David Matthews 2 is a freelance writer in Alpharetta, Georgia. He is also the host of a weekly audio rant which you can hear at the main page.

Target: Moralism
Part 12: What Moralism Is and Is Not
– by David Matthews 2

In the movie "The Usual Suspects", Kevin Spacey’s character said that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn’t exist. It’s a really clever Catch-22 argument, because either the devil is a liar, or the whole world is a fool in denial. Either way the devil wins.

When it comes to moralism, a similar but less-entrapping Catch-22 argument is often used to justify their crusade. They obviously can’t argue that THEY don’t exist, but what they will do is to argue that what they are pushing on us is something that it is not.

Moralists want us all to believe that moralism, in and of itself, just does not exist. They want you to believe that all they’re trying to do is simply to bring "civility" and "decency" to an otherwise amoral society. They would have you believe that their "meager" efforts are all that stand between human civilization as we know it and us turning into mindless barbarian animals. Either it’s Aldous Huxley’s "Brave New World" or the anarchistic world of "Mad Max" for our future. That’s it… make your choice now… you’re either with us or against us, and if you’re against us, then you’re against the whole civilized world.

If that sounds just a little flaky, then you have to realize that this kind of progression from a passive intellectual argument to absurd zero-sum extremism usually happens over a period of time. And you only see the ugly extremist side of the argument when moralists don’t get their way… which of course doesn’t happen too often, which only makes their temper tantrums that much more profound.

Of course the strange thing about these so-called champions of "morality" and "decency" is that quite often they get caught in some pretty hypocritical situations. How many times has a "family values" politician been caught in an affair? Or how about having someone who defends "the sanctity of marriage" after been divorced two or three times?

You would think that these people would be the saintliest people in the world if they’re going to trumpet things like "morality" and "decency", right? If it is really all about morality, then it would presuppose that the people pushing for this morality would at least practice what they preach.

But it is not about MORALITY. It’s all about MORALISM. They’re not interested in being the pillars of society and having THEIR lives put up on display for the world to view and criticize. They’re interested in IMPOSING their standards and their beliefs onto others.

So let’s go ahead and point out what moralism IS and IS NOT so you can see just how dangerous it really is in society.

First of all, let’s get the biggest lie right out of the way. Moralists would have you believe that what they are pushing for is morality in an amoral world. That’s the myth.

So let’s apply that to the real world. One of the biggest moralist pushes in the United States has been to shove displays of the Ten Commandments on government property. Christians would have you believe that these are the foundation for ALL of our laws. It’s really not the truth, but that’s the spin that they give to justify putting these displays in every classroom and every courthouse and every branch of local government.

Well one of those commandments says, "thou shalt not kill." Now if that’s the case, then a lot of these Christians who trumpet the Ten Commandments as the moral foundation for society and their own lives have some serious explaining to do, because these same people have no qualms whatsoever about things like capital punishment and going to war. In fact, they can get pretty pumped up about taking a life in combat or having someone executed.

Now if you were to find one of these self-professed "devout Christians" who feel that it’s okay to advocate for war and the death penalty, they’d tell you that it’s perfectly fine and dandy to believe in these things without violating the Ten Commandments, because the part about "thou shalt not kill" only pertains to MURDER. It’s got nothing to do with the death penalty or self-defense or times of war. It’s just about murder.

But wait a minute… the Christian translation of the Ten Commandments specifically says, "thou shalt not KILL". It doesn’t say, "thou shalt not commit murder" like the Hebrew translation says. If this stone tablet (or parchment or wood carving or printed image) is supposed to represent THE OFFICIAL foundation of society’s laws, then shouldn’t IT carry more weight over someone’s PERSONAL interpretation? You would think so. I mean, that is what they’ve been pushing for all this time, isn’t it? They want to be able to point us to this display of the Ten Commandments and boom out that "THESE ARE OUR LAWS".

This example also disposes of the central idea of moralists that there is this all-encompassing, universal, eternal, and unquestionable set of moral rules in this world. If Christians feel that words allegedly written IN STONE are subject to even the most modest tweaks and revisions, then wouldn’t the same be said for any of their other so-called "eternal" rules?

And bear in mind that I used one of the most ABSOLUTE of commandments… one of the ten that used simple and direct language. We haven’t even gotten into defining the Sabbath or how one "covets" anything of their neighbor. This was as black-and-white as you can get it, and its application is STILL subject to interpretation!

So let’s get brutally honest here… moralism has NOTHING to do with morality! It’s not about bringing "decency" or "civility" to society. It has to do with IMPOSING standards that the moralists themselves may or may not believe in, but everyone else are supposed to simply obey without question or hesitation.

