The United States is going to Hades in a handbasket. Moral subjectivism is the vile and malignant cancer that is corrupting this generation, or more aptly degeneration. The idea is akin to the theory of relativity, in that people who subscribe to it believe that people should decide what is right or wrong for themselves. People think that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want and nothing will happen to them. They are convinced that they are immune to consequences, but they are sorely mistaken. The consequences are inflicted upon them as well as everyone they encounter. Moral subjectivism is a viral contagion that is spreading throughout America like influenza, threatening the well-being of every citizen.

To make an analogy, the problem can be likened to a game played by teams from all over the world. The game is football, only in the United States is it called soccer. In this instance the match is played by ten different teams on one field, but each team observes a different set of rules. Some of the teams’ play is punctuated by the use of excessive force and they don’t recognize the fouls that other of the teams allege; as a matter of fact they don’t even understand the languages of their disgruntled opponents. Team members get badly hurt, one or two sustain injuries that cripple them for a lifetime. All the while the game is officiated by a deaf mute referee who doesn’t have arms nor a whistle; the linesmen are drunk in the bleachers and flirting with soccer moms. As long as every player gets paid, “Who cares?” describes the mentality. This is a definitive picture of a world without moral standards.

Men in the United States have become despicably perverted. Most men in the United States wouldn’t hesitate to rape a woman if they knew that there would be no chance of getting caught. In one study of 2,972 men it was found that, “One in twelve male students surveyed had committed acts that met the legal definitions of rape” and “eighty-four percent of those men who committed rape said that what they did was definitely not rape” (Curtis). In fact, it is now common for young men to enlist the use of drugs like “roofies” or Rohypnol and Gamma Hydroxy Butyrate, also known as GHB to assist them in raping women. An even greater portion of youths smile upon the notion of “getting her drunk,” so it will be easier to coerce her into performing sexual acts. Many of these same men don’t even believe that what they are doing is wrong; and that is the purest form of moral subjectivism.

In effect, men have debased women, hedonistically dehumanizing them. That’s right, if it feels good, then do it; if it feels really good, do it harder. People have become so engrossed in the “pursuit of happiness,” that they fail to consider the effects they are having on the people around them (Dec. of Indep. 1776.) Many times they hurt the ones that they are supposed to love. Other times they inflict woe upon people they don’t even know. Their whole lives are focused upon getting more pleasure at the minimum cost to self, whether the cost be emotional or pecuniary.

Most people are in such a rush toward “progress” that they won’t even remember past wrongs, in order to avoid making the mistakes again. Very few people will even remember eight years ago in New York City’s Central Park ruffians rampaging; cavorting about, dousing, stripping, and groping women (Cloud.) It’s times like these when it becomes obvious that something has gone awry with society. The scary thing is that far too many men just went with the flow even though it was wrong. It was even difficult for the female victims to enlist police involvement. Very few of the men were even punished for their crimes; which makes one wonder: did any of the men who didn’t get caught regret what they had done? Or did they laugh about it and brag to their friends in a local bar that night, while swilling down mugs of beer and watching the evening news; brashly pointing themselves out on the television screen. Will men like these continue to treat women like dogs, and treat dogs like refuse?

The Mark of the Beast isn’t limited to the branding of commercial property ie. cattle. In this sense “the Beast” is a detached and reckless sense of responsibility for animals and their welfare. It’s interesting how people can be treated like dogs, fed like cattle, and act like a herd of sheep. In two of those examples it is assumed that animals are being treated in ways that humans should not. Some say that one reference point for any civilization is how it treats prisoners. Another reference marker for any society is how it treats animals.

