SEPT. 11 A REBIRTH DAY FOR GENUINE MORALITY.

Byline: Mari Werner Local View

DID something happen to America's view of morality on Sept. 11?

Over the last few decades we've been pushed further and further toward the psychologists' view of ethics, namely that there is no real right and wrong, just different viewpoints. A high value has been placed on being nonjudgmental, and understanding the viewpoints of others no matter what they do.

Everyone is a victim of something. There isn't really any right or wrong or good or bad; it's all subjective, personal choices based on personal experience.

Public schools train students in ``values clarification'' or sensitivity training or whatever is the current moniker for it. Students are asked to review their own subjective experience (all of maybe 15 years) and reinvent the wheel of ethics and morality based on that alone.

Concepts of good, bad, right, wrong, moral and immoral have been denigrated as simplistic, pompous, unsophisticated, downright laughable.

It gets very muddy. A woman drowning her own children is a victim of society. A boy walking into a school and gunning down his classmates is something people ``disagree with,'' but we mustn't be so judgmental as to call it wrong.

On Sept. 11, it suddenly got simple. Terrorists using planes full of passengers as missiles of death and destruction: Wrong. Firefighters risking their lives to save others: Right.

Passengers on Flight 93 overcoming the terrorists: Right. Thousands of citizens rallying 'round to provide care and assistance to the injured and the bereaved: Right.

Sentiments about Sept. 11 go a lot further than ``disagree with it,'' and there don't seem to be many who care what the terrorists may have been victims of.

We've been confronted with something that we can't help saying is wrong, bad, evil, all those words that it's been out of style to use.

At the same time we've seen actions that we can't help labeling as honorable, courageous, noble - and other passe, unsophisticated words.

How can you not admire the passengers of Flight 93 who acted to save the lives of others, knowing their own lives were ending either way?

Somehow, I can't imagine that they were subscribers to the psychology- based view of ethics. Could they have learned that kind of behavior in values clarification class in school? I don't think so. If they'd had such training and taken it to heart, they would have unlearned such heroics - and Flight 93 would have reached the terrorists' target.

Until the advent of modern psychology, the idea of there being no such thing as right and wrong was confined to the minds of the basest criminals. Religions now and throughout history have always had codes of conduct. Families, cultures and ethnic groups have had codes of conduct.

Do we really need or want a country full of psychologized, values-clarified citizens? Can we afford it? Can we survive with such a citizenry? Maybe it's time to drop psychology's idea of ethics and go back to what we know in our hearts.

Since Sept. 11, Americans with religious affiliations have looked to their religions for guidance and support, and even those without religious ties may be taking a new look at ethics.

During the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, a booklet called ``The Way to Happiness'' has been distributed broadly in New York City and Washington, D.C. A nondenominational common-sense moral code, the booklet counsels, among other things, ``Respect the religious beliefs of others.''

Twenty-one precepts cover golden-rule type principles in addition to simple directives such as ``Do not murder'' and higher-order concepts such as ``Be worthy of trust'' and ``Be competent.''

Is America turning away from murky psychological ethics to something more concrete, more honorable, more right? I hope so.