If anything, moralism is an utter PERVESRION of morality, because it presupposes that whatever moral standards that you have developed through your experience and your upbringing are essentially moot. Your moral standards are automatically overridden by someone else’s moral standards, and while THEY may hold THOSE standards to revision and interpretation, YOU are not supposed to! You’re just supposed to accept them and carry them out, even if you disagree with them, because that is supposedly the only thing keeping our civilization together.

Moralism has nothing at all to do with morals, and the opposite of that statement is also true in that having morals does not automatically make you a moralist. The fact that you have morals does not mean that you’re predisposed to impose them on everyone and everything that you see.

Morality is PERSONAL. It comes from our PERSONAL experiences and our PERSONAL interpretations of how things should be, and the fact that you have five or fifteen or five hundred people who agree that something is right or wrong does not mean that it is either absolute, universal, or unquestionable. It just means that in THAT situation, you’re all in agreement.

Once upon a time things like slavery, incest, polygamy, spousal abuse, and child abuse were all accepted norms. Some of them still are accepted in certain parts of the world. But the fact that they are no longer acceptable in other parts of the world is further proof that moral standards are not all encompassing or eternal.

The real issue with morality is not that you have morals, but how you use them. If you use them as a guide for your life and in how you deal with other people, as they are meant to be, then you do yourself and your community well.

But moralists don’t do that. They use morals as an excuse to impose their will over other people. In that regard, they are tyrants of the worst level.

A theocrat is probably the best example of a moralist. There really is no difference between a theocrat and a moralist because they have the same goal: to impose their will over other people. Theocrats are just better at doing it because they have a ready-made set of standards through their religious beliefs. They have a document or a dogma that they can fall back on whereas any other kind of moralist has to come up with one or to simply fake it as they go. Ever wonder why some of the more vocal moralists are obsessed with writing and hawking books? This is why.

Theocrats are also pretty much up-front about their efforts than your average garden-variety moralist. A regular moralist has to lie about their efforts and their ultimate goal. They have to pretend that what they are doing is the "will of the majority" or in keeping with "tradition" or for "preserving the family" or some other horsecrap. A theocrat doesn’t need pretense. They’ll just tell you flat-out that they’re here to take over and to impose their will over all of creation because GOD told them to. Their only pretense is to claim that they’re simply "following orders".

Another false assumption about moralism is that only conservatives can be moralists. That’s just not true. There are both liberal AND conservative moralists. It’s just that conservative moralists are better at the job because they have some history to fall back on. They can always look back in time to justify their repressive efforts.

Liberal moralists, on the other hand, are pretty much lousy examples of moralism. First, because it interferes with their more progressive view of things, and second because it easily exposes their hypocrisy. For instance, liberal moralists will call for laws that punish men who say demeaning things to women, but will think absolutely nothing about women saying demeaning things about men. They would call it "poetic justice" and "political correctness", whereas the rest of the world calls it for what it is… hypocrisy.

One of the other key things about moralism that gets lost is who actually becomes a moralist. While it is true that moralists tend to gravitate towards positions of power, you don’t have to be IN the government or even to be in any position of authority to be a moralist. You don’t have to be a preacher or a teacher or a politician to be a moralist. It’s not a matter of age or race or religious belief that makes one a moralist. Moralists come from all walks of life.

Some of the most effective moralists in America operate through special interest groups, nagging politicians of all parties to do their bidding. They can’t be elected out of office and they’re pretty much answerable to nobody, but they manage to wield significant power in government.

Look at groups like the Parents Television Council. They manage to wield power over the federal government in regards to broadcast content no matter which party is in charge. Not only do they get their way in government, but their founder also runs the very research organization that is used by the government to supposedly "gauge" those content standards. They get to justify their own existence and their own efforts to seize power in government.

Meanwhile, some of the most annoying moralists are simple housewives, ever vigilant through their little circle of friends for things that they find offensive. As long as their kids are in school, they have plenty of time on their hands and resources at their disposal to try to remake society their way. And who’s really going to say "no" to a soccer mom on a power trip, especially if she has her precious tax deductions in tow?

Both groups are not IN the government but they are just as tyrannical as any third-world dictator, and really are answerable to nobody but themselves. Worse yet, they disguise their ultimate goal of gaining power through soft words and lofty symbols.

The key thing here is that moralists thrive and get what they want in our society because they managed to carefully present the illusion that moralism in and of itself doesn’t exist. As long as they manage to convince people that what they are doing is for the overall benefit of society instead of fulfilling their own selfish desires, their power-grabs will go on unquestioned and unchallenged.