Has America lost its moral compass? 

By Tara Sonenshine, Senior Nonresident Scholar at The Fletcher School

Writing about morality in 2024 is risky business — especially in less than 800 words. Any subject encompassing religion, belief systems, norms and the titanic struggle between good and evil is inherently fraught.  

But at a time when democracy is under assault, authoritarianism is on the rise, and people are torn apart by conflict, we must ask: Are Americans “good” people? What is “good?” Who sets our moral code? 

Prominent historians and philosophers have argued for centuries about the core moral nature of human beings, from Aristotle’s virtue ethics to Immanuel Kant’s duty-based ethics, and the power of human reasoning in setting a moral compass. You can read Plato’s ethics, or those outlined by David Hume, the brilliant 18th-century philosopher who famously stated that “reason is the slave of the passions.”  

There are multiple theories on how morality is determined — from above, as in God; from below, as in individuals; through systems of governance and law, policy or legislation; or via cultural norms and customs. 

As we think about our own morality and mortality, it is useful to look at countries whose systems we oppose. 

Take China. 

Centuries ago, Chinese ethical canons introduced ideas on societal good. The great moral philosophers of ancient China included Laozi, best known for the Daoist principles of simplicity and sincerity, and Confucius, who defined a “superior man” as one who is humane, thoughtful and motivated by the desire to do good over personal profit. 

Modern-day Chinese communism offers ancient moral guides for citizens to follow the dictates of the Communist Party and contribute to the whole of society, to avoid public moral decay that might cause national weakness or foreign influence. The party sets rules using censorship and propaganda to enforce them.

Then there’s Russia. 

In the Soviet era, moral thought developed out of the dialectic theories of Lenin and Marx, with power resting with the proletariat and a centralized party of socialist revolutionaries. Communism was to be propagated around the world as “antithetical to the corrupt morality of capitalist societies.” 

But with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1999 and the rise of Vladimir Putin, a new post-communist morality has emerged, with nostalgia for the old concept of empire and reliance on deep control by the government over all aspects of life. 

New research by the Washington Post reveals that President Vladimir Putin, emboldened after winning another term in office, is moving the country in an “Orthodox” direction — that is, less focused on traditional communist ideals and more based on fundamental ultraconservative viewpoints rooted in Christian beliefs and illiberal tenets. 

“In November 2022, Putin signed a decree defining Orthodox values, puritanical morality, and the rejection of LGBTQ+ identity as crucial to Russia’s national security,” the Post states. “Putin has outlined a messianic mission to save the world from what he calls a decadent, permissive West, an approach he hopes will resonate in socially conservative nations in the Global South. The highly politicized judicial system and media heavily controlled by the Kremlin are being used to crack down on nightclubs and parties, and new patriotic mandates are being imposed on artists, filmmakers, and cultural institutions.” 

Which brings us, of course, back home to America and our great moral struggle as we debate books bans, guns, immigration, reproductive rights, transgender care, freedom of speech and many other aspects of life. 

Moral sparring in today’s America pits groups against one another in what New York Times columnist David Brooks calls “primordial sources of meaning that are deeper than individual preference — faith, family, soil, and flag.” 

One of our lingering moral dilemmas is how to foster diversity in an America that is inclusive of diverse beliefs. The controversial Black intellectual W.E.B. Du Bois was insistent that racial justice needed to be practiced in America and in America’s approach to the world for democracy to succeed. “Humanity is mixed to its bones,” he wrote in a 1935 article for Foreign Affairs. 

Perhaps the best advice for America is to stay open-minded and willing to debate — to accept some moral ambiguity, lest we grow dogmatic and uncompromising in our judgements. 

As Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” 

(This post is republished from The Hill.)