Why are morals getting more lax? It largely stems from a view that ‘what may be true for you may not be for me; I can make my own truth.’ This is the essence of postmodernism. Postmodernists claim that all knowledge is culturally determined and therefore not objective.
Buzz words like ‘meta-narrative’ and ‘discourse’ identify postmodernists. Many of the humanities faculties (arts, sociology, education, etc.) at universities push this view. It’s quite the fashion.
Postmodernists deny that objective truth exists. But how can they know that their claim, ‘truth does not exist’, is true if there is no such thing as ‘truth’? So postmodernism is self-refuting: its absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth; its absolute ethic is that all ethics are relative; and its objective worldview is that all worldviews are subjective—a quagmire of suffocating, soul-destroying subjectivism.
In postmodernism, gravity does not exist as an objective reality. So someone operating under a different ‘meta-narrative’ (worldview) where gravity did not exist might walk off a cliff and not kill themselves. But no matter what you believe, you will hurt yourself. Also, the fact that they can walk at all and not float off into space is due to gravity! All beliefs are not equal.
What would have happened if the Wright brothers (see 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!) had been postmodernists? Would they have sought to discover the principles of flight? Hardly! What if an engineer designing a bridge decided that gravity was just a ‘Western’ concept and he decided to take the Hindu view that life is an illusion and (logically) so is gravity and the equations that prescribe the bridge? Would you drive over the bridge?