Why politicians are making morality fashionable again | Society | The Guardian

Why politicians are making morality fashionable again | Society | The Guardian

Extracts :

• the [last decade's seeming] suppression of morality-talk has served another very good purpose: the language itself is being used differently, as if it needed time in retreat in order to purge itself of its puritanical associations. It left the stage muttering about people shagging each other and strode back on later lamenting how the privileged are screwing the masses. Look at how the uses of moral language have been pressed into service in recent weeks and you'll find that they do not concern mere private behaviour but the point at which individual actions have consequences for wider society. Morality has recovered its political dimension
• So why is this happening now? There are several possible reasons. One is that moral shoulder-shrugging is much easier when times are good
• However, even before the crash, the ground was being prepared for the return of morality. As far back as the 1970s, the sociologist Ronald Inglehart suggested that as material wealth increased and people became more economically secure, their attentions would turn to their non-material needs, such as for autonomy and self-expression. He saw us entering a period of post-consumerist disillusion, where we look for things that are meaningful, not just fun, expensive or fashionable.
• Few were explicitly looking for a greater sense of moral purpose, but once people start looking for the deeper, more serious things in life, eventually they are going to have to grapple with the distinction between what is good and true and what is corrupt and false. At that point, morality enters the picture.
• And there is always a risk that governments, or even lobby groups, can create a kind of moral panic about an issue which is not critical, but which diverts our attention away from more serious wrongs. 
• The most fundamental problem with morality's return, however, is that society still lacks a sense of where it comes from and who is qualified to make claims for it
• Morality becomes essentially social, not personal. And because it is social, that means the only way to deal with it is socially. So we shouldn't be looking for new moral authorities to replace the church. Rather, we should see public moral issues as requiring a negotiation between all of us.
• However, if radio phone-ins, online comments and tweets sent to television programmes are anything to go by, we are nowhere near ready and able to raise public discourse to the level required for this. And so the danger is that we will either fall back on the old authorities or allow new moral leaders to emerge who may well base their pronouncements on little more than populist sentiment.
• We have remembered that a proper sense of morality is essential, but we also need to be mindful that a misguided one can be deadly.