Where have our standards gone?

Australia's social standards are being eroded, writes Senator Cory Bernardi.

Evidence of our decaying values is presented with monotonous regularity in our daily papers and on our plasma screens. We can witness cruelty and hate in high definition via YouTube or see 'happy-slapping' on our mobile phone.

It has to make you wonder what our world is coming to.

Now I know that people have done impulsive and foolish things since the dawn of time. It's part of growing up and learning from good and bad experiences. 

As a parent, you can only hope to equip your children with the correct decision making framework that will help them to make choices without catastrophic consequences.

Somewhere along the way, this goal seems to have deserted an increasing number of parents and the damage it is doing to young lives and our society could be permanent.

Many readers will be familiar with the boundary pushing and questioning of authority that characterise adolescence. Looking back, one hopes that others forget our youthful indiscretions on our journey to adulthood. In most cases this is true.

Less than a decade ago, few would have sent an abusive letter or email replete with profanity. The mere idea of including foul language in a written communication as a permanent record would be considered most unwise.

Yet today, the Facebook generation think nothing of attaching their name to vile abuse of those they know (or don't). They join online groups in support of the most depraved and callous actions because they think it is funny, tough or mature.

And it's not just adolescents. A surprising number of adults also email or post online messages of hate or abuse.

The fact that this type of behaviour rarely raises an eyebrow any more suggests that the social mores that have kept society civil and functioning are rapidly breaking down.

The evidence to support this surrounds us every day.

We are now a society that demonises smokers but seems to accept an illicit drug culture. Somehow it has become okay to sexualise five year olds through provocative dance videos but offensive to speak about Christianity.

Why is it that we defend the right of extremists to free speech yet remain silent in defending our own culture and society? 

It seems the greatest public offence today is to actually speak out in favour of traditional values and virtues. In the name of progress and tolerance our moral code is now deemed relative with all views, no matter how divergent, being equally valid.

Well, at the risk of incurring the wrath of the moral relativists, I won't subscribe to that theory. There is a clear difference between good and bad, and right from wrong. It is about time we started saying so again.

To remain silent will have potentially devastating consequences for our children and our society.

Senator Cory Bernardi is the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition and a Senator for South Australia. This article is courtesy of his personal blog which can be found at http://www.corybernardi.com.

Comments

[Grantley]

1.

Good discusion piece Senator, but...Ye Gods....where to start!!?

OK, I'm old school. Bad behaviour in young children is dealt with by a smack on the ass (not to be confused with bashing),along with an explanation of right & wrong and what is & is not acceptable behaviour in a given circumstance / situation. That sets parameters and boundaries...without them human beings flounder.

I feel really really sorry for young parents caught up in the modern world, I see it with my own grandkids...making un-necessary mistakes because they do not know the boundaries. Families try & set boundaries but are undermined by the lowest common denominator factor once the kids get to kindy.

Then enter the advertising world of modern media. From a very early age our children are subjected to a barrage of advertising that is designed to influence them, this advertising pays no heed to what is right or wrong, only what sells. Kids are not allowed to be kids anymore, the boundary of childhood joys long ago blurred to make the kids believe they are missing out on something.

The short answer Cory....there isn't one. (sadly). Rather it falls on each individual to make the best value judgement they possibly can, which in turn will be determined by their own life experiences.

Governments could do a lot to re-iterate "societal standards" but I fear that would be seen as intrusive and obnoxious to the chattering minority.

I fully expect to get howled down here, but hey, its a discussion piece....isn't it?

[TerjeP]

2.

When you say "public offence" what do you mean?

In terms of illicit drugs I'd like a return to traditional values and traditional laws. Heroin in Australia was not illegal before 1954. Prohibition has done incredible damage to the fabric of our society and it is about time that conservatives face up to the facts regarding prohibition. The denial exhibited by conservatives on this issue is outrageous. The culture of drugs they loath (hey I loath it also) is in the most part a product of the laws they support.

[Clinton Mead]

3.

I agree with the most of the article, however I disagree that people are worse now than they were before.

I think an increase in crime is significantly due to less good ordinary people being armed (and this is significantly due to Howard). Talking to some people much older and wiser than me, not much more than 40 years ago, it would not have been unusual to see a cadet unit of high schoolers catching the train home with their rifles in hand.

In addition, the socialist top down approach that is the drug war has made the black market trade more lucrative and as a result organized crime around it has increased.

Both of these issues aren't caused by society, but government. Government taking over the role of individuals and families to defend themselves, and governments taking over the role of families, churches and communities to fight the evils of drug use (it's much harder to fight drug use as a church or community when the state criminalises its victims, forcing them away from legal institutions like churches and into organised crime).

