I believe it is and below are some of my arguments, which we can develop as we go along.
The word decadence, which at first simply meant “decay” in an abstract sense, seems most applicable to our situation at the present time. Today it is most often used to refer to a perceived decline in standards, morality, dignity, religious belief, honour, discipline or governability among members of the elite of a very large social structure such as an empire or a nation state. But it could be taken to mean the decline of the rich nations on a global scale. We often forget that, by comparison, even our poor people are better off than poor people in third world and developing countries. The decline in standards shows a lack of awareness that we are responsible to maintain standards, and not just expect them to be given.
This could be seen as a politically conservative approach, which is about maintaining order in society and protecting it from chaos, which could be seen as more of a left-wing attribute of people who want to change society so that these standards apply to all people and not just an elite. This, of course, has an impact on poorer countries and, as a consequence, means higher costs and fewer privileges for those who are more fortunate today, which has been interpreted by some conservative governments as a threat to national security. Considering that many of these countries are Christian or claim to be morally superior, perhaps this shows the level of decadence that exists there.
With regards to morality, the “sexual revolution” changed the moral landscape. This was generally said to be due to the fact that the contraceptive pill reduced the number of pregnancies in women and the spread of pornography, but there are indications that there was more going on. The moral corset of society enforced by the church was considered too tight by privileged groups a long time before that, and men could do what they wanted (were even considered gallant for their escapades) whereas women were called at best “permissive” and at worst “whores” for the same behaviour. The problem underlying this behaviour was revealed by the treatment of women for so called “hysteria”, which, it turned out, was an orgasm. Obviously, such women were suffering under sexual depravation, whereas their husbands were only out to satisfy their own desires.
But it wasn’t only in sexuality that moral standards were not upheld. In wars and in the colonies of western countries, men were murdering, raping, and pillaging at will. There was an obvious hypocrisy maintained regarding moral standards, which men brought home with them. They often didn’t want to speak about their experiences, and many were suffering und post-traumatic stress disorder when they returned. It was an attack on their moral standards that these men (and women) had suffered, leaving them in a sorry state and unable to cope with everyday life. Domestic violence was very often a result, but also impotence and depression.
But it is not only morality that has suffered. Looking at the above, it is clear that dignity has also suffered, especially among people who previously presumed a certain dignity. The basic attitude towards indigenous peoples in the colonies robbed them of their dignity, they were considered savages and their social and religious structure was described as primitive and pagan. This continues today in many expressions of racism. But due to developments in Western countries, with their many disputes and wars, people also denied their Western enemies the dignity they claimed for themselves. The stigma of having been an enemy still clings, for example, to Germans who lost a war in the 1940s, but subsequent generations still have to endure the stigma eighty years later.
Dignity also falls victim to “coolness”, an attempt to overcome the rigid grandeur of past generations, but which degenerates into over-familiarity at the expense of respecting the person, their responsibilities, and their achievements, and instead seeing themselves as equal, as it were, without having anything to show for it. Respect for others is questioned and is probably due to a lack of self-respect often found in people who lack due respect for others.
Of course, this also has to do with honour, which has also declined over the years. Honour has a lot to do with deportment and behaviour and integrity, which in turn has to do with the adherence to moral and ethical principles or soundness of moral character and honesty. It seems to be the scoundrel that is held higher in reverence than the honourable person, providing one isn’t the victim of such a rascal. The person who is seen to be “street-wise” is the one who finds shortcuts and overcomes obstacles by "hook or by crook ", an English phrase meaning by any means necessary, suggesting that any means possible should be taken to accomplish a goal, even dishonourable ones. The main thing is not to be caught.
But to maintain honourability, one also has to maintain a certain discipline, which has a lot to do with self-discipline and less to do with disciplinary methods. The fact that one has overcome one’s own weakness (pigdog in German) provides a person with the ability to show self-discipline in many areas of life. The lack of this experience often leads to people shirking their responsibilities, running from their duties and generally becoming unreliable. This is seen, for example, in the number of women who are single parents, and the men who consider themselves scot free (‘Skat’ is a Scandinavian word for tax or payment and the word migrated to Britain and mutated into ‘scot’ as the name of a redistributive taxation, levied as early the 10th century as a form of municipal poor relief. ‘Scot’ as a term for tax has been used since then in various forms - Church scot, Rome scot, Soul scot and so on. Whatever the tax, the phrase ‘getting off scot free’ simply refers to not paying one’s taxes.)
It is very clear that there has been a decline in religious belief, not least of all because of hypocrisy. However, it is also because of an increase in materialism, that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. It is also the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies. This is also applied to religious myths, analogies and metaphors, which are definitely not speaking materialistically, and so the criticism based on this understanding is unfounded.
The area of religion is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, with an understanding that there are agencies that we do not understand that govern our existence on this planet. Science has transported a theory that denies any meaning to existence, and therefore undermines the understanding that we are all responsible. Science offers a relief for those who don’t want to be held accountable for their actions and is so often preferred over religion for this reason, without necessarily understanding the proposition of science in certain areas. Although the opposition of science to religion (or vice versa) is unfounded, since both operate from different propositions, science often goes uncriticised, and has taken on a dogmatic stance in many areas, that resembles the dogmatisms of the church, which are widely criticised.
Do you have anything to add?