The Privatisation of Morality: How Western Societies Lost Their Moral Order and How to Restore It

Postmodern identity politics has caused a moral fragmentation which has fuelled deaths of despair amid rising social isolation and hopelessness. We need to make the case for a new, shared, moral order

How Identity Politics Took Us From Shared Truths to Private Despair.

Since morality became a private affair in the west, so has suffering. In my own homeland of Scotland, drug deaths have risen 301.37 per cent since 2000—a haunting symptom of a society unravelling in isolation and despair.

In the mid-20th century, Martin Luther King Jr. could confidently declare that segregation was wrong because it violated a moral order built into the universe. His authority and moral power stemmed from a shared understanding that certain truths—like the inherent dignity of all human beings—were not merely personal opinions but objective realities. Today, such appeals to a universal moral order seem almost quaint back home in the west. Instead we discover a fragmented landscape of individual truths, where morality is seen as a private matter, shaped by personal feelings and subjective experiences. This shift—what I call the "privatisation of morality"—has had profound consequences for Western societies, contributing to a breakdown in trust, rising unhappiness, social fragmentation, and deaths of despair.

This shift stems from modern intellectual and cultural changes. The Enlightenment’s emphasis on individual reason and autonomy laid the groundwork for a more subjective approach to morality. Then, the rise of destructive postmodern thinkers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida further destabilized the idea of a shared moral order. Foucault argued that knowledge and morality were merely expressions resultant from the application of power and ideology, while Derrida’s lazy deconstructionism undermined the possibility of fixed meanings or universal truths. These ideas originally confined to United States academia have since leaked out, reinforcing the notion that morality is merely a matter of personal choice rather than collective responsibility.

The consequences of this privatisation of morality are readily apparent. Trust in institutions—from governments to churches to the media—have collapsed, as individuals increasingly view these structures through the lens of their own subjective values. The social democratic left wakes up to discover that our a-priori assumption that government can and should do good is no longer shared among a plurality of voters. Families and communities, once bound by shared moral frameworks, have fractured under the weight of competing individualisms. We have substituted out any moral order in favour of the ludicrous claim you should find your own truth, find your own values alone, with reference merely to ones own feelings.

The result has been rising levels of social isolation, depression, and anxiety. It suggests that the loss of a shared moral order has left many adrift, searching for meaning in a west offering precious little guidance. Walter Lippmann’s warning rings truer than ever: if right and wrong is dependent on what each individual feels, then we are outside the bounds of civilization.

Yet, this need not be the end of the story. Alternative paths exist. While the West has struggled to reconcile individual freedom with collective responsibility, other traditions have long offered alternative models for sustaining moral order. Confucianism, for example, emphasizes the importance of relationships, tradition, and communal harmony. In the Confucian view, morality is not a private affair but a social one, cultivated through roles like filial piety and rituals that bind individuals to their communities. Similarly, Taoism teaches that morality is not about constructing one’s own truth arbitrarily, but aligning oneself with the Dao, the natural order that underlies the universe. These traditions suggest that a moral order need not be imposed from above but can emerge organically from the interplay of individual and collective well-being.

By drawing on these insights, the West might rediscover a moral order that balances individual freedom with communal responsibility, restoring trust, meaning, and cohesion in an age of moral fragmentation.

Do we dare to begin to imagine a new moral framework for the West? One that balances the autonomy of the individual with the needs of the community. Such a framework would recognize that morality is not merely a matter of personal whim but a shared project, rooted in the recognition of our interdependence and the natural order of the world. In doing so, it could help restore the sense of purpose and cohesion that has been lost in our age of moral privatisation.

My article will explore my structured stream of consciousness as to how the West’s shift from shared moral frameworks to individualistic, subjective values—what I call the "privatisation of morality"—has eroded societal cohesion and led to widespread breakdowns in trust, happiness, and community. It then turns to Eastern traditions like Confucianism and Taoism to propose alternative models for restoring moral order

Part 1| The Crisis of Moral Order in the West

The Historical Foundation of Moral Order

For centuries, Western societies were anchored by a shared moral order rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics and Greco-Roman philosophy. This moral order was not merely a set of rules but a framework that reflected a deeper belief in universal truths. The Judeo-Christian tradition, with its emphasis on divine law and the inherent dignity of every individual, provided a foundation for concepts like justice, charity, and the sanctity of life. Meanwhile, Greco-Roman philosophy, particularly the works of Aristotle and the Stoics, contributed the idea of telos—the notion that human life has a purpose and that morality is about fulfilling that purpose in harmony with the natural order.

