I usually have something to say on an issue. So when I find myself speechless I paradoxically feel the need to elaborate. The context this appears most often in, is a debate on values. A professor in logic or ethics will tell you that many debates – from gay marriage to Federal Communications Commission censorship- cannot be conclusively solved because there is no unifying fact from which to begin. We understand scientific debates from global warming or medicine to be based on fact and experimentation. But what do you say at the end of the line when your opponent comes right out and says “but why is that wrong?”

In a panel discussion last fall, we had taken about half an hour hammering out the separation or connection between behaviors which were controversial versus behaviors that were taboo. To make my point I had argued that there was no actual difference – the two behaviors were logically and morally equivalent.

Five minutes later an audience member stepped up and asked why these behaviors – that the entire panel had been citing as taboo – were actually so wrong. And he had a point; nothing we were considering violated individual autonomy or caused obvious harm to the party involved.

My response was, “Actually, nothing. Except that a representative government simply would not allow it so long as the populace continues to condemn such behavior.” What I wanted to say was “because some values really should be sacred and please tell me you were joking.” But I understood his point and its implications.

Our generation likes to constantly push the limits. What our parents did in protests and demonstrations we do in our apparel, our vocabulary and our general attitudes. But what I find most interesting is why.

I am convinced that our generation fully believes it has the wisdom to rebuild our culture from the ground up. We do not challenge taboos because it is cool, we challenge them because we genuinely believe they have no basis and their violation will be met with no consequence. And I find the whole trend terrifying.

Here is an example: Should we teach abstinence-only sex? I genuinely do not know the answer, but I know that there is a flaw in how this is posited. Maybe elementary and middle school students should know all the options so if they choose that route at least it won’t be the end of their world.

The problem is that the debate is rarely depicted that way now. We teach the preventative as the moral, not the fallback. The same thing holds true in language and etiquette. We have come to accept that we should avoid uncouth language and vulgar references – and that we should behave in an “upright manner” – not as a matter of course, but only in deference to others. In the absence of such “sensitive” individuals all bets are off.

I am not, nor would I ever, argue in favor of a politically correct manner. What I am trying to illustrate is that there really and truly is something at stake in the debate on everyday values. Maybe the guy at that panel was right. Maybe it makes no difference if one formerly taboo practice is condoned. But it makes a real difference when every social stigma and endorsement is ignored.

So I guess in the end, I still do not have that rational, scientific explanation for why our (former) values are so important. And, truth be told, I will probably be at the front of the line to see the next violent, profane and generically degenerate movie to hit the box office. But as a last ditch to dig in my heels and try to defend our more traditional values, let me sign off on this note: Last week I wrote about America and how we have inherited our status from societies like Ancient Greece and Rome. I proposed it is not our power, but our ideas that ensure America’s place in history long after our national apocalypse. And what is more intrinsic to the ideas of a culture than the values by which they live?

So go and see the newest blockbuster. We’ll just hope it is not a prophesy of what we are becoming.