What rather seems now on reflection to have been the fakery of collectivism has within a generation been done away with. By collectivism I mean the idea that suggests we’re all in this together, that we have the interests of each other at heart, and go about living with that understanding; or, if not all these things, then at least we should be all those things.

The language of the moment doesn’t bother with all that. That language is openly selfish suggesting the prevailing ethic is that you do whatever you can get away with, take whatever you can. This connects with Nietzsche's theme, the collapse of moral absolutes, what Fukuyama calls the ‘Great Disruption’, and what traditional moralists don’t like.

But...

If historically these altruistic notions were mere pretensions in that many didn’t actually believe in the ‘in it together’ thing. If they went along because that was the prevailing imperative when really they were just as selfishly interested as today’s generation. If they were publicly aligned but privately not conformed, then I wonder. I wonder if it was such a bad thing to move away from. I wonder if a society that embraces its decadence to a degree, that works to a lower moral expectation of its people, might be more true to human nature than one which tries to promote virtue. Is a culture, honest with itself in terms of its limited capacity, better functioning, safer, altogether more real than one which pretends to be otherwise?

Making such a case I am conflicted. Sometimes I push for an elevated ethic and at other times time want to embrace the narcissism of the modern age. That’s okay though. The therapy of writing here is in part to identify conflicting positions either to resolve them in some way or learn to live with them better. Am I postmodern man or a moral traditionalist? Both. Next question: can a third position be evolved from the merging of these two? Good question. Good question for me and for the modern age.