This moral order was not abstract; it was deeply embedded in the fabric of society. Historian George Marsden once observed that figures like Martin Luther King Jr. derived their moral authority from the belief in a moral order built into the universe.

When Martin Luther King Jr replied to a questioner in his 1957 articles ‘Advice for Living’, he stated “there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws, and when we disobey these moral laws we suffer tragic consequences”. This feeds into the same theme as his more famous quotation of the “arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”. Yes, he was reflecting noting that social change takes time, but they reveal something more fundamental. When King declared that segregation was wrong, he was not merely expressing a personal opinion but appealing to a truth that he believed was self-evident and universal. In his letter from a Birmingham jail, he famously argued that if segregation is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. This resonated because it tapped into a shared understanding of right and wrong that transcended merely individual preferences.

This shared moral order provided a common language for evaluating ethical questions. It allowed societies to distinguish between justice and injustice, virtue and vice, and to hold individuals and institutions accountable to a higher standard. It was not perfect—indeed, it was often applied inconsistently—but it provided a cohesive framework that bound communities together and gave meaning to collective life.

The Shift to Moral Subjectivism

The stability of this moral order began to erode with the intellectual and cultural shifts of the modern era. The Enlightenment, with its emphasis on individual reason and autonomy, laid the groundwork for a more subjective approach to morality. Thinkers like Immanuel Kant argued that moral principles should be derived from rational thought rather than divine command, while utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill suggested that morality should be based on the maximization of happiness. These ideas, while ground-breaking, also sowed the seeds of moral relativism by shifting the locus of moral authority from external sources (God, tradition, nature) to the individual.

Nietzsche identified this crisis for morality with a melancholic rumination in his "death of God". He referred to the decline of traditional religious beliefs and the collapse of absolute, objective moral values in modern society. He argued that the Enlightenment, with its emphasis on reason and science, had eroded the foundations of faith, leaving people to confront a world without inherent meaning or purpose. This loss of a divine moral order, according to Nietzsche, created a void that could lead to nihilism, where life is seen as meaningless. He believed that without God, individuals must create their own values and meaning, a task he saw as both liberating and burdensome.

By the late 20th century, his fears of nihilism proved prescient, with the accelerated rise of postmodernism. Thinkers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida rejected the idea of universal truths or grand narratives, arguing that all knowledge and morality are socially constructed and contingent. Foucault famously claimed that morality and power are inseparable, suggesting that what we consider "right" or "wrong" is merely the result of dominant ideologies imposing their will. Derrida, through his lazy method of deconstruction, undermined the possibility of fixed meanings or objective truths, reducing morality to a mere matter of interpretation.

These postmodern post-liberal ideas, though initially confined to academia, gradually permeated the broader culture. As if they were a virus escaping a broken beaker, they subsequently leaked out silently infecting minds and slowly reshaping the way people think.

They reinforced the notion that morality is simply a private affair, shaped by personal feelings and subjective experiences. The rise of identity politics further fragmented the moral landscape, as different groups began to assert their own values and narratives, often in opposition to one another. The result was a society where shared moral frameworks were replaced by a cacophony of individual truths, and their accompanying ‘alternative facts’ as it were.

Walter Lippmann, the late great American journalist, foresaw the dangers of this shift as early as the 1920s. He warned that if right and wrong depend on what each individual feels, we are outside the bounds of civilization. Lippmann understood that a society without a shared moral order is a society without cohesion, trust, or purpose. His warning has proven prescient, as the privatisation of morality has led to profound societal breakdowns.

Consequences of Moral Privatisation

The consequences of this shift are everywhere apparent. Trust in western civic institutions— churches, the media, experts more broadly, the ability of government to do good—has plummeted, as individuals increasingly view these structures through the lens of their own subjective values. Families and communities, once bound by shared moral frameworks, have fractured under the weight of competing individualisms. The result is a society where people feel increasingly isolated and disconnected.