Both of these issues were dealt with quite reasonably 50 years ago, we didn't have a drug war, and the associated organised crime, and people could have arms for the purpose of defending their family and their homes.

Regarding profane Facebook messages, or pushing sexuality on children, these are concerning. However, I believe the frequency of these events is largely due to the accessibility and ease of use of electronic media.

Also, keep in mind, whilst the "good old days" had traditional values such as politeness, the "good old days" also had traditional values such as two World Wars and the Holocaust.

You seem to imply that adults should grow out of the questioning of authority that characterise adolescence. However, it is this lack of questioning of authority that allowed evils such as the two World Wars to occur in the western world. I believe the reason why these things have not occurred on such a scale again in the western world is because people do increasingly question their governments authority.

If traditional values of not questioning authority means western society half destroying itself like it attempted twice early last century, then I want no part of these traditional values, and would much rather deal with a bit of swearing.

[Adrian Murdoch]

4.

Clinton,

In fact, the crime rate has actually been dropping for a long time, and it was dropping before Port Arthur, so gun control has not impacted the crime rate in any way.

[Grantley]

5.

Clinton....I'm not sure I would advocate a return to the "good 'ol days", there was much rotten back then, when surely we know better today.

Values such as common courtesy, responsibility and respect are the first things we appear to throw out or de-value.

We(read society) seem unable to heed any of the lessons of the past.

[Claire]

6.

If Menzies House would like to be taken more seriously as an organisation involved in serious political discourse, perhaps they need to be more discerning about what they publish.

Senator Bernardi would appear to be contributing at a rate of about an article a week. I'm guessing because it is about the only outlet that is willing to publish his work.

Senator Bernardi is entitled to express his views, but this article as a case in point is typical of the quality of article he submits. The entire article does not contain a single example to illustrate his argument. It is subjective drivel. His anti Burka piece was based on the argument that someone could wear one to commit a robbery, therefore they should be banned in public. This is hardly the stuff of Hobbes or Mills.

[Clinton Mead]

7.

Grantley:

I agree, but I don't believe that all is horrible with people as the Senator seems to suggests.

My concern is that this is more of the same "people can't look after themselves" message that politicians are increasingly pushing, resulting in more socialism and authoritarianism from our government.

This trend towards authoritarianism and socialism, and the rise of Communist China, is much more of a threat to Western civilisation than the distractions of rudeness or even extremist terrorism.

I wouldn't be as worried about authoritarianism and socialism if it was only pushed by extremists, like terrorism, but worryingly authoritarianism and socialism is becoming increasingly mainstream.

This is a larger threat to Western society than a few terrorist nutters, and it's only a couple of thousand kilometres north of us.

[Clinton Mead]

8.

But surely you enjoyed the 19th installment of the aptly named "A very cruddy fable" released a few days ago?

[Andrew Ames]

9.

Claire, your comment is rather childish and does nothing to respond to the opinion that the senator has put forward. I would say your opinion has more to do with you disliking the senator rather than his comments. Take your own advice and actually raise some critical questions in response. You'll have more credibility then.

[Claire]

10.

My points were perfectly valid and I fail to see what is childish in arguing for better standards of argument. I have no personal dislike for Senator Bernardi, I have never met the man. I do dislike his articles. They present no real arguments, merely statements that are not backed with any facts, data or even examples.

I do not even understand what this article is about other than a whinge on the perceived moral decline of society. It does not illustrate of what exactly this moral decline consists, the causes, the effects and what he suggests can be done.

As someone who purports to be a thinking conservative, Senator Bernardi needs to do a better job of presenting well thought out arguments for his cause. As a young person who swings somewhere in between being a moderate and a conservative I am very open and interested in hearing the arguments for conservatism, but Senator Bernardi falls well short of convincing.

[Davidmrussell]

11.

Claire has a valid point in that bemoaning a state of affairs without profffering a potential solution is hardly likely to achieve substantive change. I also agree with her comments about the burqa piece. But the issue remains: what can be done to reinvigorate an appreciation of values in contemporary society?

Personally, I think televsion has had a greater influence than any other initiative in fostering a decline in standards. Bit hard to shut the gate now that the horse has well and truly bolted. Even so, I think tighter standards - at certain times of the day - would assist (especially in areas like kids and advertising). But, even so, promos for crimeprograms show some horrrendous things prior to 8.30. I'm hardly a wowser and these things don't offfend me personally but they do have an influence on more impressionable members of society.
The general comments about society relinquishing authority/responsibility to government ring true. The breakdown of parental responsibility is appalling. Sadly, I'm not even sure how this declined quite so disastrously nor how to fix it. One tiny suggestion: teach kids about nutrition and basic cooking skills at school. If we can wean them off debilitating fast food we might enhance thinking skills.

