Mal Fletcher considers the growing fear in society of all things traditional

Ethicists such as Harvard University's Michael Sandel are calling for societies to rethink their entire approach to the market. They advocate a return to a more moral rather than purely pragmatic outlook.

The market may serve us, Sandel argues, but it must not be allowed to define us. Some things in life are devalued when we attach a monetary price to them. Only a vigorous debate about ethics - which is, after all, applied morality - can keep us from losing sight of this.

A similar debate is opening up within education. Last week, the Sunday Times reported on a study among head teachers in English state schools. Fully one third believe that schools are failing to develop moral standards in their students.

One quarter say that schools are not establishing values in their students and 40 percent believe that schools are not developing "the whole child". Head teachers specifically cited the decline in religious assemblies and sporting activities as reasons for the latter.

Last week, the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) called upon British politicians to renew their commitment to the family and fatherhood. According to its most recent report, there are now a record three million children living in lone parent households.

About one million children in the UK have almost no meaningful contact with their fathers and family breakdown costs nearly £50 billion per year. On top of that, of course, there is the much more important cost to children, who are more likely to suffer from a range of social and psychological problems.

The pressures on families today are arguably deeper and more widespread than they were in the 1950s. Yet relatively few would argue that we might not benefit from a return to some of its put-the-children-first values.

Indeed, without saying it in so many words, the CSJ appears to be doing just that - as are newspaper editors. Last Tuesday's Times editorial called for a return to an appreciation of the extended family, where mums and dads are surrounded by committed relations and so are "more likely to withstand social shocks".

Meanwhile, our society is trying to come to grips with the horrific situation of girls who are groomed for sexual slavery from a young age. At the same time, the shocking murder of five-year-old April Jones, motivated as it was by sexual deviancy fed online, highlights the growing problem of child porn on the internet.

Prime Minister David Cameron has called upon Google and similar search engine companies to block all pornographic material that features children. Nobody accuses Mr Cameron of having values and views that hark back to the 1950s, for most people recognise that in this instance holding to those values might be a very good thing.

There is no doubt the children were abused in the 1950s - and before. Often, in a culture that was then either more inclined to disbelieve children or to sweep such problems under the carpet, the offences went unreported.

Yet there is no evidence that either child pornography or child sex slavery occurred then at anywhere near the level they have reached today.

The emerging debate about the PRISM project in the US - which tracks emails and phone calls of citizens - and its likely impact within the UK also raises questions about ethics.

Facing all of these and a host of other social challenges, we are reminded that no society can survive without reference to some system of established, traditional and proven morality.