Rising levels of unhappiness, social isolation, and mental health issues are stark indicators of this moral fragmentation. In the United States, rates of depression and anxiety have soared, particularly among younger generations. In the United Kingdom, studies show that loneliness has reached epidemic proportions, with millions reporting that they often or always feel alone. In my own homeland of Scotland, drug deaths have risen by over 300 per cent since 2000—a haunting symptom of a society unravelling in isolated despair.

The erosion of social cohesion has also fuelled political polarization. Without a shared moral framework, public discourse has become increasingly tribal and adversarial. Debates over issues like immigration, climate change, and social justice are no longer about finding common ground but about asserting one’s own truth and dismissing opposing views as illegitimate. This polarization has made it difficult to address collective challenges, further exacerbating societal breakdowns.

Angels fly because they take themselves lightly, and the ability to play gracefully with ideas in the Oxford (‘university’) manner depends upon more doubt, less certainties alongside steel-manning rather than straw-manning alternative ways of thinking. But the privatisation of morality has also dispensed with these values too.

The privatisation of morality has left many adrift, searching for meaning in a world that offers little guidance. Walter Lippmann’s warning rings truer than ever: if right and wrong depend on what each individual feels, then we are indeed outside the bounds of civilization.

The question is whether we can find our way back—or whether we must look elsewhere for a new moral order.

Part 2| Eastern Alternatives—Confucianism and Taoism

Confucianism: Morality as Social Harmony

Confucianism, rooted in the teachings of Confucius (551–479 BCE), offers a vision of morality that is deeply relational and communal. At its core is the idea that moral order arises from harmonious social relationships, cultivated through roles, rituals, and virtues. Key concepts like filial piety (孝; xiào, respect for parents and ancestors), li (礼, ritual propriety), and ren (仁, humaneness, benevolence) underscore the importance of interdependence and mutual respect.

• Filial Piety and Social Roles:
  Confucianism emphasizes the importance of fulfilling one’s duties within the family and society. Filial piety, for example, is not just about obeying one’s parents but about recognizing the interconnectedness of generations and the role of tradition in shaping moral character. This stands in stark contrast to selfish postmodern Western individualism, which often prioritizes personal autonomy over communal obligations.

• Li (Ritual Propriety):
  Rituals, in the Confucian view, are not empty formalities but practices that reinforce social harmony and moral values. By participating in rituals—whether family ceremonies, community gatherings, or state functions—individuals internalize the norms and values that bind society together. In this way in a British context the value of a monarchical institution with state-openings of parliament (‘pomp’) play a vital moral function for society’s morality.

• Ren (Humanness, Benevolence):
  Ren, often translated as benevolence or humaneness, is the virtue of caring for others and acting with empathy. It is cultivated through relationships and is central to Confucian ethics. Unlike the Western emphasis on individual rights, Confucianism focuses on the responsibilities we have toward one another.

Confucianism also places a strong emphasis on education and tradition as vehicles for transmitting moral values. The Confucian classics, for example, are not just texts to be studied but repositories of wisdom that guide individuals in living virtuous lives. This contrasts with the Western tendency to dismiss tradition as outdated or oppressive, highlighting the importance of continuity in sustaining moral order.

Taoism: Alignment with the Natural Order

While Confucianism focuses on social harmony, Taoism offers a complementary vision of morality rooted in alignment with the natural order. Central to Taoist thought is the concept of the Dao (the Way), an underlying principle that governs the universe. The Dao is not a set of rules but a dynamic, flowing reality that individuals must attune themselves to.

• The Dao as Natural Law:
  The Dao represents the natural flow of the universe, and Taoist ethics emphasize living in harmony with this flow. This involves cultivating virtues like humility, simplicity, and spontaneity. Unlike disreputable postmodern relativism, which denies the existence of objective truths, Taoism suggests that there is an inherent order to the world that transcends individual perspectives. In short, it is our job to align ourselves individually with an objective natural moral order as best we can, as opposed to arbitrarily aligning our personal perspectives with individually invented moral orders.

• Wu Wei (Non-Action):
  A key Taoist concept is wu wei, often translated as "non-action" or "effortless action." It does not mean passivity but rather acting in accordance with the Dao—like a river flowing naturally downstream. This contrasts with the Western tendency to impose one’s will on the world, often leading to conflict and imbalance. My lifetime has seen the full history of recent American wars of aggression to impose its own will across the Maghreb and Levant.

