual.
In an age of massive corporate sophistry; ethics being used as PR opts by vested interests and the total bastardization of good & bad; to assume that the young are stupid enough to adapt a system so obviously failing is beyond delusional. And to set one's self up as being the Arbiter is yet another foolery.
I am not a prude and I tell my share of stories in private that might be considered inappropriate in a public setting. Unfortunately, I hear the F-word in public much too often. I understand that it is just a word, but I would still appreciate some public propriety so I do not have to hear it when I am in the mall with my wife or when moving through the grocery store isles.
I also think that there has been a wave of poor or limited parenting in a number of instances. I often see young children (pre-teens or early teens) sitting in an "R-rated" movie next to their parents. Invariably there is a scene in the movie that deals with life in the raw and I hope that the parents realize what they are doing by exposing their children to that experience.
Call me old fashioned, but I like a bit more civility in public places and spaces!
Support Fairness and the Common Good in Government. Follow One Man Roaring on Twitter: http://twitter.com/omroaring
I could not agree more. I think it is likely that that word will become the equivalent of saying "darn" a hundred years from now.
How we choose to live together, morality as many would call it, should not be concerned with some abstract objective notion of The Good and The Bad and mindlessly condemning those who do Bad. It is about recognizing when something just ain't working and managing the situation to maximize the well-being of all involved. Or at least that is the sort of society I want to belong to.
About the religions and philosophers, many of them still seem stuck on discussing The Good and The Bad even though it is obvious there is no real The Good or The Bad or objective morality and it is clear how destructive this juvenile approach to "moral" issues is.
I don't care about The Good Life. But I would like a good life.
To summarize what I said, I agree with the author. The older generation's approach to morality has been mindless, dogmatic, black and white, and abstract, more of a focus on condemning people for violating an abstract list of rules than promoting any serious form of well-being. In fact, almost a disregard for well-being. For example with adultery, their approach has tended to be to condemn the adulterer and end the marriage. I don't endorse adultery by any means. But it does happen, I've known people whom its happened to, and I think it is often a sign of people's innate biological tendencies as well as a problem with the relationship. Why condemn the adulterer when you could be finding out what is wrong with the relationship and repair the marriage? You could try an open marriage or simply reconnecting. For some people this works extremely well. And to be blunt, I don't see the "morality" or valuing of marriage in destructive vengeance against a wrong doer that ends a marriage.
Best
Jan
Consider how with adultery, they are so quick to condemn the adultery and end the marriage. This is ridiculous. Now I wouldn't want to cheat on my spouse or be cheated on, but the fact of the matter is a lot of people cheat. And there seems to be a genetic basis for whether or not you will cheat. When someone cheats, the first thing I think is what happened, obviously something is going on with this person and their marriage. I want to see the marriage be preserved in a way that fits both partners' needs. I know people who have cheated on their spouse. If your marriage has a problem and it can be corrected by reconnecting or an open marriage, I prefer that to divorce. But the older generation doesn't care about the marriage, they never did value marriage, they just care about condemning the adulterer and ending the marriage.
It's funny really.
I think both authors (Brooks & Tumminio), are seeing valid perspectives of the situation. But I think the truth of the matter, as it so often does, lies somewhere in-between the two points.
Agreed, I would say that most of my peers have a greater degree of moral relativity than preceding generations. They are aware of their own, relative, position. Further, most have not been brought up in a setting that strictly tied morality to religious teaching / dogma. However, this total relativism can take a step too far. Yes, a good dose of relativism is good. But, and of increasing importance in this globalized world, we must be able to engage in critical discussions of morality with the ability establish and maintain a prerogative.
While this dose of moral relativism is a wonderful aspect, if it is not honed and strengthened through thought and discussion, it becomes it's own worst enemy. And I have not seen where many young people, outside of a philosophy or ethics, or religion class, can discuss these issues in a critical fashion, in a space where they feel free to exposes their privately held ideas.
But they never have a place to practice, or refine, this moral judgment. They have no reason to reflect on it. They have no reason to think about morality. But as stated, THEY ARE CURIOUS. But it's not something that's stressed to young people.
Hold on a second there. You mean the older generation's approach of using morality to condemn and punish people even if it made life on earth worse is rational? Strikes me as more of a juvenile emotional response. Far too mindless to be called rational.
Also, I frowned upon the "save the world" types as a teen and young adult. Well before 24 I frowned upon such things.
It isn't about idealism. I don't want the world saved. But I would like it run in a way that did improve life for people and wasn't so mindless and irrational.
Your last statement basically supports my position about the responsive mind; it responds to rmyional issues and is driven more by emotion than "reason". If you look back on high school, you might remember all the clubs snd associations that the responsive mind is attracted to. The motivation behind virtually all of them was some sort of " save the world" , "make the world a better place" type thing. It's when that individual matures, then s/he realizes that "saving the world" or "making the world a better place" has to start with the idealistic person. When one reaches maturity they then realize that it's not easy being a NFL qb or a good parent or President of the United States. The responsive mind is easily beguiled because it's more inclined to responding emotionally rather than seeing the whole picture. Thecrespondive mind is easy prey for cults, gangs, " following the crowd" and doing "dumb stuff" because is mind tells him/her that they are wrong and he/she is right. This is why you "frowned" ( and no doubt argued over and over)on certain things...rather than thinking about
solutions to life's various issues.
On top of that, you assertion that the "natural progression of the human mind is to mature into the rational" mind is simply incorrect. Humans have the capacity for reason, but we are not, by nature, reasonable beings. We are, by nature, survivalists. Everyone thinks emotionally and intuitively first and rationally second. We operate via heuristics (best guesses), not logic.
-Sources: Cognitive, Social and Developmental Psychology
The reason why kids are notvtried as adults is the obervstion that their minds aren't "mature" enough to have "reasoned" out the reprevussions of their actions. Now while society gives them a break, I agree with the Bible that when one plans to take another's life ( plot) they do know right from wrong. The idea behind the rational mind( mature) is that one is to think about the sensory information they are being exposed to then " think" about a plan. I would say that animals follow your line of thinking as more reactionary creature because theyvreallybdon't have thentimevor capacity to "think" in their environment. Man doesn't live by instincts so thinking is his way of surviving. A teenager's or Pre adult( rational mind) is more emotional (reactionary) than a normal adult mind. It is what it is.
Ultimately, there is no such thing as speaking and acting divorced from some kind of "philsophical" tradition or world-view. In this sense, commenter @JosephSchmoe below does not seem to understand that, ultimately, there is no such thing as "objective" speech. Perhaps if he DID spend some time at Yale he might know that.
However, perhaps objectivity can be reasonably suggested to be introduced by, and to refer to, a potentially unique combination of obtained concepts that appears capable of transpiring within the perspective of each individual.
I welcome your thoughts.
No one can effectively or even honestly lump any group of people together and pretend to speak for them, let alone speak objectively, without simply demonstrating their own deeply-held beliefs and prejudices.
They're both guilty of painting with broad brushes, let alone numerous other logical fallacies.
I sure am glad I didn't waste any college tuition funds on my children at Yale.