General Lord Richard Dannatt makes a number of interesting and provocative points in his 2011 Annual Theos lecture (delivered tonight; speech available tomorrow), but one of the most challenging is his observation on what might be called the ‘raw materials’ of the armed forces, in other words the young men and women who join the services.

“In past generations,” he observes, “[and] certainly in this country, it was often assumed that young men and women coming into the Armed Forces would have absorbed an understanding of the core values and standards of behaviour required by the military from their family or from within their wider community.”

Indeed such standards would have typified our society more generally,” he continues, before delivering a stark warning. “I would suggest such a presumption cannot be made today.”

Dannatt does not unpack this claim in detail – he is more interested in what is its impact on the military and what we can do about it – but if he is right (and if anyone knows about the military, he should) he is hitting on the head a nail that has been well and truly pummelled over the last couple of years.

The thread running through the parliamentary expenses scandal, the banking crisis, the phone hacking scandal, and the summer riots was that the norms of behaviour that should have restrained people in each of these circumstances did not. Certainly, there were legal contraventions aplenty. A number of MPs, bankers, journalists, and rioters all broke the law (or the guidelines), and in some instances the law should have been tighter or better policed.

But the depth of the public outrage in each of these instances was driven by moral rather than legal concerns – incredulity that people thought it was acceptable to behave in that way, irrespective of what the law said or whether they thought would get caught.

It is worth remembering the story of the woman caught in adultery at this point and thinking over one’s own invariably chequered moral past before hurling brickbats at corrupt hacks and bankers. How many of us would have had the strength of character to swim against the unethical flow, perhaps risking ridicule and ostracism in the process, and emerge whiter than white?

But that is precisely the point: beneath a plethora of sophisticated ethical arguments there lies the basic point that people tend to behave – or misbehave – because of other people. “Everyone else was doing it…”

Dannatt’s point was not that civil society should train people to be soldiers. That is the army’s job. It is rather that civil society, or more precisely the various bodies that comprise civil society, should nurture in people the basic moral infrastructure that enables the Army to do its work.

The same point is made by teachers, doctors, police, and, other public servants, and so is the same complaint: How can I hope to enthuse children to read if the only book back at home is the Argos Catalogue? How can I heal my patients if they fail to look after themselves? Etc etc.

This is not, it will be noted, an argument for religion. Religious groups are very good at providing nourishment but only the most myopic believe other groups are incapable of doing so. “Family”, “neighbourhood” and “community” are, after all, non-religious groups that frequently appear in this debate.

It is, however, an argument against individualism or, more provocatively the social and economic liberalism that create it. It is only by combating the forces of selfishness and greed, dressed up as freedom and rights, that we can hope to generate the culture of respect and integrity, trust and trustworthiness, without which we may not survive, let alone flourish.

Nick Spencer is Research Director at Theos.