“Some sort of belief in all-powerful supernatural beings is common, if not universal. A tendency to obey authority, perhaps especially in children, a tendency to believe what you’re told, a tendency to fear your own death, a tendency to wish to see your loved ones who have died, to wish to see them again, a wish to understand where you came from, where the world came from, all these psychological predispositions, under the right cultural conditions, tend to lead to people believing in things for which there is no evidence.” – Dawkins.
At the centre of the cultural and ideological shifts that determine our formation as citizens of a new millennium, secularism takes, in my opinion, the top position. It promised to emancipate us from the agony of theocracy, encapsulated by a dogmatic structure, unappointed authoritative figures, and unequal structure, toward a brighter age of “enlightenment”. But, the hard reality below the surface speaks out differently. Since its encouragement, it could well be paving the way to a moral breakdown and the degeneration of society. So, rather paradoxically, it might not have boomed cohesion, but could be the very factor tearing our society apart.
During the Enlightenment Period, it introduced itself and was the long-awaited liberation from the oppressive structures of religious tyranny. Many intellectuals of that time were disenchanted with the power and authority of the church, so proposed a clean severance between it and the state. This, in essence, recreated itself within The French Revolution, where secularism became synonymous with liberalism and progression. Categorised by the end of religious privileges, affirmation of universal principles, and freedom of opinion, The French Revolution “championed the cause of the common people”. Central to this vision was the introduction of a republic, free from the influence of a clergy. Many intellectuals of that time, such as Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesquieu, argued the importance of civil liberties, democratic governance, and separation of powers. Their writings unleashed a series of political and social reforms across Europe and the Americas, digging itself into many dicta of the modern constitutions and legal setups.
However, the original thinkers did not intend on obliterating faith, but rather in equating the social playing field. Fast forward 250 years to the present day, and we come to find something completely different. Instead of being a protector of freedom and liberty, secularism has moved to actively marginalise religious views, downplaying the importance of cultural authority, reducing all truth to moral relativism, and encouraging militant atheism, leaving all forms of traditional belief systems and structures not only sidelined but often ridiculed. This inherent abolishment of moral structures, that once provided a sense of community and shared value system has been eroded, leading us to the most fragmented and deranged civilisation since its origin.
One of the most significant consequences of this shift is the impact on our ethical framework. In the realm of ethics, the absence of a universal moral code has led to ethical relativism. Moral judgements now hold the idea that the intention and consequence of a decision are subjective to the beholder, holding no truth in reality. This reinforces tolerance for different opinions, however, creating ambiguity and inconsistency in answering moral dilemmas. Thus, resulting in moral disorientation. Human beings and societies alike now grapple with ways of defining and promoting common standards for what is right and wrong.
Take, for instance, the moral predicament wherein an inmate outmoralises the life of an unborn baby. A coherent moral code would tell us that life is a life, and it deserves a chance to survive. But in its absence, a more important basic right to life has been given to an inhumane inmate at the expense of an innocent inside a womb. Therefore, several ethical questions arise regarding how society sets priorities while valuing different lives. If a consistent moral code states that all life should be considered equally valuable and deserving of that chance to live, then the discrepancy in how we treat an inhumane versus an unborn baby suggests fundamental inconsistency. The inmate, no matter how inhuman their actions have been in the past, often has a full spectrum of his rights protected: life, rehabilitation, and human treatment. But, the other way around, a defenceless and voiceless unborn baby is often stripped of this most fundamental right – the right to live. Legal, philosophical, and social problems separate a complete human form from an in-fringed fetus. Any such position can be interpreted as a failure of the belief that every life, no matter at what point or via what means it came into being, should be considered just important and protected.
The bottom line is that, for us to maintain a truly coherent moral code, society needs to accept this appears to imply that the life of a prisoner is more precious than an unborn baby. So, it bears the question: Why would the life of an innocent have less justification to live than the life of a guilty?
