Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Modern Vacuum of Ethical Restraint
I believe that the remarkable changes in our society are largely due to a few things happening either all at once or at least in rapid succession: First, we have moved away from God. Nietzsche got the ball rolling when he subtly pointed out that God is Dead, but now if a Christian says “God is good” then everybody rolls their eyes. (Interestingly, if certain Muslims say the same thing, everybody ducks.)
Regardless, the idea that each of us lives according to the ideals of someone greater than ourselves is considered, well, provincial. Perhaps quaint. Certainly non-scientific and outside the realm of polite, reasonable society. But then some other things happened:
The idea of pride and shame was also degraded into a primitive impulse to be avoided except in antiquated cultures. Public ostracism was sneered upon as “judgmental.” Who are you to judge? Because after all, we all answer to ourselves! So you can’t criticize me for striving to live up to whatever ethical guidelines I decided for myself the day before yesterday! Partially because I’ve already changed them in ways that I don’t fully understand! And so on.
And then our family structure has been either damaged or disregarded. Every TV show has the father portrayed as, at best, a bumbling fool. With the wife and kids trying to work around his foolishness without hurting his feelings more than necessary for a good laugh.
Then the concept of law has been degraded as well. So many men are in prison only because of racist cops. Laws are so numerous that no one can follow them all. Regulatory agencies and courts enact laws outside the democratic process, and those laws are clearly not legitimate and thus should be discretely avoided without making the father figure (government) feel silly, just like the TV dad. Or God. Or family. Or societal norms.
Nietzsche (a flawed genius, but unquestionably a genius) predicted that this vacuum of ethical restraint would result in societal upheaval, violence, and a complete restructuring of human interactions. All of which has come to pass, almost precisely as he predicted.
So – what now? Some of what has been torn asunder cannot easily be rebuilt. I posit that modern western society is clearly unsustainable. So what’s next? Human nature is not nice. And now it acts without the restraint of God, society, family, or government. We seem to view the concept of freedom as simply the liberty to do whatever the heck we want. This is not working out all that well. To me, the concept of personal freedom doesn’t even make sense without personal responsibility. Today we ask, “Responsible to who?” If the answer is just to ourselves, than Nietzsche would say (and did say) that we have a very serious problem.
What do you think? Am I overstating the changes in western society? Where are we going? And can our course be altered at this late stage? If so, how?
Thank you for your input.
Published in General
I’ll throw out some amateur political analysis in the tolerance department.
Prior to the mid 90s, state recognized marriage was ridiculed by most homosexuals as a “het” institution that they didn’t need or want. I think there’s actually some very politically incorrect social statistics that bear that out for men.
Some say the whole gay marriage thing was strictly just another tactic for the Democratic Party to gain more power or whatever. I have no big opinion, other than I do remember it being that way for a long time.
It’s a function of society’s accumulated wealth too. Child labor went away partly because we didn’t need it to survive anymore.
We need today’s youth to be more optimistic than pessimistic – and I hope that’s the case. What’ different today than 70 years ago is social media and the rapid way an idea can spread – toxic or otherwise. I’m not sure what is taught today within Common Core, but older folks have wisdom based on the conditions that led to the catastrophes we’ve seen in past history, even recent past history. Now there is so much political correctness (censorship) it is also driving group think – and this is how dictators rise, wars start and boundaries are eliminated.
This is so true. Child labor laws, like environmental regulations, handicapped ramps etc, lifetime pensions for government employees, and so many other causes of the left – these are all really just luxuries of a society made wealthy by free markets and other things the left despises.
You would think this would give Democrats pause. But no.
Peter Schiff is really good at explaining this type of thing. He said the 50s were similar. Everyone thinks our economy was so great during that time simply because all of our competitors got bombed all the hell. In reality all kinds of human and actual capital got unleashed after the depression and the suppressive, controlled WW2 economy.
I wish Peter Schiff would cut the straight economic education out of all of his podcasts and sell it separately. He’s very good at explaining Austrian economics and history.