• Contrast with Postmodern Relativism:
  While postmodernism rejects grand narratives and universal truths, Taoism acknowledges an underlying order that individuals must align with. This alignment is not about imposing one’s own truth but about discovering and harmonizing with the Dao. In this sense, Taoism offers a middle path between rigid moral absolutism and chaotic moral relativism.

Synthesis: Balancing Individual and Collective Morality

Confucianism and Taoism, though distinct, both offer models for balancing individual autonomy with collective responsibility. Confucianism emphasizes the importance of social roles and communal harmony, while Taoism focuses on aligning with the natural order. Together, they suggest that morality is neither entirely private nor entirely imposed but emerges from the interplay of individual and collective well-being.

• A Middle Path:
  These traditions offer a middle path between the extremes of moral absolutism and moral relativism. Confucianism’s emphasis on tradition and social roles provides stability, while Taoism’s focus on the Dao allows for flexibility and adaptability. This balance could help address the West’s current crisis of moral fragmentation.

• Relevance to the West:
  By drawing on these insights, the West might begin to imagine a new moral framework that balances individual freedom with communal responsibility. Such a framework would recognize that morality is not merely a matter of personal preference but a shared project, rooted in the recognition of our interdependence and the natural order of the world.

Part 3| Toward a New Moral Order

Lessons from the East

The key insights from Confucianism and Taoism are twofold: first, that morality is not a private affair but a relational and communal one; and second, that there is an underlying order to the world that individuals must align with. These traditions suggest that a moral order need not be imposed from above but can emerge organically from the interplay of individual and collective well-being.

• Informing a New Moral Framework:
  These insights could inform a new moral framework for the West—one that balances individual autonomy with collective responsibility. Such a framework would emphasize the importance of relationships, tradition, and alignment with natural law, offering an alternative to the hyper-individualism and moral relativism that have eroded social cohesion.

A Moral Order Without Religion

A moral order need not be tied to specific religious doctrines. Concepts like natural law, social harmony, and alignment with the Dao can provide a universal foundation for morality that is inclusive of both religious and non-religious perspectives.

• Addressing Objections:
  Some might argue that these concepts are culturally specific and cannot be applied to the West. However, the principles of social harmony and natural order are not unique to Eastern traditions; they resonate with ideas found in Western philosophy, from Aristotle’s telos to the Stoic concept of living in accordance with nature. The challenge is not to adopt Eastern traditions wholesale but to adapt their insights to the Western context.

Practical Steps for Restoring Moral Cohesion

1. Rebuild Institutions:
   Institutions like schools, community organizations play a crucial role in transmitting shared values. Revitalizing these institutions could help restore a sense of moral cohesion.

2. Foster Dialogue and Mutual Respect:
   A culture of dialogue and mutual respect is essential for balancing individual freedom with collective responsibility. This involves creating spaces where people can engage in meaningful conversations about values and ethics. Places to re-learn how to play gracefully with ideas, hoe to think as opposed to what to think. Spaces safe and free from the tyranny of the postmodern identity politics peddling language police.

3. Encourage Cross-Cultural Exchange:
   Learning from traditions like Confucianism and Taoism could enrich Western moral discourse and provide new perspectives on how to address the challenges of moral fragmentation. European-Chinese cultural exchanges could help revitalise the west, bringing an end to our privatised morality crisis.

The privatisation of morality has left Western societies adrift, but it is not too late to chart a new course. By drawing on the insights of Confucianism and Taoism, we might begin to imagine a moral order that balances individual autonomy with collective responsibility, restoring trust, meaning, and cohesion in an age of fragmentation. The path forward will not be easy, but it is one we must dare to take.

