Morality and Moralism
A distinction I frequently make, but which seems to cause some confusion, is that between morality and moralism. This is not a distinction that I make for any linguistic reason related to the dictionary definitions of the words. Rather, it is because I have found it necessary to untangle two separate phenomena that are often conflated. The topic of morality is notoriously difficult to deal with because of how entangled the concepts of good, value and judgment are with power, desire and justification. In short, while we may strive towards an objective understanding of absolute good, we rarely achieve this due to the peculiarities of human psychology. As Nietzsche so astutely discovered, our loftiest moral pretensions tend to hide the basest motivations, and this realization is the cause of my general moral skepticism. The purpose of this essay is, therefore, to provide a conceptual distinction that I have found very useful in navigating these questions.
What is morality? At its most basic, it is the striving towards being, fulfilling or acting out what is good. This deceptively simple definition hinges on what we identify this good to be, which is what the aim of ethics is. It is far beyond the scope of this essay to develop an ethical theory or otherwise attempt an identification of this good. So for the purposes of investigating morality, we will posit the following.
1) That there is an absolute good.
2) That this absolute good cannot be comprehended or defined in its fullness and will always require interpretation.
3) That this absolute good is essential to us, in the sense that it concerns our deepest and most authentic being.
There are two reasons why I posit these three points regarding the absolute good. The first is naturally because I believe them to be true. But the second reason for doing so is because it allows us to untangle the question of morality without being burdened either by dogma or nihilism. Positing the first, we reject the amoralism which would render the whole topic moot. Positing the second, we affirm the multiplicity of moral interpretations as arising not from wickedness or error, but from a fundamental quality of the absolute good itself. Lastly, by positing the third, we affirm the deeply personal and individual character of the search for this good. In short, we recognize the necessity of the moral project while also recognizing the difficulties and ambiguities inherent to it, and the personal dimension of these questions.
This vision of the absolute good leads to a corresponding idea of morality. The moral project – that is, the striving towards the good – is seen not as a set of rules to be followed or authorities to be obeyed, but as a personal journey. It is a journey which requires coming face to face with the absolute good and having an earnest desire to orient oneself and one’s life in accordance with this glimpse of goodness. It requires a deep introspection where one comes to an understanding of one’s own nature, perspectives and limitations. It requires the patient development of intuition and courage so that one can brave the uncertainties and ambiguities of life, and the outright hostility of those who do not share your path. Lastly, it requires the humility to accept not just how much greater the absolute good is than our own feeble selves, but also the impossibility of us fully comprehending it. We must accept that we do not possess all the answers and never will, and that though the paths of others may be strange to us it is not our place to judge. Our place is to find our own path and to walk it without hesitation.
This is the essence of morality as I conceive of it, and it is a most noble undertaking. It is perhaps best described by Plotinus in his famous analogy with the sculptor.
“Go back inside yourself and look: if you do not yet see yourself as beautiful, then do as the sculptor does with a statue he wants to make beautiful; he chisels away one part, and levels off another, makes one spot smooth and another clear, until he shows forth a beautiful face on the statue. Like him, remove what is superfluous, straighten what is crooked, clean up what is dark and make it bright, and never stop sculpting your own statue, until the godlike splendor of virtue shines forth to you.”
So then where does the problem lie? If we wish to conceive of the absolute good, which seems to us so ineffable and subtle, perhaps the easiest way of doing so is by defining it as that which is self-justifying. It is that which requires no external justification, which is the very standard by which anything else can be judged and which cannot be found lacking in any way – in short, that which is self-evidently desirable above all else. But this is a definition which has meaning only to those who are actually seeking the absolute good. For those motivated by pettier concerns, the absolute good instead becomes that by which anything can be justified. The difference is subtle, but of immense significance.
