Is it a contradiction that modern people are so aggressively moralistic; while rejecting purpose, meaning and personal significance in reality?

Is it a contradiction that modern people are so aggressively moralistic; while rejecting purpose, meaning and personal significance in reality? 

We live in a social world of continual, inescapable, aggressive moralizing; despite that almost everybody professes to reject and disbelieve in any basis for morality in reality (reality is regarded as the neutral product of causality, as described by "science").

Indeed, this foundation-less ideology is the basis of the System of global totalitarianism - so its aggressive and compulsory arbitrary-ness is (albeit incoherently!) propagandized-to and enforced-upon billions of people!  

I think there is something very modern about this mind-set. 

In the historical past; I strongly suspect that such a total lack of moral foundations as is now normal, would have led to a situation of "amorality" - in which people had few, feeble and diffidently expressed moral convictions - and would not (as modern do) lead to such amoral individuals spending most their lives advertising their own moral superiority, and opining on the "evils" of various hate-groups...

And engaging in "activism" aggressively to impose "this morning's" pseudo-imperative on everybody else - but especially directed against those are said to who adhere to "yesterday afternoon's" moral principles. 

Much can - and should! - be said about this profoundly strange and destructive state of affairs. 

First, and I think neglected; is that aggressive moralizing is not an index of moral conviction.

I mean that the fact so many people are engaged in seek-and-destroy activities against those who disagree with them is Not evidence of such a person's own state of moral conviction - it is Not evidence of his possessing a strong and sure belief in the morality being implemented.

Indeed; the opposite is usually the case! 

In the modern world, among modern people; the more loudly and aggressively somebody enforces his morality upon others - the less likely it is that he is himself convinced by that morality. 

I have very-often observed this for myself. 

When an aggressive modern moralizer himself begins to become aware of the insecurity of his own publicly affirmed convictions - aware of the fact that they are incoherent and self-contradictory - the more aggressive he becomes!...

He will rant and rage at the absolute importance of imposing his current moral whims; and this aggression has almost no limit of extremity. 

Alternatively, such extremity of emotion may cause a decomposition and breakdown - with (again very public) weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth - apparently presented as "evidence" of the rightness and solidity of his own currently-dominating moral imperatives.  

What is going on here is that the personal element of morality is accepted by mainstream modern people; but this erodes, indeed eliminates, the rationale for making this into a public morality. Therefore the public morality is un-founded, therefore the rationale for its imposition is in fact psychological. 

This creates a reversal. The individual believes that his morality is objectively-true, right and necessary because he feels aggressively that it must be imposed...

And/or the morality is objectively-true, right and necessary because anyone who contradicts it, makes him terribly, terribly upset and miserable. 

In sum: the here-and-now extremity of "my" emotion, is being regarded as the main "evidence" of objective reality. 

Of course, all this kind of stuff is primarily an attribute of the mainstream atheist-materialist "Leftists" who dominate the leadership and management classes of the Western totalitarian pseudo-nations. 

But it is also an attribute of the majority of those who profess to be anti-modern, and pro-tradition; because no matter how religious a modern person may be in his social niche choices - he is still a modern person living in the contemporary world. 

Modern traditionalists of religion have necessarily made a choice to adhere to whatever morality and value-system to which they adhere; and the grounds for that choice always therefore constitute a personal commitment.  

When a modern person aggressively imposes his personal commitment on other people - there arises (whether unconsciously or consciously) the uncomfortable sense of contradiction. 

The ideological or religious system has been chosen, and the grounds for choice cannot help but be rooted in some personal factors - because in the modern world there is no single and inevitable coherent moral system that will be absorbed from "society" - but instead many, many such value-systems; all contested and changeable, usually asserted by different "authorities" - the authoritative status of which is also contested. 

Personal choice of values including morals is therefore inescapable - because it is evidently the way that modern people are made, and the way modern society actually-is. 

It's a fact of life, like it or not... And modern religious traditionalists do Not like it!

This is the psychological basis of the extreme moralistic aggression with which traditionalists approach those who disagree with them. 

The hair-trigger escalation of aggressive statement into aggressive rant, and even into aggressive (including passive-aggressive) threats - which is so common a behaviour among religious traditionalists of all stripes - is therefore evidence of the same kind of insecurity as seen in mainstream left-ideologists. 

I mean that the one is an ideological insecurity; whereas the other is a religious insecurity - in fact a metaphysical - insecurity; and both are rooted in the inevitably personal choice of morality and values in the modern mind in the modern world - a personal choice that "must" be denied in order to make that choice into objective necessity. 

What I'm saying is that while both secular-atheists and religious traditionalists claim that their anger and intransigence are a consequence of the objective validity and necessity of their moral assertions...

I am instead stating that their anger and intransigence are consequences of the - psychologically unacceptable - actuality that their moral assertions are rooted in personal choosing. 

In other words, their aggressive behaviour is not rooted in objective necessity; but is a consequence of the denied knowledge that the aggressively-asserted moral objectivity is rooted in their own subjective emotions and choices.  

The personal anger or upset is being used to underpin pseudo-objective assertion. 

Without their extremity of emotion, they might be compelled to recognize the subjective necessity that roots their publicly-affirmed ideological or religious impositions. 

In order to sustain their public stance; they need their own aggression! 

That's why they cannot and will-not give it up!