Theoretical Background

Millennial Society

Millennials are the children of the Baby Boomers. The oldest Millennials are about 35, and the youngest
ones just graduated from high school, depending on who is writing the definition.

These young adults are shaping our culture today. They have outpaced the Baby Boomers in population,
and as their buying power continues to grow, they will increasingly become the driving force behind
technology and marketing.

If you are a Baby Boomer, you need to understand what is going on with these young people. What are
the unique challenges they face, and how are they affecting our culture? If you are a parent of a
Millennial, you need to know the reasons why their young adulthood is so different from the way yours
was. Understanding your young adult is far different from understanding your teen.

Being familiar with the unique challenges facing your young adult child is the important first step to
understanding their world and deepening your connection with them.

Unlike previous generations who tended to bond together in their struggles, Millennials can easily be
separated and alienated by technology even when they think it is connecting them. They see so many
happy and successful photos on social media, and they don't realize how inaccurate a picture they
paint. We all tend to compare what we know about our own inner life (complicated, and not always
wonderful) with what we know about others' outer lives ("normal", happy). Social media magnify this
effect and can lead to depression and anxiety in the observer. How do these generation behave and
socialize? In this study, we will be dealing with Moral Theories.

The Nature of Morality and Moral Theories

The words "moral" and "ethics" are often used interchangeably. However, it is useful to make the
following distinction: Morality is the system through which we determine right and wrong conduct --
i.e., the guide to good or right conduct. What, then, is a moral theory? A theory is a structured set of
statements used to explain (or predict) a set of facts or concepts.A moral theory, then, explains why a
certain action is wrong -- or why we ought to act in certain ways. In short, it is a theory of how we
determine right and wrong conduct. Also, moral theories provide the framework upon which we think
and discuss in a reasoned way, and so evaluate, specific moral issues. Seen in this light, it becomes clear
that we cannot draw a sharp divide between moral theory and applied ethics (e.g., medical or business
ethics). For instance, in order to critically evaluate the moral issue of affirmative action, we must not
attempt to evaluate what actions or policies are right (or wrong) independent of what we take to
determine right and wrong conduct. You will see, as we proceed, that we do not do ethics without at
least some moral theory.When evaluating the merits of some decision regarding a case, we will always
(or at least ought to always) find ourselves thinking about how right and wrong is determined in
general, and then apply that to the case at hand. Note, though, that sound moral thinking does not
simply involve going one way -- from theory to applied issue.

Sometimes a case may suggest that we need to change or adjust our thinking about what moral theory
we think is the best, or perhaps it might lead us to think that a preferred theory needs modification. In
presenting a moral theory, are we merely describing how people, in their everyday 'doings' and
'thinkings,' form a judgement about what is right and wrong, or are we prescribing how people ought to
make these judgements? Most take moral theories to be prescriptive. The descriptive accounts of what
people do is left to sociologists and anthropologists. Philosophers, then, when they study morality, want
to know what is the proper way of determining right and wrong. There have been many different
proposals.

Theories of Morality

(1) Moral Subjectivism

Right and wrong is determined by what you -- the subject -- just happens to think (or 'feel') is right or
wrong.

In its common form, Moral Subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of any significant
kind, and the possibility of moral criticism and argumentation. In essence, 'right' and 'wrong' lose their
meaning because so long as someone thinks or feels that some action is 'right', there are no grounds for
criticism. If you are a moral subjectivist, you cannot object to anyone's behaviour (assuming people are
in fact acting in accordance with what they think or feel is right). This shows the key flaw in moral
subjectivism -- probably nearly everyone thinks that it is legitimate to object, on moral grounds, to at
least some peoples' actions.That is, it is possible to disagree about moral issues.

(2) Cultural Relativism

Right and wrong is determined by the particular set of principles or rules the relevant culture just
happens to hold at the time.

Cultural Relativism is closely linked to Moral Subjectivism. It implies that we cannot criticize the actions
of those in cultures other than our own. And again, it amounts to the denial of universal moral
principles. Also, it implies that a culture cannot be mistaken about what is right and wrong (which
seems not to be true), and so it denies the possibility of moral advancement (which also seems not to
be true).