Part 4| Conclusion: Restoring Moral Order in an Age of Fragmentation

The privatisation of morality—the shift from shared moral frameworks to individualistic, subjective values—has left Western societies adrift. Trust in institutions has eroded, families and communities have fractured, and rising levels of unhappiness and social isolation point to a profound crisis of meaning. This fragmentation is not merely a cultural or intellectual phenomenon; it is a moral one, rooted in the loss of a shared understanding of right and wrong. As Walter Lippmann warned nearly a century ago, a society that cannot agree on basic moral principles is outside the bounds of civilization. Yet, this need not be our fate. By turning to Eastern traditions like Confucianism and Taoism, we can begin to imagine a new moral order—one that balances individual autonomy with collective harmony and restores a sense of collective purpose to our lives beyond the worship of nihilistic self. Happiness must become more than merely the immediate gratification of fleeting wants and desires once more.

Restating the Thesis

The privatisation of morality has undermined the moral order that once bound Western societies together. Rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics and Greco-Roman philosophy, this order provided a shared framework for evaluating right and wrong, grounded in the belief that certain truths—like the inherent dignity of every individual—were universal and objective. Figures like Martin Luther King Jr. drew on this framework to challenge injustice and inspire collective action. But over time, the Enlightenment’s emphasis on individual reason, postmodernism’s rejection of grand narratives, and the rise of identity politics fragmented this moral order, replacing it with a screaming cacophony of individual truths. The consequences have been dire: declining trust, rising unhappiness, people dying deaths of despair, all amid a pervasive sense of disconnection.

Yet, as my structured stream of personal consciousness has attempted to argue, there is hope. Eastern traditions like Confucianism and Taoism offer valuable alternatives to the West’s postmodern, post-liberal identity politics morass of moral fragmentation. Confucianism emphasizes the importance of relationships, tradition, and communal harmony, while Taoism focuses on aligning with the natural order of the Dao. Together, these traditions suggest that morality is not a private affair but a shared project, rooted in the recognition of our interdependence and the natural order of the world. By drawing on these insights, we can begin to rebuild a moral framework that balances individual freedom with collective responsibility. Perhaps even relearn how to think, and rediscover the lost philosophies of the ancient classical Greek world of Aristotle, Socrates and more.

A Call to Action

The task before us is urgent. We cannot afford to remain complacent in the face of moral fragmentation, nor can we simply return to the moral frameworks of the past. Instead, we must actively engage with the insights of other traditions, like Confucianism and Taoism, to imagine a new moral order for the West. This requires humility, curiosity, and a willingness to question our assumptions.

Readers are urged to reflect on the importance of shared moral frameworks and to consider how Eastern philosophies might inform our understanding of morality. What can we learn from Confucianism’s emphasis on relational harmony and tradition? How might Taoism’s focus on alignment with the Dao help us navigate the complexities of modern life? These are not abstract questions but practical ones, with profound implications for how we live together in society.

We must also take concrete steps to restore moral cohesion. This means rebuilding institutions—schools, community organizations—that transmit shared values and foster a sense of belonging. It means fostering a culture of dialogue and mutual respect, where individuals can engage in meaningful conversations about values and ethics. And it means encouraging cross-cultural exchange, so that we can learn from the wisdom of other traditions and adapt their insights to our own context.

A Hopeful Vision

Imagine a society where individual autonomy is balanced with collective harmony—a society where people feel connected to one another and to a shared sense of purpose. In this society, morality is not a private affair but a communal one, rooted in the recognition of our interdependence and the natural order of the world. Institutions are trusted, families and communities are strong, and individuals find meaning not in the pursuit of personal gratification but in the fulfilment of their roles within a larger whole.

This vision is not utopian; it is achievable. Some of the traditions I have outlined remind us that morality is not about imposing rigid rules or asserting individual truths but about cultivating relationships, aligning with the natural order, and recognizing our shared humanity. They offer a path forward—a middle way between the extremes of moral absolutism and moral relativism.

The privatisation of morality has left Western societies adrift, but it is not too late to chart a new course. By embracing the wisdom of Eastern traditions, we can restore trust, meaning, and cohesion in an age of fragmentation. The journey will not be easy, but it is one we must dare to take. Laozi, the ancient Taoist sage, observed "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." It is high time the west rediscovers the courage to take that step toward a future where individual freedom and collective harmony are not at odds but in balance—a future where morality is not privatised but shared, and where we find purpose not in isolation but in connection.

---

Dean M Thomson is currently a lecturer with Beijing Normal - Hong Kong Baptist University, United International College (UIC).

My work is entirely reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber

Alternatively why not make a one-off donation? All support is appreciate