This ethical conundrum points to a general crisis of contemporary secularism: the erosion of a universally accepted moral compass. Without a shared foundation of values, moral dilemmas are extremely hard to navigate, making decision outcomes seem very arbitrary or unfair. The challenge then becomes finding a balance where individual rights are respected without undermining the intrinsic value of human life.
More generally, it represents a larger, philosophical shift in our understanding of epistemology and morality: from the emphasis on reason and individualism during the Enlightenment, it has transformed into skepticism about truth in the setting of post-modernism. This has given rise to the atmosphere of tolerance and pluralism, yes, yet also to a fragmentation of moral authority. Perspectives of each and every individual, without a unified ethical framework, are put on the same level, which renders problematic any possibility of teaching consensus on basic moral issues.
This fragmentation can be observed within a range of contexts, from everyday to exceptional. Debates over issues on abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment have revealed divisions in our thoughts over the value of life versus freedom. Such debates often leave polarisation because each side rests on separate moral principles, thus creating a deadlock within any meaningful conversations. It has now become imperative to revisit the very basis of our belief in ethics and see how it can be realigned with coherent morality. This must come at the re-engagement with some of the philosophical traditions: the intrinsic worth of human life and the value of human commonality of interest and self-worth.
This crisis coincides with the rise in consumerism and materialism to cultural domination. Without spiritual or moral instruction leading the way, the search for a way to accumulation and personal gratification by material means has, therefore, been one of the central tenets of modern existence. This materialist method can only lead to an existential emptiness and ultimate purposefulness since the quick dopamine releases replace true meaning and purpose in deeper connections.
Take, for example, the increased care in social media interactions, celebrity culture, and acquisition of material goods through workaholism. This, alongside the reduction in marriages, increased divorce rate, declining birth rate, skyrocketing abortion numbers, as well as the growing reliance on temporary and superficial relationships, highlights a broader societal shift. These trends are symptoms of a deeper issue, prioritising material success and hedonistic ideals over our innate responsibilities and enduring values.
More fundamentally and generally, such a view, belonging to secularism and therefore prioritisation of pleasure, induces promiscuity, suggesting that more meaningful pursuits give way to hedonistic propensities. It permeates all other areas and is far-reaching into the lives of personal well-being and societal solidarity, culminating unhappy and unhealthy populace. The attention paid to immediate gratification propels the accumulation of wealth and status symbols. Still, it may also set up a cycle of constant dissatisfaction since the chance for more material goods and social lust tends to lead toward interrupted satisfaction and minimal fulfilment. This has been further augmented by the increasing influence of technology and social media. This popularisation of comparison culture: a culture continuously measuring success against the ideals of the exceptional, is more often than not, an unidealistic life. The feeling evoked is that one is either achieving inadequacy or depression, where one struggles to reach unrealistic standards of happiness and success.
Furthering these issues is the erosion of traditional structures, such as marriage and the nuclear family. It only means that with a decrease in marriages, and an increase divorce rate, there is a noticeable trend toward breaking commitments to long-term relationships that have traditionally been considered the thread of security and support. In the same breath, the decrease in the birth rate and the rise in abortions indicate a drift in societal values wherein personal freedom and convenience outweigh the responsibility of parenthood and preservation of life. This dependence on the superficial is entirely congruent with an even more profound cultural hegemony toward individualism, hence the rebellion against collective well-being. It undermines the building of deep, meaningful connections that are the basis of emotional and psychological health.
For this to be solved, we would need to return to the foundations of our ethical and moral values. There ought to be a reintegration of philosophical traditions that had solid ground in human life, which placed significance on asceticism, innate value, communal interests and self-worth. Maintaining and transferring these values to the next generation is needed to address the root causes of our moral crisis. It can also provide balance to the pervasive materialist and consumerist ideology that plagues this contemporary culture. The teaching of traditional values – with emphasis on compassion, empathy, selflessness, and communal interest – will lead people to order their lives with meaning and purpose. Such values will foster stronger relationships, a more cohesive society, a healthier nation, and consider one’s success individualistic.
Vitality Blueprint 
Leave a comment