(3) Ethical Egoism

Right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-interest. Or, it is immoral to act contrary to your
self-interest.

Ethical Egoism is usually based upon Psychological Egoism -- that we, by nature, act selfishly. Ethical
egoism does not imply hedonism or that we ought to aim for at least some 'higher' goods (e.g., wisdom,
political success), but rather that we will (ideally) act so as to maximize our self interest. This may
require that we forgo some immediate pleasures for the sake of achieving some long term goals. Also,
ethical egoism does not exclude helping others. However, egoists will help others only if this will further
their own interests. An ethical egoist will claim that the altruist helps others only because they want to
(perhaps because they derive pleasure out of helping others) or because they think there will be some
personal advantage in doing so. That is, they deny the possibility of genuine altruism (because they
think we are all by nature selfish). This leads us to the key implausibility of Ethical Egoism -- that the
person who helps others at the expense of their self-interest is actually acting immorally. Many think
that the ethical egoist has misunderstood the concept of morality -- i.e., morality is the system of
practical reasoning through which we are guided to constrain our self-interest, not further it. Also, that
genuine altruism is indeed possible, and relatively commonly exhibited.

(4) Divine Command Theory

Many claim that there is a necessary connection between morality and religion, such that, without
religion (in particular, without God or gods) there is no morality, i.e., no right and wrong behaviour.
Although there are related claims that religion is necessary to motivate and guide people to behave in
morally good way, most take the claim of the necessary connection between morality and religion to
mean that right and wrong come from the commands of God (or the gods). This view of morality is
known as Divine Command Theory. The upshot is that an action is right -- or obligatory -- if God
command we do it, wrong if God commands we refrain from doing it, and morally permissible if God
does not command that it not be done.
Divine Command Theory is widely held to have several serious flaws. First, it presupposes that God or
gods exist. Second, even if we assume that God does exist, it presupposes that we can know what God
commands. But even if we accept theism, it looks like even theists should reject the theory. Plato raised
the relevant objection 2500 years ago. He asked:

Is something right (or wrong) because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is
right?

If the latter, then right and wrong are independent of the gods' commands -- Divine Command Theory is
false. If the former, then right and wrong are just a matter of the arbitrary will of the gods (i.e., they
might have willed some other, contradictory commands).

Most think that right and wrong are not arbitrary -- that is, some action is wrong, say, for a reason.
Moreover, that if God commands us not to do an action, He does so because of this reason, not simply
because He arbitrarily commands it. What makes the action wrong, then, is not God's commanding it,
but the reason.
 A Study of Morality in the
Millennial Society

If you are a Baby Boomer, you need to

understand what is going on with these young
people. What are the unique challenges they
face, and how are they affecting our culture? If
you are a parent of a Millennial, you need to
know the reasons why their young adulthood is
so different from the way yours was.
Understanding your young adult is far different
from understanding your teen.
Millennials are the children of the
Baby Boomers.These young adults are
shaping our culture today. They have
outpaced the Baby Boomers in
Millennials can easily be separated and population, and as their buying power
alienated by technology even when they think continues to grow, they will
it is connecting them. They see so many happy increasingly become the driving force
and successful photos on social media, and behind technology and marketing.
they don't realize how inaccurate a picture
they paint. We all tend to compare what we
know about our own inner life (complicated,
and not always wonderful) with what we know
about others' outer lives ("normal", happy).
Significance of the Study
Social media magnify this effect and can lead
to depression and anxiety in the observer.
How do these generation behave and
SELFsocialize? In this study, we will be dealing with
Moral Theories.
Awareness and knowledge on oneself that as Millennials, they tend to be more caring, community
oriented, and politically engaged than previous generations. They are described as overly self-confident
and self-absorbed. This generation masters self-expression, with 75% creating a profile on a social
networking site, 20% posting a video of themselves online, 38% with one to six tattoos, and 23% with a
piercing in some place other than an earlobe.There is also a trend toward personal branding, which, on
its surface, appears self-promoting. Looking a bit deeper reveals a method for young people to identify
their passions and determine the most expedient path forward, rather than having others set a path for
them.

