A "new" morality

I don't know whether it's the world or me. I guess you could say I'm having an "Andy Rooney" moment, except that I'm probably not as cleverly amusing. In the world I grew up in, it was a desirable trait to help without having to be asked. I'm taken aback when I do what I think is a good thing and it is interpreted somehow as criticism. So, it's not good to help without being asked? Is it better to sit idly by until someone feels angry at you for doing nothing or until they get frustrated at trying to keep up with all they have to do without any assistance?
Growing up, I thought making your bed every morning was just a brief chore that helped to keep the house tidy. I guess that's wrong, too...? You shouldn't teach it to your children because they are too busy with their computer games or videos or just sleeping in until the very last minute so they have to rush to get ready for school. Then maybe they're late so Mom has to drive them to school when they miss the bus....?
When I was growing up, it was considered rude to interrupt someone who was talking, on the phone or in person. When someone was on the phone, you needed to wait until they were done to speak to them unless the house was on fire or your little sister was drowning in the bathtub. Now, you will have grey hair and arthritis by the time you can get in a word with someone because phones can go EVERYWHERE! That includes places where no decent person would normally be carrying on a conversation with someone. It used to be that you could run into someone at the store and have a pleasant conversation with them. Most of the conversations going on in stores these days are people talking into cell phones. They probably aren't even aware of other people who may be in the store.
It used to be that tattoos were something that drunken sailors got in foreign ports or decorations on primitive people whose photographs you could see in National Geographic. Now it seems that graffiti is an "art form" everywhere, even on human beings. There is even a competition for some people to see how little of their original, God-given skin color is still visible.
I just don't seem to be able to get it. Why is it better to just accept someone who chooses to overeat and underexercise to eventually have bad knees, a bad heart and diabetes rather than having it considered a sad choice that others need to discourage? Why is it better to just accept the choice of sexual activities outside of marriage between a man and a woman (whether it's fornication, adultery, or homosexuality) than to discourage it due to AIDS, other STD's, unwanted pregnancy, or violation of trust?
I just don't get it and I don't think I ever will. I guess I just don't fit in the "new morality". I guess I had better just get used to being frowned at.