The world has changed so much
that traditionally good things now often show negative consequences,
while formerly "bad" things are seen in a much more positive light.
For example, it used to be that transforming wilderness into roads,
cities and arable land was a sign of progress. Nowadays, there are
so few virgin forests left that most people would agree that they
should be preserved at all cost. Similarly, in previous times sex
outside marriage was viewed as an inherently dangerous phenomenon,
responsible for spreading diseases and destabilizing families.
Presently, thanks to the use of antibiotics and contraceptives,
extramarital sex is seen as rather innocuous, and a matter of
personal preferences rather than a danger to society. Recently, the
spread of AIDS has made irregular sex dangerous again, but that
might change once more with the development of an HIV vaccine.
Scientific and technological
innovations continuously create new questions, which the
traditional value systems cannot answer. For example, the
preservation of human life seems a universal value, valid for all
times and ages. Medical science has discovered many ways to keep
people alive who would otherwise have died. But when the suffering
becomes too great, would it not be better to let the patient quietly
die, rather than artificially prolong a miserable life? There are no
ready-made answers to such problems.
Many religious people see genetic manipulation of living
organisms as evil, since it implies humans playing the role of God.
Others see it as merely a more efficient way of doing what people
have always done: selectively breeding plants and animals in order
to increase farming productivity. The fact is that traditional
religious teachings have nothing to say about the issue. None of the
great prophets could have foreseen the discovery of DNA splicing.
Therefore, you can hardly expect their writings to guide you in the
matter.
Most people agree that drugs which create a chemical addiction
are evil, since they they tend to destroy individuals and families.
Few are aware, however, that new electronic technologies, from
virtual reality computer games to direct brain stimulation, have the
potential to produce even stronger forms of addiction. Eventually,
rules controlling the use of these technologies will have to be
established. Again, there is no ethical system that can help us in
formulating such rules.
The potential of science and technology to create new ethical
issues is infinite. Every new discovery can be used for good or for
bad. But how do we decide what is good and what is bad? Postmodern
fragmentation has eroded all belief systems: religion, culture,
philosophy, even science, have all been reduced to a jumble of bits
and pieces without universal value. Different groups advocate
different values. In a democratic, multicultural society the
prevailing attitude is one of "live and let live": everybody has the
right to his or her own opinion, as long as it is not imposed on the
rest of the population. But this creates a dangerous situation,
where selfish, neurotic, or even criminal behavior can be justified
on the basis of idiosyncratic rules. Self-proclaimed "prophets" and
preachers commonly start their own churches, with the main intention
to extort money from credulous followers. Given the freedom of
religion, it is very difficult to control such parasitic
organizations. Who is to say whether one religious system is more
worthy than another one?
The absence of a shared value system, of a consensus about "dos"
and "don'ts", has profound effects on individuals and society. The
absence of goals makes that many people lack a sense of direction.
They desperately search for meaning, for a
mission they could devote their life to. Different religious sects
and cults have arisen to cater for that need. But the world views they
propose are severely restricted, and often dangerously detached from
reality.
Others look at kings, presidents or religious leaders for
guidance. But these leaders too have lost their sense of direction.
Moreover, because of the rapid changes and growing complexity of
society they have much less control over the course of events than
people think they have. The result is a general disenchantment with
political and religious institutions. It seems that politicians the
world over have reached record lows in popularity. People's
satisfaction with governments and supranational institutions is
universally poor.
In reaction, many turn their back on society and its
institutions. The increased permissiveness, resulting from the
erosion of traditional "don'ts", has made it easier to experiment
with unorthodox activities. Many of those, such as use of soft
drugs, computer hacking and hooliganism, take place in a twilight
zone, where the border between crime and "normal" behavior has
blurred. The climate of nihilism and despair fosters even more
radical reactions, like terrorism, drug addiction or suicide. The
growing inequality between rich and poor moreover has increased the
temptation to make money quickly but illegally, through corruption,
tax evasion, theft, or the trafficking of drugs, arms or people.
Because of the easier movement of people, information and goods and
the increasing complexity of society, law enforcing institutions
find it increasingly difficult to control such criminal behavior. It
is not surprising then that, after a long period of decrease, crime
is again on the rise in many parts of the world.
Often the reaction of society is to try and turn back the clock.
Politicians regularly advocate a return to law and order and a
re-establishement of traditional family values. In its more extreme
form, this conservative backlash can take the form of religious
fundamentalism, or of extreme right, xenophobic movements. The
problem is that the clock cannot be turned back. There simply is no
traditional value system capable to guide a fast moving and complex
society like ours. Artificially imposing an outdated morality is
likely to make things worse. It would create a growing class of
outcasts: individuals, families, organizations or ideas that simply
don't fit into the model. The danger is that this may appeal to a
public looking for scapegoats: if the problems can be blamed on
immigrants, one parent families, pornography or the Internet, no
deeper explanations seem to be needed. Yet, the only way to really
get a grasp on the problem is to develop a new system of values,
adapted to a world of complexity and change.