PARENTS

The priorities of being a good parent and having a successful marriage are most important to
Millennials, similar to those held by Gen Xers at a similar stage of life. Similarly, helping others in need is
as important to the youth of both generations. Differences in the order of life’s priorities are that older
generations are more likely to place a higher importance on a very religious life and a lower importance
on being successful in a high-paying career.Parents of Millennials influence the environment as they
continue their active involvement in their children’s educational experience.

EDUCATION

Millennials have and will continue to influence education. First, as students, these digital natives have
forced learning institutions to communicate and educate in new ways. They bring a new generational
personality—done of optimism, structure, team orientation, and a confidence bordering on
entitlement. Instructors are figuring out how to manage the amount of involvement and feedback these
students demand. Some institutions are adapting their space to a less formal learning environment that
combines structured learning with preferred group-based practical learning. Millennials are also
entering the teaching ranks. Like their corporate peers, they prefer frequent feedback, fairness,
recognition, and peer learning.

THE STUDENT

Millennials score high on IQ tests. They also score higher on such traits as extraversion, self-esteem,
self-liking, high expectations, and assertiveness. These traits are purported to often lead to narcissism
and entitlement.Two-thirds of students predict they will perform in the top 20% of the population in
their adult jobs. Self-esteem cannot deliver their expected success, and this mathematical impossibility
leads many to experience frustration.They are showing measures of stress, anxiety, and symptoms of
depression and are receiving lower scores on self-reliance.
 Chapter II

Review of Related Literature

The Millennials are perhaps the most researched generation in the history of the

United States (Strauss & Howe, 2000). Defining them as a unit is difficult, as there is no
set definition of when they were born, what to call them, or exactly how many they are,

but American members of this generation tend to share some common characteristics. It

is important to recognize the Millennials because “just as history produces generations,

so too do generations produce history” (Strauss & Howe, 1991, p. 184). With a total

population of 72.9 million, Millennials may number as many as the Baby Boomer. They

comprise nearly a third of the population of the United States (Zemke, et al., 2000).

Strauss and Howe (1991) categorized the various generations throughout United

States history in cycles in order to disseminate patterns. Looking at demographic trends

dating back as far as to the 16th century, Strauss and Howe viewed the Millennial

generation as a part of the Millennial cycle, which includes all generations alive in

America at the turn of the 21st century. The author then grouped the generations into a

pattern that they believe roughly corresponds to periods of every four generations

throughout American history. They then grouped these individual generations into the

traits of idealist, reactive, civic, or adaptive according to events occurring during the

lifespan of the respective generation. More recent generations that Strauss and Howe

define are the “G. I.” Generation born 1901 to 1924 who became adults during World
War II; the “Silent” Generation (born 1925 to 1942) who were children of the Great

Depression; the “Baby Boomer” Generation (born 1943 to 1960) who were born

following World War II; the “13th” Generation or “Generation X” (1961 to 1981) who

came of age during the late Cold War. Strauss and Howe view the Millennial generation

as being civic in their beliefs and nearly parallel to the beliefs of the “G.I.” generation

that came of age during World War II. The Civic cycle in America, according to Strauss

and Howe (1991) has traits that are similar to those of the Millennials, including a strong

adherence to government, conformism, and teamwork. In turn, this makes the sense of

being a part of a community and serving within it by volunteering very important values

for Millennials (Johnson, 2006; Strauss & Howe, 2000). See Table 1 for generations,

dates, and traits.

Many important historical events and cultural attitudes in both the United States

and the rest of the world help to shape the Millennial generation and have “helped [to]

forge a sensibility that will last a lifetime in shaping expectations and entitlement, in

determining what one will give to and take from society, work, one’s community, etc.”

(Weiss, 2003, p. 30). Events such as the Oklahoma City bombing, the Columbine

shootings, 9/11, the impeachment of President Clinton, and the dotcom bust are examples

of events that had profound impact in shaping the characteristics and values of the

Millennials (Weiss, 2003). Events that are considered formative experiences are

important because they mold a generation’s preferences and beliefs (Paul, 2001). Overall,

Millennials tend to be more conservative and conventional than their parents, and support

social issues such as school prayer, federal aid to faith based charities, the War on Terror,

and opposition to abortion (Sanchez, 2003; Strauss & Howe, 2000).

The Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing in 1995 and the Columbine shootings in 1999

made the Millennials much more attuned to their personal safety. These events also raised

their awareness of the news media’s interpretation and intrusion into their personal sphere

because they believed the media represented their generationas violent perpetrators of crime

(Paul, 2001; Zemke et al., 2000). The Columbine High School shootings also made families

realize that violence, which was at one time something foreign to Americans, could occur at

the local level and outside of urban areas (Morton, 2002; Paul, 2000; Zemke et al., 2000) and

made society more concerned about individual safety (Strauss & Howe, 2006). The events of

9/11 brought great amounts of patriotism to the Millennial generation and, as a result, they are

less likely to challenge authority and create dramatic political upheaval (Morton, 2002;

Sanchez, 2003; Weiss, 2003).

Even though the after the Oklahoma City Bombing and Columbine shooting the

media portrayed the Millennials as being more violent than past generations, society as a

whole is showing that Millennials are actually less violent than the negative youth culture

adults have created about them (Strauss & Howe, 2000). Zemke et al. (2000) argue that

the Oklahoma City bombings and Columbine shootings, along with the 9/11 terrorist

attack, will become the Millennials’ cause célèbre and will bring them together in a way

unseen since World War II united the G.I. generation. Combine this united belief with the

Millennial talent at communicating with others through the Internet, and a formula is

created to seek societal change (Tapscott, 1998; Zemke, 2000). However, Twenge (2006)

warns that Millennials could become violent, because the violence around them causes

everyone to trust no one, which may lead to a culture of disconnection away from tight

communities.
 Scandals also have greatly impacted the Millennials’ worldview since they show

differing reactions to them and generally carry more conservative viewpoints than those

of their parents. The media started paying more attention to celebrity sex scandals in the

1990s, which resulted in Millennials looking at celebrities as more fallible and not as

leaders as society has traditionally looked upon them. This view makes Millennials

examine celebrities more realistically and thereby look up to them on a level different

than previous generations (Paul, 2001).

An example is the scandal caused by the Clinton impeachment, about which

Millennials tended to be more judgmental towards the President than the general public

and were dismayed at how Clinton did not uphold his own word (Paul, 2001; Strauss &

Howe, 2000; Zemke et al., 2000). Since Millennials followed the Clinton scandal so

closely and they witnessed the 2000 presidential election crisis, analysts believe that

Millennials are taking an interest in politices and will be more willing participants within

the political process in the future (Paul, 2001; Behnke & Oberwetter, 2008; Strauss &

Howe, 2000; Verhaagen, 2005; Zemke et al., 2000).

As a result of scandals, such as President Clinton’s sex scandal, Millennials are

showing that they are more conservative and generally subscribe to a stricter moral code

than their parents (Zemke et al., 2000). However, that moral code is frequently defined

differently due to the Clinton scandal realignment of moral values (Twenge, 2006).

Millennials were very offended by the Clinton sex scandal, which can be seen in the fact

that they are less sexually promiscuous and more concerned about sexually transmitted,

diseases than previous generations, as seen by a lower teen pregnancy rate (Zemke et al.,

2000). They also tend to be more religious and place an emphasis on conservative
evangelical principals such as no sex before marriage and performing community service

(Barna, 1995; Twenge, 2006). They also tend to be more polite, and manners are

increasingly emphasized more among the Millennial generation. One study of Millennial

teenagers found that they would rather find a niche within conventional society than to

turn it upside down (Zemke, 2000). These traits show that the Millennial generation is

attempting to fill the more traditional social role that the Veteran generation fulfilled. As

the Veterans pass away, the Millennials are filling in the vacuum of the more traditional

and moralistic society of this previous generation (Allerton, 2001; Eisner, 2005; Strauss

& Howe, 1991; Tooker, 2006).

