Starter activity

You hear about moral re-armament for the first time, don’t you? What is it for you? Why do you think it’s a burning issue of our time? What can you refer to moral values of our society?

Reading one Britain’s Moral Crisis

At the heart of Moral Re-armament is a belief that each person can make a difference to the world through a transforming experience of liberation in their lives and through their interaction with others.

The human spirit longs for liberation, not just economic and political liberation, important as these are, but also inner liberation from the down-drag of base instincts: hate, bitterness, greed and lust which all too easily enslave us.

People long to be themselves – to have a sense of worth and purpose in life; to be able to contribute of their time and talents; to know that they are needed and loved. But being ourselves requires a recognition that we are first and foremost spiritual, not just economic or material, beings. In an age of information (and often information overload) it is possible to fool ourselves, to succumb to peer pressure and the spirit of the age. There have to be checks and balances – moral standards of honesty, purity, selflessness which guide our motives.

It’s time for Britain to take a long hard look at herself. The country is embroiled in a public debate about standards in public life, ethics in business, values in education, violence in the media and breakdown in the family about civil restraints versus personal freedoms, rights versus duties. Moral philosophers, social analysts and, of course, political leaders have all leapt into the fray.

At first glance this appears to be an argument about whether shared values are even possible in a pluralistic society; whether there is some fundamental authority to which all can appeal and which all will recognize. Or is a popular consensus the best we can hope for?

This is no mere intellectual argument. It is driven by a widely shared gut

feeling, which varies from deep unease to sheer horror at the sort of society we have created: a society which can produce the torture and murder of a toddler by two children; the massacre of infant-school children in Scotland, so nearly repeated in the West Midlands a few weeks later; the fatal stabbing of a London headmaster by a teenager outside the gates of his own school.

Later a series of terrible events changed the public mood at a deeper, less transient level. In December 1995, a London headmaster, Philip Lawrence, was fatally stabbed while he was trying to protect one of his pupils from a gang. In March came the massacre of 16 five-and six-year olds and their teacher at Dunblane. This was followed by an attack by a man wielding a machete at St Luke's infants school in Wolverhampton, only foiled by the courage of a young woman teacher.

Each of these events in isolation would have produced its own short-lived outcry. Taken together and added to the sickening chronicles of battery, rape, muggings, child-abuse and drug-related teenage deaths they form a swelling tide of anger, bewilderment and despair. Mix in stories of sleaze and scandal in government circles, adultery and divorce among junior Royals, the lies and greed that almost brought down the whole British banking system, social security fraud, unteachable classrooms, overcrowded prisons, the alienation felt by those who have no home, no job, no prospects, no hope – and no wonder people across the country are crying enough. What is more, they want to understand what has brought us to this mess. And then they ask – what can be done?

It would be easy to say it all began with the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Easy but wrong. It was the sweeping reforms of the politicians, notably Roy Jenkins and David Steel, which set the seal on the permissive or, as Jenkins would have it, civilized society. Its catchwords were do your own things. Morality was privatized. You could do what you wanted as long as you did not harm anyone else.

The removal of economic restraints brought greater prosperity but also encouraged rampant acquisitiveness. By the end of the 1980s individualism had won the battle over collectivism worldwide. But it had also seriously damaged social cohesion.

The recession, which followed came like a cold shower to dampen the euphoria. With the onset of Aids and the alarming increase in violent crime, rape and child abuse, it seemed that all the chickens of the last 30 years had come home to roost.

This time, people not only cried out. but took action – enlisting the endorsement of politicians, educationists and church leaders and catching the mood of public opinion.

It was one thing to warn in the sixties and seventies that the ride of permissiveness would lead to family break down, increasing violence and civic disorders. Now the evidence was there for all to see.

Underlying all this is the me first philosophy which justifies all actions in terms of self-interest, rather than the common good. At the heart of these concerns lies the great issue of our time, the dilemma posed for a liberal society by the tension between freedom and constraints, rights and duties.

Our fragmented post-modern culture ensures that lucre is now a pick and mix attitude to morality. The old authorities – parents, school, church, Royal family, government – have declined in influence. No one else, it is held, has the right to decide by which values I run my life. The danger with that approach, of course, is that I tend to judge myself by my ideals and others by their behaviour. The nightmare of secular society is that it has thrown away the moral baby with the religious bathwater. “Why be good if there is no God?”

We seem to be locked into a culture of blame for the parlous state of the nation. The churches blame the schools; the schools blame the parents and the media, the parents blame the media and the schools; the politicians blame the churches, the schools, the media, the parents and each other.

Most pundits seem clear what is needed. What few seem to articulate is the how. A simple proposition might be for each of us to start with ourselves. If each person began with what they could do, where they are, to put things right and to set new standards, then we might soon see a difference.

Hugh Williams. For a Change. 1997

Functional vocabulary

adultery n	нарушение супружеской верности, прелюбодеяние
appeal v	обращаться, апеллировать, взывать
battery n	избиение
bitterness n	горечь
breakdown n	зд. распад, развал
child-abuse n	плохое обращение с детьми
decline n	спад
drug-related adj	вызванный наркотиками
embroil v	запутывать
fraud n	обман, мошенничество, подделка
fray n	драка
greed	жадность
greedy adj	жадный
have a sense of worth v	иметь чувство собственного достоинства
highlight v	выдвигать на первый план

information overload	избыток информации
long for v	страстно желать (чего.-л.), страстно стремиться (к чему-л.)
lucre n	барыш, прибыль
lust n	вожделение, похоть
massacre n	резня, бойня
moral re-armament	духовное/моральное возрождение
mugging n	грабеж
outcry n	громкий крик, протест
pluralistic adj	многообразный
pundit n	ученый муж
recession n	спад (цен, деловой активности)
transient adj	преходящий, мимолетный
violence n	насилие

Language focus

1. Explain the meaning of the following words and phrases. translate them into Russian. Make use of the supplementary texts “Who needs morals?”, “Parents are too permissive with their children nowadays”.

• interaction with others;

• liberation from down-drag of base instincts;

• trustworthy;

• pluralistic society;

• morality was privatized;

• the chickens have come home to roost;

• laissez-faire approach;

• a toddler;

• hypocrisy.

2. Find the words in the text which have a similar meaning to the following.

debate, sheer, fraud, fatal, to assert, fray, modern parlance, rigid, savage, to impart, thorny, to bewilder, to spank, an offspring, to roam, pundit, to mug.

3. Suggest antonyms of the words given below.

to liberate, spiritual, ease, fraud, collectivism, civilized, permissive, moral, secular, laxity, trustworthy, laissez-faire.

4. Match the words with their definitions. Translate them into Russian/Belarusian

bewilderment	immorality, dishonesty, not respectable activity
sleaze	temporary decline in economic activity and prosperity
fraud	vigorous beginning (esp. of sth unpleasant)
recession	deceiving sb in order to make money
onset	a feeling of confusion and indecisiveness about what to do