Moral purism, personal responsibility, and dysfunctional standards
This is a post about the topics mentioned in the title, and how they are related in my life. I suspect it might provide a point of consideration and discussion for other members, as I provide an argument that could be applied to other people and situations.
For good or bad, I put much value on morality, and see the world through a moralizing lens. This is not necessarily a case of reducing everything to "evil choices", it's more complicated than that, but it's been bothering me for a long while. It's partially because I often find myself judging myself too harshly, especially after failing to live up to my moral ideals.
For example, I don't like overconsumption and the surrounding hyperconsumerist ideology, so I hadn't bought any sort of "geeky" merchandise for some years. It's because, even though I thoroughly enjoy fictional works, there's this hyperconsumerist ideology and culture surrounding geekdom. So I thought, and to some extent still think, that buying any kind of merchandise was being tricked by the system.
I bought a simple merchandise item -a mug- the other day, which prompted me to question why I bought it. It feels shameful to write even now, but it's because I thought I should treat myself to something. It was cute, after all. When I thought about this issue, I realized certain things.
For starters, I put too much emphasis on personal responsibility when it comes to moral issues. One reason is I tend to blame myself. I often question myself first before questioning others or the wider picture. Another reason is that there are many, many moral tales that emphasize the role of personal responsibility. Too many stories have the hero look down on the villain and declare: "There's always a choice." And then the hero explicitly or implicitly says the villain just wasn't strong enough.
I think this is to a great degree due to how personal responsibility is mythologized in the contemporary culture. Abrahamic religions often put much emphasis on choosing the morally good choice. After all, the whole afterlife dichotomy is built upon this idea. Furthermore, with the "Enlightenment", the idea that individuals are rational and free to choose has become very prominent. So, both pre-modern and modern beliefs about morality puts much emphasis on personal responsibility.
This has different effects on different people, and I recognize that my experience is not necessarily generalizable, but I do think that it provides a kind of insight on some issues. At least for some people. Basically, I've come to realize that ethical issues have more of an emotional impact on me than most people. I also have a dysfunctional pattern of trying to live up to unreasonable standards. When these two and the emphasis on personal responsibility were combined, it created a very difficult pattern for me. It made me more vulnerable to moral purism.
I've recently realized why this moral purist tendency is straining for me, and there's a very simple why: it's because it's a thought that belongs to a fictional, idealized world. It doesn't consider the complexities and realities of the world I live in, it demands that I should live in that fictional, ideal world. In other words, it fails me, because it doesn't recognize that I'm a human with real needs and wants.
I don't mean this in the cliche "Oh, humans are imperfect," way, because that way of thinking still puts the moral purist way on a pedastal. It just tells you that you are weak and imperfect, and tells you to compromise. I think this is not a good way of looking at it, because it still reinforces the idealized thinking. It just tells you to make concessions, which is unacceptable to a perfectionist.
Instead, I say that it's a shitty psychology. This way of thinking doesn't consider how a human mind works, what it needs to be healthy and happy, and the overall workings of the world. Healthy thinking comes from being able to cope with realities of the world—in a way, it's being in tune with the reality you live in, and that necessitates recognizing your own emotional needs and wants. Moral purism encourages you to neglect your own emotional needs in pursuit of some fictional, impossible person you want to be. It's a fantasy.
In this context, it's healthy to come to terms with your own limits as a single person. The wider picture should be considered. For example, in my situation, buying merchandise now and then doesn't make me a bad person, nor does it make this act morally bad. I live under capitalism, and no matter what I do, as long as I continue to live in a society, I will always contribute to its workings (and healthy people don't go "off the grid"). From my point of view, it's bad that doing things I love contributes to an inequalizing system, but in no reasonable way should I be expected to give up what little or moderate joys I get by participating in this system. Of course, there should be a limit regarding consumption, but the bar is certainly not as high as I thought.
This is my personal experience with moral purism. I think the culture of overemphasis on personal responsibility feeds into it. What are your thoughts about it? Have you had similar experiences? The don't have to be about consumerism, as moral purism is seen many, unrelated issues.