One of the foremost changes that affected the Millennials as a generation was a

societal change to appreciate and nurture children more than occurred throughout

Generation X (Twenge, 2006). Generation X was a relatively small generation because

their parents often did not want children, instead catering to their own needs. They were

born during the age after the creation of the birth control pill, which allowed women to

suppress pregnancy and not have as many children. During the 1980s, children were

often ignored as a barrier to adult fulfillment and enjoyment and were often left to their

own devices, giving rise to the term “latchkey child” (Verhaagen, 2005). However,

during the 1980s, society realized that children deserved to be wanted and needed. The

February 22, 1982, cover of Time magazine showcased an article about how Baby

Boomer mothers were finally starting to have children after waiting until they were much

older than previous generations for motherhood (Strauss & Howe, 2006). Several other

events, including the 1982 case of cyanide tainted Tylenol, led to fears that Halloween

candy could also be tainted and prominent cases of child sexual abuse had the effect of
causing societal outrage about how children were not being protected. This led to a series

of books and media reports about how children could be saved from the scourge of a

violent American society and what parents and schools could do to protect children

(Strauss & Howe, 2000). These changes worked to put children at the highest place that

American society could give to them; suddenly child safety, child friendly legislation,

and family values became the buzzwords (Strauss & Howe, 2000; Verhaagen, 2005).

Overall, members of the Millennial generation admire and respect their parents

(Strauss & Howe, 2000; Weiss, 2003), with Verhaagen (2005) reporting that three

quarters of them state they get along well with their parents, while only 3% do not, with

the rest describing their relationship as neutral. They are also very close to their parents

both geographically and emotionally (New Strategist, 2006; Strauss & Howe, 2000;

Weiss, 2003) and usually share similar values and beliefs (Barna, 1995). Frequently, they

move back in with their parents after college, as they want to regain the sense of

closeness to their families (Tooker, 2006). They often refer to their families “as a

sanctuary against the difficulties of life” (Clausing et al., 2003, p. 374). In the past,

“quality time” with children was stressed, but the Millennials grew up under the belief

that quality time is not enough and they need to have their parents’ unconditional

attention (Strauss & Howe, 2000; Zemke et al., 2000). However, some do not view this

relationship as vital in the workplace, stating, “Only your parents love you

unconditionally, everyone else expects you to perform” (Hill, 2002, p. 62). Even though

families with Millennial children are generally very child centered, they experienced

stark changes in the family structure as compared to previous generations. Only 50% of

families included a father in the 1990s and it is estimated that by 2010, fewer than 30% of
children will live in two parent homes (Strauss & Howe, 2000; Zemke, 2000). Nearly all

mothers of Millennials, both single and married, have jobs outside of the home.

Millennial children today do not have the expectation that any member of their generation

will grow up in the traditional two parent home, and therefore, they seek to establish

close bonds with not only their parents, but also other family members and friends in

order to gain security in an uncertain world (Zemke et al., 2000). Additionally, there is a

widening gap in society between the “haves” and “have nots” with 16 to 25% of children

living under the poverty level (Eisner, 2005;Verhaagen, 2005), though, in 2000, the

actual raw numbers of children in poverty were at the lowest levels in history (Strauss &

Howe, 2000). This income division often has profound effects, as poorer children have

less access to the technologies that are changing Millennial society (Merritt & Neville,

2002; Tapscott,1998).

Because they are emotionally close to their parents, Millennials have always been

somewhat coddled by overprotecting parents who have always given them their own way

(Hill, 2002; Sanchez, 2003; Strauss & Howe, 2000; Zemke, et al. 2000). Their parents,

the majority being from the Baby Boomer generation, also have a history of getting

whatever they want, and are passing this trait on to their children (Zemke, et al., 2000).

As a result, Millennials want information and products to be customized (Tapscott, 1998)

to suit their “own tastes and whims” (Weiss, 2003, p. 35). Millennials are frequently

given an equal role in making family decisions such as large purchases and vacation

destinations (Twenge, 2006). They are used to information being handed to them on a

level that has already been processed by their elders and they expect this tailored

information to continue throughout adulthood (Weiss, 2003).