What She said.
My youngest is the Marine, ST.
The point being as religious attitudes decreased concern for human welfare remained.
My 15 minutes of fame.
I don’t think that that’s something you can just assert.
No idea what that is referencing.
I am not making the arrangement that one form of censorship is better then the other. But that the lack of religious motivated censorship is good. It is not a binary choice between secular blasphemy or religious blasphemy attitudes.
I would say that the 20th century put a test to that theory. Results were inconclusive (only 100 million or so souls died horribly) but seem to point to the fact that not all religious ‘attitudes’ were created by God.
One of the reasons I don’t have a problem with a right to privacy, however SCOTUS justified it, is the same reason some of the founders didn’t want a bill of rights: the feds would limit our rights to those enumerated. I think we DO have a right to privacy; the Constitution doesn’t say we don’t. I don’t think the right to privacy stretches to killing unborn children, though.
So others where worse thus…..
Yes and you should be proud. The Ricochet comment of the quarter is a rare and highly regarded award. To put it into perspective it is something like Obama’s first (anticipating that there will be at least a second) Nobel Peace Prize but without the cash award.
I’m staggered by the honor.
Probably because, if I recall correctly, you’re a Canadian. Yes? (If so, it’s OK, I’m a green-card carrying Brit. But I live in the States, and have for years).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law)
I understand the first part. The bond market collapsing I have no clue about.
I think he is talking about armageddon/ the apocalypse.
I DID just order 1k rounds of .223.
The Fed’s ability to goose the economy, suppress interest rates, and monetize debt allows politicians to engage in largess, never make hard choices or fund all kinds of repressive government programs. Inflation reduces the the cost of government debt. Asset bubbles generate taxes. Crime pays and honest productivity is for suckers.
The debt to GDP and the unfunded liabilities can’t keep going in this trajectory. No way. Something has to give. When the 10 year treasury hits 4% the U.S. government is broke. Too much debt issued at low interest rates will make something break at some point.
The thing is other areas like Japan or whatever can be worse than us or have severe problems and that makes people demand U.S. treasuries. So it gets put off. It could be prevented but that would require Congress to be very intelligent and act with integrity.
Ha, ha, ha. If twenty-one trillion in debt isn’t broke, I’m not sure what is.
I don’t think you can substantiate this. In this country, many of the improvements in workplace safety have far more to do with man’s entrepreneurial and innovative spirit combined with a relatively free and stable marketplace which rewards advances in technology and productivity. The religious affiliation of those entrepreneurs may or may not have anything to do with it, so in order to prove your assertion, it seems to me that you have to show just to what extent there has been a decrease in the Judeo/Christian practice of the individuals in these fields. I’m not so sure that the basic profit motive isn’t more of a factor. You initially mentioned this as part of your post stating what was better with increased secularization – I just don’t think there’s much of a connection.
By contrast, look at the track record of working conditions in atheist countries, such as China and North Korea. Where there is no recognition of the inherent worth and dignity of each person as a child of God, they often become no more than useful cogs in a wheel, and are expendable.
Our EMR is roughly .8. It’s a competitive advantage.
? Asked Mr. Google but he does not seem to know either.
…for your military assault rifle with fixed bayonet?
This is an oversimplification, but you can’t control spending politically if you have a central bank that “helps” the economy (helps the whores overspend, really) on a discretionary basis. Discretionary rules. This is why I never get excited about Republicans overspending, and the omnibus stuff and all the related crap they go on and on about on Hate Radio.
Take a sleeping pill. This too shall pass.
Isn’t it obvious?? You state that one of the benefits of increased secularization is the treatment of gays. I pointed out that atheists don’t have a better record. That seems to negate your assertion, wouldn’t you agree? The truth is, a person who is gay is much more likely to be treated better today in a country with a Judeo/Christian tradition than in other places. Atheistic regimes don’t have a good track record on this.