Americans are very well divided on this issue, mostly because they get caught up in the question as to whether or not animals have the same rights or value as humans; whether animals ought to be considered as pieces of property, because this line of thinking inherently objectifies them (Animal.) People who abuse animals will excuse themselves from treating animals humanely by saying, “they’re not people,” this kind of thinking results in malnourished and anachronistically decrepit animals. Many degenerates take pleasure in abusing these defenseless creatures. They kick, prod, and even berate the animals. On the other end of the abusive spectrum of absolutes, this kind of behavior will become more and more prevalent. And as it becomes more and more common, society is certain to become all the more accepting of it as “normal” or routine. This process of desensitization is and always has been inevitable; especially when it is engaged (or not engaged) lackadaisically. Pretty soon people will be saying, “hey leave the guy alone, it’s his animal.”

In one study it has been concluded that there is indeed a correlation between the way that people treat one another, and the way that people treat animals. In this particular study approximately one hundred mothers with children were observed over a period of time, half of whom had a history of domestic violence in their families. Many children abuse animals, but it was found that the children who had been abused were significantly more likely to abuse animals at later stages of life (Currie.) People who are abused are more likely to become lifetime abusers of animals; and people who abuse animals are more likely to abuse humans.

These issues will continue to develop and the lines will always be blurred as long as humans objectify life. Without a standard for deviation it is impossible to define the value of life. As long as lives are defined in dollars and cents; the rule will be that life has finite value. It seems like a trivial choice, but how one views life (even that of a dog) affects how one respects lives. Will people appraise lives in the manner that they behold things?

Americans are not only taking lives, but they are taking other things from one another as well. The past few years have seen a major surge in property crimes. From the early sixties to the latter part of last century the occurrence of property crimes practically tripled (Glazer.) FBI statistics show that in 1962 there were 1,917.1 property crimes in the United States per 100,000 citizens. By 1992 that number had reached an epidemic 5,412.5. This is an alarming revelation. “We the People” have not only lost respect for one another, but more and more now they cross the lines of legal possession (US Const., preamble.) Is there no high ground to which one can escape from these amoral fiends?

As the United States spread it’s territorial grasp over the west it displaced many native peoples. A particular group of them were known as the Apache. One of their chiefs who will be easily recognized to the reader was Geronimo. The Apache were warriors, a proud people. One of their most notorious attributes was that they were nomadic plunderers; their way of life involved stealing all that they could have need of from other tribes. It is clear that the Apache didn’t question the morality of what they did; it was the way that they survived in the world, but that doesn’t make it right.

Modern day gang members, thugs, robbers, extortionists, cons, pick-pockets and their ilk are controlling the streets of this once great nation in a fashion similar to that of the Apache. Crime has remained out of control; to this day it is historically disproportionate (Crime.) Only recently have governments started enforcing new statutes to control the wanton aggression of violent street gangs (Glazer.) The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took up the defense of the gang members when the city of San Jose told them they could not freely congregate on certain street corners (where they illegally brandished firearms and sold illicit drugs); fortunately the defense was refuted by a sensible court (Glazer.) The issue at hand is the greater good of society.

Do the rights of the few supercede the securities and needs of the many? Do the moral desires of the few transcend the morality necessary for mutual coexistence within the populace? As humans on Earth, let alone in the United States, mankind live symbiotically. There is no such thing as a microcosm and “no man is an island.” This dictates a certain necessity toward uniformity in ideas and the implementation of those ideas. People don’t have to be duplicate versions of one another to hold, with respect, equal values. Much has transpired during the past one hundred years and many changes need to be addressed yet. Some of the changes that have been invoked just weren’t conducive to the well being of humankind.

One major historical change that has been catastrophic may have largely influenced the decline of America that was manifested within the counterculture of the sixties and later decades. In the early 60’s a monumental decision was handed down by the Supreme Court. “God” was effectively removed from schools (Engel v. Vitale. 1962.) The catastrophe in this is not so much that “God” was removed, but that “He” was supplanted by an oblivious void. After that decision teachers were faced with an ethical quandary. They had no substitute teacher for the Biblical dictates of moralism and if they strayed blindly into this newly grey area they would most certainly face litigation and possibly even academic death; as it was new territory they could not enter except at their own risk i.e. blindly. (Should B.1.)

