A ‘Moral Climate’ is not the same as a ‘moralistic’ one. Consider that one of the indicators of a moral climate is that it is not accepting of – it does not embrace – ‘moralizing.’ The first moral climate is the one that resides within each of us. Those who wrote the Upanishads, or Confucius, or Plato, or the ‘founders’ of many faith-traditions were/are concerned with the state of one’s ‘inner life’ (think: soul if you will). Is our inner life rooted in love, compassion, justice, harmony, mercy, forgiveness and healing?
A ‘Moral Climate’ also permeates a nation. A ‘nation’ is simply a collection of individuals and relationships writ large. Plato noted that there could be no just political order except one populated by just citizens and in order for just citizens to thrive the nation must also be just – a ‘both-and’ paradoxical scenario.
Today, it seems, we think that modern constitutional democracies are fine regardless of the private vices of those who are chosen to lead. To talk about the inner moral life of our leaders is at least elitist and at worst undemocratic. Is this ‘denial’ or ‘protection’ or an ‘indicator’? Our leaders’ private lives are none of our business – we think. We seem to deny that who a person is and who a person is choosing to become will directly impact his or her behavior – will directly impact what he or she chooses; how he or she chooses to lead. We support our elected officials when it comes to hiding their inner moral environment; or we say, via our votes, that one’s inner moral environment does not matter. We live in denial and history reminds us over and over that a nation that does so will pay ‘the piper.’
Once in a while, however, we – the ‘nation’ – will be jolted awake and the better angels of our natures (individual and collective) will emerge and respond. For example, a single photograph may have done more to halt the Vietnam War than all of the writings and speeches and marches of the moralists. My heart still aches when I look at the photo and ‘see.’ As a reminder: Here is Hung Cong Ut’s 1972 photo:
Individually and collectively, we do not like being told what to do. We want to enjoy our lives and we want to enjoy them with an undisturbed conscience. Those folks who disturb us are not welcomed – they are uninvited guests to the feast. We have developed a multitude of defenses in order to fend them off (ignoring, intimidating, attacking, blaming them, etc.).
As individuals we are quite adept at this. For example, the owner can live upwind of his chemical factory, and the logger may know that the trees will not give out until after he is dead. Each of us can seek to insulate ourselves from a depleting moral environment – or profit from it. Just as some trees flourish by depriving others of their due. How often has the American white male (and I am one of these folks) flourished because of the inferior economic or social status of people who are not ‘white males’? To the extent that I am one of ‘these folks’ – to the extent that another is one of ‘these folks’ – I/We do not want to be exposed. Some are responsible – ALL are accountable.
We ‘justify’ the ‘market’ and the ‘high prices’ and ‘low wages’ as ‘this is the way the real world works.’ ‘Racists’ and ‘Sexists’ tell themselves a story that justifies who they are – that justifies their system. We end up equating ‘ethics’ with ‘morality’ (think: ‘It’s legal so it’s ethical and hence it is ‘moral’).
An individual and collective morality that has gone wrong is, history again informs us, an essential preliminary to the concentration camp, the death march, or, today, to the ‘wall’ (symbolic and real). Are we human beings good students of history? Have we learned? As I type these questions it seems as if the answer is ‘NO.’