 Diversity is also an important trait of the Millennials as 39% of them are

minorities and 7% are immigrants themselves, compared to 27% minorities within the

total U.S. population (Allerton, 2001; Morton, 2002; Strauss & Howe, 2000; New

Strategist, 2006; Verhaagen, 2005). American society of the 2010s is one in which

diversity prevails and is usually accepted because children are exposed to a wide range of

global viewpoints, untraditional families, and sexual views from a very young age

through their families and the media (Strauss & Howe, 2000; Tapscott, 1998; Tooker,

2006). Millennials take little bits and pieces from all the different aspects of diversity and

makes them their own (Strauss & Howe, 2000). As a result, the Millennials tend to have

an interest in and acceptance of all types of diversity and are already questioning most

traditional racial categories (Strauss & Howe, 2006; Twenge, 2006; Zemke et al., 2000).

Many have adopted broader definitions of families, more tolerance of cohabitation, and

single parenting (Allerton, 2001; Barna, 1995; Morton, 2002; Paul, 2001; Tapscott, 1998)

and even though they are generally more conservative to politics and religion, they value

a diverse opinion set and take a more populist attitude concerning social issues

(Brownstein & Freedman, 2010; Sanchez, 2003). Along with diversity, they are a more

global generation than any in the past, linked to their peers in the United States through

diversity initiatives and technology connectivity (Clausing et al., 2003).

The parents of Millennials have told them since childhood that they are capable of

accomplishing anything they put their mind to, which has led to an unbounded amount of

enthusiasm (Barna, 1995; Straus & Howe, 2000; Sujansky, 2002; Tapscott, 1998;Zemke,

2000). Although they have generally been protected by their parents (Tapscott, 1998),

Millennials overall are very self reliant and are eager to take responsibility for their own
successes, independent of others’ responsibilities towards a project (Clausing et al., 2003;

Strauss & Howe, 2000; Twenge, 2006). Millennials have very high self esteem, with

scores on the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory among teenagers in the mid 1990s at

their highest levels since the creation of the test in the 1970s. Twenge examined the

Marlowe-Crowne-Social Desirability Scale studies over time and found that Millennials

do not see a need to conform to societal norms that previous generations embraced

(Twenge, 2006). However, Twenge believes that society should interpret the Millennial

ideas of self esteem, the ability to do anything, and a lack of societal norms as a danger to

society as a whole as it may lead to “training an army of little narcissists instead of raising

kids’ self esteem” (p. 70). Twenge goes on to argue that these traits are leading to a rise in

depression among Millennials. However, Neil and Strauss (2000) argue that these

problems are, while recognized, increasingly solved with antidepressant medication and

therapy, which the Millennial generation is increasinglyutilizing.

Millennials are increasingly known as the generation that came of age during the

Great Recession, starting in 2008. As unemployment has grown in the United States,

Millennials have received the brunt of the bad job market, with the unemployment rate

for 20 to 24 year olds in March 2010 at nearly 16%, and for minorities in this age group,

unemployment was at nearly 28% (Brownstein et al., 2010). Only one sixth of

Millennials think they are earning enough money to live comfortably (Brownstein &

Freedman, 2010). Few jobs are being created at the entry level that Millennials desire and

entry level jobs are often the first to be downsized among large companies. The result is

that many well-educated Millennial are underemployed or self employed in somewhat

risky work from home or entrepreneurial ventures. They also volunteer in low or no pay
internships or with public service organizations. Among those without college degrees,

the job market is even more difficult as blue collar jobs increasingly need advanced skills

(Brownstein et al., 2010; Harder, 2010) Although Millennials are still aspiring to lofty

career goals, many of them have been forced to live with their parents or use creative

methods to earn money while still pursuing their employment dreams (Thompson, 2010).

Many students are also pursuing graduate education in hopes that once they finish a

higher degree, the economy will improve and they will get their dream job. However,

there is a fear among Millennials that the down economy will cause them to have less

earning and buying power throughout their adult life and that the student loan debt held

by two thirds of Millennials will be with them throughout their lives. Despite the down

economy, Millennials remain optimistic that their economics will improve and still want

careers that use their collaboration and technology skills that have made them distinctive

(Brownstein et al.).