March 16, 2002

A New Morality? Jeff Jarvis

A New Morality? Jeff Jarvis has some interesting thoughts tying together Enron, Andersen, the Catholic scandal and the war on terrorism (scroll to the "Right v. wrong" post):

I predict that this all will lead to some fundamental moral changes in society in our time. Because of Enron and Andersen and the Catholic crimes (not to mention the black-v.-white fight against terrorism and religious evil and not to mention President Clinton's moral lapses), I think people will seek simpler, clearer moral rules (and they won't necessarily look to religion to help formulate them). On the one hand, this could be good and healthy: We will raise a generation that comes to expect and demand truth and adherence to laws. On the other hand, this could lead to a moral absolutism that could be just as dangerous and difficult to live with as religious fundamentalism. All this destruction, all this change, all this danger because a few people, a powerful few chose to ignore the difference between right and wrong. What a sin.
I think there will also be a lasting new Responsibility, along the lines of wrestling down hijackers and such. People will be more likely to believe it is up to them to guarantee things like their own family's safety, and will probably fight back when attacked, and jump into burning buildings to pull out humans. Unlike, say, Saudi Arabian moralists. Speaking of that disgusting act, please consult William Quick's angry and eloquent reaction. We now have the responsibility to express outrage at the truly outrageous, and to fact-check the truly false. But don't forget Jarvis' warnings about "moral absolutism." The truth hurts, but especially when you're wrong.

Posted by at March 16, 2002 05:35 PM
Comments
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






id="container">

March 16, 2002

A New Morality? Jeff Jarvis

A New Morality? Jeff Jarvis has some interesting thoughts tying together Enron, Andersen, the Catholic scandal and the war on terrorism (scroll to the "Right v. wrong" post):

I predict that this all will lead to some fundamental moral changes in society in our time. Because of Enron and Andersen and the Catholic crimes (not to mention the black-v.-white fight against terrorism and religious evil and not to mention President Clinton's moral lapses), I think people will seek simpler, clearer moral rules (and they won't necessarily look to religion to help formulate them). On the one hand, this could be good and healthy: We will raise a generation that comes to expect and demand truth and adherence to laws. On the other hand, this could lead to a moral absolutism that could be just as dangerous and difficult to live with as religious fundamentalism. All this destruction, all this change, all this danger because a few people, a powerful few chose to ignore the difference between right and wrong. What a sin.
I think there will also be a lasting new Responsibility, along the lines of wrestling down hijackers and such. People will be more likely to believe it is up to them to guarantee things like their own family's safety, and will probably fight back when attacked, and jump into burning buildings to pull out humans. Unlike, say, Saudi Arabian moralists. Speaking of that disgusting act, please consult William Quick's angry and eloquent reaction. We now have the responsibility to express outrage at the truly outrageous, and to fact-check the truly false. But don't forget Jarvis' warnings about "moral absolutism." The truth hurts, but especially when you're wrong.

Posted by at March 16, 2002 05:35 PM
Comments
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






= true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> = true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //-->