I believe values started to get an airing in curricula during the Howard years but I'm not sure how far and how well that may have been done. Certainly,I think we need to promote discussion about values - rather than mandating a prescribed set - so we can create greater awareness of their value to individual and collective lives. Franklyk even small beginnings like this are beneficial.

[Ben]

12.

Claire claims that some people wouldn’t post the Senator’s articles. Well that’s more of a reason to post them.

[Armchair Diplomat]

13.

Claire is right. Take this:

"And it's not just adolescents. A surprising number of adults also email or post online messages of hate or abuse.

The fact that this type of behaviour rarely raises an eyebrow any more suggests that the social mores that have kept society civil and functioning are rapidly breaking down.

The evidence to support this surrounds us every day."

Well then, perhaps you could point out some of this evidence, Senator? Maybe here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/04/2784748.htm

or perhaps here?: http://www.dailymercury.com.au/story/2010/02/11/officer-target-of-hate-page/

or: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/students-attack-teacher-with-hate-page-on-facebook/story-e6freoof-1225792307777

hmm... oh wait... this doesn't demonstrate "The fact that this type of behaviour rarely raises an eyebrow any more" - quite the opposite. maybe that's why the Senator presents no examples. The media and society IS raising its collective eyebrows.

[Nona Florat]

14.

Thank you, and congratulations, Sen Bernardi, on your excellent article. No issue could be more important to our nation than to uphold moral and social values that have made our country the great nation it is.
Unmistakable contemporary decadence nationally and internationally had its origins in the error of moral relativism, “your truth” versus “my truth”. The result is a claim that there is no such thing as objective truth. On the contrary, every child knows the difference between truth and falsehood.
We are engulfed by a tyrannical political correctness that excludes logical debate, and instead promotes a mindset that we can make up our “truth” as we go along, according to individual whim.
The word has valid theological connotations, which are rightly held by people of faith, but, at the common-sense level that everyone can understand, truth is reality, the way things are.
There is no question that horrific evils have existed, not only in the past century, but throughout history. A perception of “good old days” is mythical. Historical evidence, however, demonstrates that, when any society becomes decadent, with no regard for moral principle, that society does not long survive.
Neither adolescents nor parents should be targeted for blame. Society as a whole is subjected, largely through irresponsible abuse by some sections of the media, to reversal of values, whereby good and evil change places. It has been said, by an analogy with electricity, that when the positive and the negative are transposed, the light of civilisation goes out! The young are especially vulnerable, and parental rights have been usurped by social forces, such as the media and exploitative commercial interests. The problems are gradual desensitisation (the frog in the pot) and apathy. The more important an issue is, the more it is likely to be relegated to the “too hard basket”
Instead of criticising Sen Bernardi for not producing a specified policy to combat these very real social problems, let us accept the challenge and provide some positive feedback:
For a start let us defend our democracy by returning political power to our elected representatives.
Abolish unelected bureaucracies, such as the Australian “Human Rights” Commission and the Classification and Review Boards. The former has declared war on the Judeo-Christian tradition and conscience rights. Freedom of speech is to be regarded as a privilege of a few minorities, with penalties for those who disagree with an ideological agenda. The latter has realised for DVD Salo, which is probably the most vile film ever produced, as it depicts sexual torture of children among other abominations.
These constitute an assault on the intrinsic dignity of every human person. It is clear to reason that vile abuse and obscenity are not acceptable in civilised society, irrespective of against whom they are directed. In fact there is a clear distinction between freedom of speech and “freedom of expression”. Every citizen has a right to express an opinion on any topic, controversial or otherwise. “Expression” can be very offensive.
Instead of wasting taxpayer funds on bureaucracy “big government”, why not provide assistance to voluntary organisations who strive to defend family values? In this way parents could be supported in their difficult task. Let authentic rights for every citizen be protected within the framework of our democratic system.
“Self-regulation” of the entertainment industry does not work – who could expect it to go against its own financial interests? Let classification be conducted by an independent authority, with no vested interests , whose membership is changed regularly. Such an authority must at least keep to its own guidelines, and provide a satisfactory mechanism for complaints, to enable parents and concerned citizens to have real input.
Comments about authoritarianism are irrelevant. It is not a role of government to police private morality, but it is a role of government to publicly uphold authentic moral values and standards of decency.

I make no apology for being a “wowser”, and political correctness is my pet aversion.