In times past a pedagogue was fully expected to instill virtue into the characters of the children they were charged with educating. Conversely, in the present more “enlightened” age, teachers face the threat of virtual beheading if they should transgress the fine line between teaching values and proselytizing. This dilemma must be addressed; and some schools are instituting programs where merit is taught or core values programming is enlisted. The problem with this is that every individual is still left to his own volition at the end of the day. If Johnny grows up to be a homicidal maniac, then who is to blame if teachers taught him to be honest? The major advantage afforded by religious instruction is that the educated actually believes not only in temporal criticism of his actions, but eternal consequences as well. It is necessary to teach children, as they are stuck in the now, that consequences can and will happen; that is to say, they must consider consequences before acting in the present ephemeral moment. People who are trained to consider long term effects will tend to act more reverentially towards those around them, by and large.

Critics will contend that some of them turned out completely normal without being dogmatically indoctrinated. This may be true, but crime rates (including lesser crimes) reflect other sentiments. White collar crime and shoplifting are out of control in the United States and they affect the bottom line of every pocketbook in the nation. Many people rationalize that if they are hurting a corporation/the Man or not physically harming another, then what they are doing is okay. Throwing a few “core value” kernels at the kids isn’t going to shift this tide.

Much stronger resistance comes in the form of freedom of speech arguments. People like the ACLU will go to any length to protect the right to free speech; as they should. It is fantastically healthful for society to engage in this debate from both sides. But free speech and the pursuit of happiness should not impinge upon the rights of individuals as it regards their safety. The rest of humanity should not have to suffer for the benefit of the few. For instance, it can be reasonably inferred that the ACLU would have defended Hitler’s right to propogandize his ideas; although what his brainwashing antics resulted in is not only incorrigible, but intolerable. Some people are certain to take free speech too far; a dutiful nation can not allow this.

In ancient Greece, that is the birthplace of the modern democratic system, it was not uncommon for full grown men to engage in sexual acts with young boys. Moral subjectivism will eventually lead the United States in that direction, as it was said by Montagu and Matson on a related subject, “its potential damage to the quality of human life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the “Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse” (xi.) Hopefully society will remedy this shortage of sanity outright. Society could offer funding so that parents could enroll children in the school of their choice regardless of the credo of the school. In this way parents would be able to use their tax dollars to more specifically address the values that their families hold and the government would not be directly interfering with freedom of religion.

If nothing is done about the diseased and faulty thinking of this era, then calamity is truly at hand. The reaper is at the door and his doom is impending. The deathly holocaust of a diseased and ameliorated nation awaits the United States as it consumes itself cannibalistically. Do Americans really want to burn in Hell with Socrates?

Works Cited

“Animal Rights.” Encyclopaedia Brittanica. 2008. Enyclopaedia Britannica Online. 11 June 2008


Cloud, John. “The Bad Sunday in the Park.” Time 18 June 2000. 9 June 2008 <http://


Currie, Cheryl. “Animal Cruelty by Children Exposed to Domestic Violence.” Child abuse &

Neglect. 30.4 (2006):425. Abstract. 11 June 2008 <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?


Curtis, David. “Perspectives on Acquaintance Rape.” American Academy of Experts in

Traumatic Stress Online 1997. 6 June 2008 http://www.aaets.org/article13.htm&gt;.

“Engel v. Vitale.” The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. 1992

Glazer, Sarah. “Declining Crime Rates.” CQ Researcher Online 7.13 4 April 1997. CQ

Researcher. Ventura College Library, Ventura, CA 6 June 2008 <http://


Montagu, Ashley and Floyd Matson. The Dehumanization of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill

Book Company, 1983

Perez 10

“Should Schools Teach Students Right from Wrong?.” Roanoke Times & World News.7 July

1996: B.1. ProQuest. Ventura College Library, Ventura, CA. 11 June 2008 <http://



United States. Dept. of Justice. “Crime in the United States 2006.” FBI Online

Table 1. Sept. 2007. 7 June 2008 <http://fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html&gt;


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s