Friday Forward - Moral Consistency (#435)
Moral clarity requires moral consistency. We haven't seen enough of the latter lately
Over the past several years, I’ve seen so many people lamenting the lack of moral clarity from our leaders and in our society.
Often, moral clarity describes a person or organization’s ability to clearly distinguish between what is moral and immoral—and to speak out against the latter. But what I suspect people misunderstand about moral clarity is that it’s fraught with subjectivity. What I might consider a morally clear choice, someone else might find objectionable, and vice versa.
I believe moral clarity is exemplified by someone who stands on their principles even when it is inconvenient and reliably meets their stated moral standards. An essential element of this is moral consistency.
There are a couple hallmarks of moral consistency:
It requires adhering to your moral belief set even when it’s difficult or doesn’t produce your desired outcome. For instance, a person might value compassion as a core aspect of their moral code. Moral consistency would demand they show compassion even towards those who have wronged them, choosing forgiveness over retaliation or bitterness, despite the personal difficulty and potential lack of benefit.
It also necessitates resisting double standards. For example, a person who decries hate speech cannot then permit hate speech in a context where they believe it is justified or may right a wrong. Moral consistency means evaluating everyone’s actions against the same standard, even if that means criticizing people who are “on your side.”
When people talk about the decline of moral clarity in our society, I suspect they are most disheartened by the collapse of moral consistency. As social media and tribalism have separated us into rival camps on most issues, leaders have repeatedly failed to apply the same moral standards in different contexts.
For example:
Many people who have insisted upon accountability for statements they deem offensive or hateful have also defended the right to free speech for people they agree with.
Many people have condoned violence and property destruction on behalf of a cause they support, while rejecting it when done in the name of a rival cause.
Many people have stridently criticized democratic and capitalistic systems, without acknowledging how they enjoy the freedoms and comforts those systems provide or benefit financially. See: the person who tweets about tearing down capitalism from an iPhone while they wait for their Uber to arrive.
We should expect our leaders, and ourselves, to apply their morals consistently. We cannot advocate for free speech for some but not for others or excuse illegal behavior from the political party we support. Likewise, we cannot treat one hate-speech spewing, intimidating mob as righteous while calling another dangerous.
Sadly, we have repeatedly seen our leaders fail these moral consistency tests. We’ve seen this for years from our elected officials and our superstar CEOs. And, perhaps most troublingly, we’ve seen a clear lack of moral consistency from the campus leaders responsible for shaping the next generation.
For months, there has been clear evidence that campus protests have contained pockets of antisemitic speech and behavior. Administrators have hidden behind free speech or have looked the other way as Jewish students have endured hateful rhetoric, physical intimidation, restriction of movement, and celebration of murder and terrorism as righteous resistance.
However, no one can honestly assert that similar behavior would be tolerated today on a college campus today if participants were telling Black people to go back to Africa, restricting the free movement of Muslim students across campus, or calling for a violent uprising against the transgender community. Similarly, many of the people leading the current campus activities would never tolerate that behavior.
While the average person regularly gets caught up in the heat of the moment and says or does things they regret, we should expect our leaders to hold them accountable. And yet, so many leaders could not find the moral courage to either say “this is not who we are” or to apply the same standards of policy enforcement. That’s the definition of moral inconsistency
Moral clarity requires moral consistency. Great leaders don’t drop their standards or core principles when it’s convenient for them, and they stand up for those values, especially when it’s unpopular and even when it’s not the outcome they would otherwise want.
The world today desperately needs leaders today who can demonstrate moral consistency and uphold values and standards unwaveringly. True clarity begins with steadfast consistency.
Where have you witnessed moral inconsistency? Have you seen it in yourself?
Quote of The Week
"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.” - Aaron Sorkin
New For Premium Subscribers
The Aaron Sorkin quote (spoken by actor Michael Douglas (as President Andrew Shepherd) in the movie “The American President” is a good one. If I want freedom of anything, I have to remember that my access to those freedoms has to allow for someone else’s to have equal access to those freedoms. That’s how Democracy is supposed to work.
You see, Democracy is not a zero-sum game; it’s not “It’s my way or else.” It’s much harder than that: It’s compromise. I won’t get everything I want, and neither will you, but hopefully where we end up together is a bit better than where we started far apart.
Thank you for your response. I must respectfully disagree with your position.
Your reply contains several inconsistencies and misunderstandings. You state that criticizing Israel’s actions or policies should a protected right. However, the reality is quite different. Extremists such as Bill Ackman, Marc Rowan, and Ron Lauder, along with groups like AIPAC, actively work to control the narrative about Israel on university campuses, in our government and in the media. They routinely engage in blackmail, obfuscation, and, when these fail, they resort to evoking anti-Semitism to shut down any criticism of Israel.
You argue that the statement “I hate Zionists, not Jews” is a pretense for anti-Semitism. This is a mischaracterization. Critiques of Israel’s actions and on Zionism most often focus on its political, legal and humanitarian implications, not on Judaism as a religion. Many Jews are not Zionists, and equating criticism of Zionism with anti-Semitism is more often than not an instrumentalization to stifle legitimate debate.
You are absolutely correct that Israel should be held to the same standards as other countries. It is responsible for the mass killing of tens of thousands and the starvation and displacement of more than 2 million Palestinians, with numerous war crimes documented by international bodies. Yet it is exempt from the same criticism other countries would receive for such actions. The US’ complicity in providing diplomatic cover and arms to Israel is morally reprehensible, as is the US media’s tendency to whitewash these issues, limiting fair coverage and punishing critics. It is profoundly anti-democratic.
Regarding the Penn writers' festival, I find your portrayal profoundly disingenuous. There was a clear effort to suppress criticism of Israel. For a more accurate account, you might refer to this article in The Intercept, the non-partisan, non-corporate funded, award-winning investigative journalism site, which documents the carefully concerted campaign on behalf of wealthy activists.https://theintercept.com/2024/01/13/penn-palestine-writes-liz-magill/
Your mention of campus protests turning violent is noteworthy. However, it has been the pro-Israel and MAGA extremists who have instigated these clashes, not the pro-Palestinian protesters. Universities should be mindful of who they allow on campus, as it seems the violence is frequently initiated by those opposing Palestinian advocacy.
Your reference to "cancel culture" is ironic, given that many who championed free speech now seek to suppress criticism of Israel. It is not the protestors that are suppressing free speech. The contradiction is troubling. Given the fact that US media coverage has been heavily pro-Israel and that Israel-supporters actively seek to control messaging it is a good thing that students have spoken up.
While I may not fully agree with Congresswoman Omar’s choice of words, her underlying point about the polarized views on Israel's actions is valid. Supporting Israel’s actions towards Palestinians is supporting mass slaughter/genocide/murder, however you want to term it. This is one of the greatest crimes in recent history and criticism should not be stonewalled.
I very much admire your work, which is why I subscribe to your Substack. But I find it deeply troubling to read your endorsement of restricting free speech when it concerns Israel.