Note: This goes without saying, but this post doesn't suggest that having a better world in mind and striving for it is bad. It just criticizes an unhealthy way of approaching the mentioned topics.
Congrats on an important step towards being fluent in self compassion! You're right that it's unreasonable to live up to perfect standards. You're also quite astute for recognizing that statements like 'humans are imperfect' collapses the reality of life down a little bit too much and creates a statement which can be hid behind by morally corrupt individuals. I'm not sure if you're American or not, but our culture is perhaps a bit too individualistic, and uses personal responsibility as a crutch to simplify out complex situations and ignore how the collective helps to shape and support the individual.
Being someone who is queer and just in general not a fan of authority figures, the idea of moral purism never sat right with me in the first place, because it was not difficult to find individuals who found the idea of my thoughts as impure. Being judged based on feelings you get (it's not okay to be attracted to members of the same sex) while simultaneously allowing non-judgement on other feelings (narratives like it's okay to feel angry, but not necessarily to act on it) highlights just how personal these judgements are. They are not universal, and having a good reasoning behind the judgements becomes clearly necessary.
With that being said, it took me a long time to learn self compassion and I'm nowhere near an expert. I still regularly hold myself to standards which I do not uphold for others. In particular, being able to look at a person and a sum of their actions and to get a general feel or vibe for where someone actually sits is something I am terrible at doing for myself. It's hard to say how much is selection bias, negativity bias, and other biases weighing more heavily on myself, but a framing that has helped to increase my self compassion greatly is the framing of imagining I am evaluating a dear friend or a partner on their behavior. Would I also think that they were acting in a way which warrants such criticism? Or would I recognize the complexity of life and take into consideration the sum of their other actions which disprove the hypothesis? Of course, truly stepping outside your own shoes can be difficult at times, but it does help to re-frame even if only slightly in the direction of compassion.
Thank you for the kind comment! I hadn't considered the implications of this mode of thinking on judging internal thoughts, but you're definitely spot on. It certainly does have an effect. You're also right that the lines can be arbitrary.
I think it's a good idea to separate personal morality (such as how do you treat the people you meet) and systemic morality (how are you helping to make good systemic changes come about).
They need to be judged through different lenses. For systemic issues, it's true that personal choices can add up to systemic changes and you don't want to work against good systemic changes that are well underway. But I give both myself and other people a lot more slack when considering indirect effects, particularly when there's no consensus yet about a systemic change.
For systemic change, your personal actions aren't so important in themselves. One mug isn't going to hurt anyone and makes only the tiniest difference. It could be made up for in lots of other ways. And I'd hope that there are times in your life when you do things far more consequential.
Is this really a mental health post or are you debating the philosophy behind it? Because there are two different responses I could write based on your answer to that question.
To attempt to give you the cross-section of those responses, I would say that it might do you good to consider that there is no such thing as natural purity in this world. Everything is chaos, so failing to hold up to a perfect moral code is just the state of things; there's no point in beating yourself up when you inevitably fail. You just get up and keep trying.
It's a synthesis of both. After all, culture does affect psychology and vice versa. You can say that I'm trying to approach it from a more holistic point of view. However, I tried to focus more on the mental health side. Emphasis on personal responsibility is one of the components, and I don't necessarily expect an answer that mentions it.
The other day there was an "ad" on TV showing that walking instead of using the car would help save the planet.
My view here is more on the political side, but it all boils down to treating a systemic problem with an individualistic solution.
It's not only religion, but capitalism and (neo)liberalism tends to put emphasis on the individual to hide the real problem so we don't overthrown capitalism and set the elite on fire.
You know what would really help save the planet? Really good mass public transportation so almost nobody would need a car. Also cities that were planned accordingly so everyone can access everywhere walking, biking or using public transportation. Things are the way they are because some people had influence enough to make it this way.
So, yes, you fell victim to "consumerism" and "individualism" to some extent, but it is not your fault and you won't change the world by not buying a mug.
I too don't care for these endless trinkets, but the people on top made sure I won't be able to afford a house of my own and now on top of that I will keep saying to myself that I shouldn't have a good smartphone because I am becoming just a mindless consumer? I deserve good things and so do you.