Why Do We Lose Our Moral And Social Values?

By: Stephen K. Ainsah-Mensah

Inhabit any section of a country, a region or a place, then you will be claimed to belong to a society. A society is what makes you who you are.  You chose not to shut yourself from others when you wanted to find a way to develop, to improve upon the strength of your advancement because you thought others could lift you up, show you the way, in all forms, to the development you so much desired. What distinguishes people in a society is the way they come together to do things to reinforce the social and economic culture. The key words here are “come together”, which will also mean cooperativeness or teamwork. If coming together is an essential attribute of an authentic society, why do people shy away from it? Do not such people know that by shunning teamwork they are breaking up the natural character of the society?

It is clear that, as individuals, we have two aspects to our behaviour: our egotistical desires and our moral-social desires. Our continual personal strivings to, first, satisfy our personal wants shows that our egotistical desires far outweigh our moral-social desires. We prefer, in general, to please ourselves first before we proceed to please others or help to please others. And even if a person is claimed to be exceptionally altruistic, meaning he/she prefers to help others very much, it is largely for the reason that doing so will give him/her personal gratification, uplift his/her self-worth. 

The problem a society needs to check is the unusual ascendancy of egotistical desires that tend to destroy the moral-social elements of human desires; and this problem becomes more pronounced the more individuals - or, at least, most of them - feel that they have achieved much of their respective pressing goals in terms of the satisfaction of wants. What has not been properly considered by many leaders is the issue of connecting moral-social development with economic development. Should fiscal discipline that generates considerable economic growth be the key benchmark for determining how well a society is functioning? Or should moral-social elements be fully incorporated into financial issues that determine a society’s level of development?

For many technically minded people, the issue of morality and social practices are personal things that develop naturally in us and should not be given much prominence by leaders or those who govern. But why this eccentric viewpoint so much soaked with indifference? Much of the difficulty has to be related to the new breed of humans who have found much more comfort in thing-friends, not human-friends. Human-friends are seen as a bother, an unwanted intrusion into one’s privacy; thus, to talk about public affairs, socialistic endeavours, togetherness, and the like generates an instantaneous disagreement from those who have developed a solid thing-friendship.

By thing-friends - or thing-friendship - I mean the amazing emotional and moral value that a person attaches to, say, his/her computer, walkman or ipod, TV, mansion, estate (and allied products) as well as, say, animal pets such that these things generate much more comfort to him/her than associating with people, working with people or being with people. A thing-friend person will, for instance, like to use his/her well-liked computer to communicate with somebody - often very briefly - instead of talking and/or meeting with that person. An increasingly technical society propagates thing-friendship. No wonder in such societies, some kind of public ownership - or attempts by the government to publicly own or be part of private enterprises - is viewed as a foil to progress by proponents of thing-friendship. But it is not clear what these proponents want government to be or what they think should be the purpose, the role of government. The more thing-friendship grows, the more human-friendship decays.  

In fact, the kind of insular reasoning that a thing-friendship person is likely to put forward regarding the issue of social morality, as I have stated, counters the logic of what a society is as well as why and how we ought to belong to a society. His/Her reasoning, it may further be stated, constitutes a basis for the steady unhealthiness of the society.

Now, I want to give a summary of what I have said.

The unusual greed that could rip a society apart - whether temporarily or lastingly - has its major source in personal lifestyles that are sealed from a significant participation in public affairs. This is an insult to the moral and social rhythm of the society. We need a new rhythm of life born from the moral and social assertiveness of the human being. Whoever, as a dominant force, gives eminence to these two factors has put the society at the forefront of noble development. .