For the man who wishes to lord over his peers, nothing can be more useful to him than that which is deemed the ultimate justifier. For with it, our would-be lord raises himself head and shoulders above the rest and gives himself the right not just to judge the worth of others but to justify himself and his actions. The same goes for the vain man, for whom the justifying good becomes a way for him to convince himself and others of his superiority. For the man of petty concerns, the justifying good becomes a way of competing with others for the status and respect of his equally small-minded peers. And who can wish for this total justification more than the man consumed by resentment and spite, who dreams of the day he is given carte blanche to vent his cruelty on those he hates? We see this sentiment echoed in a popular adage – the good cause hallows any means. It follows that if we have already decided on the means – be they vain, petty or sadistic – than all we need is a good enough cause before we can get to work. “Why shouldn’t his power be total, who possesses the ultimate good?” So says the man who wishes not to possess the good, but to possess his fellows; by the hand that reaches not for the light, but for the whip.
This is the meaning of moralism. Where morality is the earnest seeking after the good, moralism is the pretension of good in order to further petty goals of social dominance. Where morality is directed inward and towards the self, moralism is directed outwards and towards others. Though he may put on airs about the importance of morality, the moralist is in truth only interested in it when he can use it as a stepping stool for looking down on others. He passes judgments for the sake of self-aggrandizement and not because he is trying to sort good from bad. His judgments are therefore entirely without substance – he has already decided your guilt, he is merely looking for a respectable justification for his sentiments. The moralist is nosy and overly concerned, and is given to being a nag and a scold. He will look for whatever reason he can to denounce or shame you, precisely because he gets off on denouncing and shaming. He is also in the habit of being a hypocrite, since he has no genuine interest in being good.
The moralist is greatly interested in law and dogma, because such things carry with them the promise of meting out punishment. He is likewise more interested in questions of shame, guilt and sin than he is with beauty, goodness or virtue. It is with glee he discovers these sins, for they bring with them the prospect of a sinner for him to hate. There is no concern too small or insignificant for the moralist. He will pass rules and strictures on every minutiae of daily life – the more convoluted and arbitrary the better, for it increases the chances that someone will step over the line and invite censure. He gets great joy out of forbidding things; the taboo is his weapon. He revels with delight in every instance of feigned outrage – the more performative, the better. For in the end, all that matters to him is that he is seen and his faux virtues put on display, and that those he hates can be subjected to his disapproval and punishment.
Such is the nature of the moralist. It is trivial to give examples of how the moralistic attitude grows like a choking weed in any environment where the concept of morality is held in esteem. Every religion or doctrine, no matter how noble it may be, harbors them within their ranks. The more concerned a creed is with law and guilt, the more at home the moralist feels. In politics, too, we see the moralist find fertile soil for his proclivities. Behind the promises of man-made utopias and new ways of life are always those types for whom the brave new world is an opportunity to hound those not sufficiently compliant. Every teaching that aims towards an absolute good, even when its conception of this good is pure, runs the risk of being co-opted by the moralist. His passions are mistaken for genuine devotion, and his ways are seductive to the masses who share his petty desires and cruel nature. It is not rare that he rises to the top as the head interpreter of the creed – but whenever this happens, the result is always the same. The moralists will turn on each other as readily as they will against unbelievers, rushing down purity spirals into an ever more feverish inquisitorial frenzy. For the moralist is driven by his need to badger and torment others, and will turn on his fellows in a moment to get his fix.
So how does one guard against developing moralistic tendencies? By practicing introspection, cultivating self-knowledge and by making an honest appraisal of one’s own true motivations. Everyone entertains petty concerns and resentments to some degree, and will invent all manner of justifications for cruel and small-minded behavior. But the important thing here is to not believe in your own bullshit. Know when you are justifying petty behaviors with noble-sounding rhetoric. Do not be more keen to snarl at what is bad than to smile at what is good; focus more on your own cultivation of goodness than on passing judgment on others; choose appreciation and contemplation over conflict and posturing. In matters of morality, strive to be a cultivator rather than an aggressor. This is not to say that you should be cowardly before malice, degradation and ugliness, but your first concern is to cultivate the good and not to persecute the bad. Wherever possible, choose to be dignified rather than to degrade another.
And with that, I hope that this distinction I have presented will help my esteemed following to untangle what is good from what is bad in matters that concern morality. May it inspire to self-discovery, and to putting aside what makes us small in spirit in favor of what makes us great in soul.