Ethics in today's world. Does it have a place? If so, where? If not, what awaits in the world of the future?

Today in the NY Times, columnist David Brooks bravely and astutely chronicles the results of a sociological study, exploring the state of moral understanding and reasoning of current youth.  The casual brush-off of any basis in reality of moral truths, standards, or authority is fairly pervasive on turf beyond the 18- to 23-year-old set and has been for a couple of decades in some circles.     

Having served on numerous medical ethics boards, I was often informed by other members during ethical debate, "Don't you know the old ethics is gone, dead, no more!" This outlook is a reflection of the cultural change highlighted by Mr. Brooks. Having taught medical ethics in medical schools, I recall students on several occasions, instructing the instructor, "Don't bother me with ethics.... just tell me what the law says... that's all I'm interested in."  


I have reminded them that at the Nuremberg trial, no Nazi physician thought he had done anything unethical--- because the action was legal.  This reminds us that we ignore some moral and ethical consensus at our own and others' peril.

The wisdom of ethics deliberative bodies rests on the various perspectives brought by individuals with a range of past histories, traditions, and training with good faith interest and commitment to arriving at the best decision for those with a stake in the outcome.   These differences enrich the fabric of ethical discourse when there are some fundamental shared common values.  For example, if life has no prima facie intrinsic worth, any discussion about courses of actions that affect lives becomes irrelevant.  Ethics and morality are anchored in the community and not the individual, although the moral agent is often the individual.  Albeit an ascendant value amongst contemporary ethical principles, autonomy that becomes radical and unyielding to community no matter the circumstance surely ushers our future world back to the Dark Ages.   

David Brooks' alert merits consideration during decision-making by those entrusted with mentoring our youth.  If parents, educators, policy-makers, and other societal principals have no shared prima facie values, it is unlikely that a new generation will embrace "ought", (i.e. “I accept some personal responsibility for my actions and life as it relates to others.”) in favor of "have to" (e.g. “Someone else has taken responsibility for enforcing choices I make.”).  Moreover, the slippery slope ultimately erodes the underlying premise of law as well.