There is the view among Eastern Christians, including Russian Orthodox, that moralism is one of the primary heresies of Western Christianity and that it is deeply ingrained in the culture of the West - Western Europe and the Anglo colonies. The Eastern Church views the Church as being a hospital (healing) for souls, while the Western Church is like a courtroom (judgment) for souls.
They would say that this moralism is deeply ingrained in Western culture and thus always available for political manipulation. Moralism was one driver of Western Europe's repeated invasions of Russian lands, invasions which were rationalized as being a civilizing mission to civilize immoral Russia by making it Roman Catholic.
Even in the 'post-Christian' West, Western culture continues to be very moralist, even the ideology and moral code has changed somewhat. But the strident moralism remains.
The question is not whether the so called "heresy" is a product of a certain group, place, or time, but whether or not it is an objective moral evil - understood as a privation - which can be measured against an immutable moral code. If not, then there is no objective moral norm against which claims can be measured, and the tyranny of moral relativism - where everyone has a distorted "liberty" - permits big-stick gangsterism to be the ruling force. In such a world the gangster (political or not) bombs according to his or her subjective whims.
Just don't tell that to the official Russian Orthodox church. They are extremely moralistic nowadays, with some really extreme and horrid moralistic public sayings.
Brought to life by the cartoon character, Hegseth.
Excellent article, describes exactly how group think amongst western politicians and their advisors convince themselves they are 'the good guys' as they support genocide, wars and subjugation of their own citizens all because they are doing 'the right thing' as defined by themselves on the altar of human rights.
Prof. Diesen, this is a very astute observation. But while you use the term "West" throughout your article, I suspect the chief driver of this international "moralism" is the United States. This is a quirky side of our history, and was observed first-hand (and with great irritation) by Capt. Basil Hall during his travels throughout this country in 1827-28. He found this moralistic mentality to be a strong cultural characteristic of the northern (originally Puritan, Quaker etc.) states, but noted it was completely absent in the southern states. You might find Prof. Clyde N. Wilson's "The Yankee Problem: An American Dilemma" very amusing (as a Southerner, I laughed all the way through.)
I still remember Hillary Clinton visiting a poor African country and lecturing them about abortion.
It does indeed. But the USA has been in the lead role in NATO since the beginning. And when I think of the European wars in the past, that kind of moralism just wasn't present. Historically, when the Europeans waged wars, they seemed to be either more openly self-aggrandizing, or just filled with pure ethnic or national hatred. Prof. Diesen's article really rang a bell with me, though, about our American preachy, holier-than-thou treatment of all other nations. And I thought of Captain Basil Hall's travelog and Clyde Wilson's book instantly: It's purely "Yankee."
The distinction between morality and moralism is important. I would add one safeguard:
The same test has to apply in every direction.
If reducing Russia, China or Iran to morally defective actors prevents us from understanding their interests and security concerns, reducing “the West” to a single morally defective actor can produce the same analytical failure in reverse.
Understanding an opponent is not legitimising everything they do. Condemning a violation is not a substitute for understanding why a conflict developed.
Perhaps the more useful rule is: judge actions by the same principles, examine interests with the same seriousness, and never close the diplomatic path merely because understanding the other side feels morally uncomfortable.
Thank you, Glenn. This essay is basically the recipe for a world the majority of people yearn for. I hope many will read it and find it helpful in our search for a world less savage. I appreciate the dedication to rational thinking your interviews and writings demonstrate.
The article makes a valid distinction between morality and moralism, but it risks replacing moralism with another form of simplification: great-power realism.
Understanding why Russia, China or Iran feel threatened is essential to strategic thinking. But understanding an actor’s security concerns does not mean accepting that those concerns give it the right to determine the sovereignty or alliances of other states. Russia may have legitimate security concerns about NATO expansion, but that does not give Russia a veto over Ukraine’s foreign policy.
The article also treats security competition as if it were symmetrical. There is a fundamental difference between feeling threatened by another country’s alliances and invading that country. Acknowledging the first does not justify the second.
Most importantly, the argument underestimates the agency of smaller states. Eastern European countries did not simply become part of the Western sphere because of Western expansionism; many actively sought NATO and EU membership precisely because they feared domination by Russia. Their security concerns deserve the same analytical attention as those of great powers.
Last century I heard this, here in the US: "We no longer know what ethics is and consequently ceased to exist."
Reading this article I can't but conclude now that the same is true in Europe too.
Morality has always been society based and rests upon religion. Further, it also changes, best example s"if we were to apply the US/European morals of 100 years ago most women would be considered immoral" and most Western Christianity's atrocities were justified by morality.
It is lack of ethics that is the root of the problems that has come around and bites us in the Global West in the arse. We shouldn't be surprised because ethics never existed in our colonial world - to this very day - and can say that starting with the industrialization this beast has come home to roost.
If we replace the word morality with the word ethics then it makes far more sense.
There are other factors that come into play, like attitudes based on selfishness what so much of liberalism has been, but it doesn't change the bottom line: Ethics no longer exists.
Any school child can understand basic moral principles. Genocide, killing innocent men, women and children is immoral. Why do the west (US, NATO and EU countries) support genocide in Gaza or stay silent, except Spain? Kidnapping a sovereign country’s elected president is immoral, why did the west not condemn this mafia atrocity? Launching an aggressive war against a sovereign country, Iran, is criminal, why does the west collectively participate in this illegal war through Israel and NATO?
Western countries have lost any moral authority to speak, just like Germany, Italy and Japan lost their chance of salvation by their citizens in the majority not opposing nazism, fascism, militarism and war crimes against humanity.
An excellent, succinct explanation.
There is the view among Eastern Christians, including Russian Orthodox, that moralism is one of the primary heresies of Western Christianity and that it is deeply ingrained in the culture of the West - Western Europe and the Anglo colonies. The Eastern Church views the Church as being a hospital (healing) for souls, while the Western Church is like a courtroom (judgment) for souls.
They would say that this moralism is deeply ingrained in Western culture and thus always available for political manipulation. Moralism was one driver of Western Europe's repeated invasions of Russian lands, invasions which were rationalized as being a civilizing mission to civilize immoral Russia by making it Roman Catholic.
Even in the 'post-Christian' West, Western culture continues to be very moralist, even the ideology and moral code has changed somewhat. But the strident moralism remains.
The question is not whether the so called "heresy" is a product of a certain group, place, or time, but whether or not it is an objective moral evil - understood as a privation - which can be measured against an immutable moral code. If not, then there is no objective moral norm against which claims can be measured, and the tyranny of moral relativism - where everyone has a distorted "liberty" - permits big-stick gangsterism to be the ruling force. In such a world the gangster (political or not) bombs according to his or her subjective whims.
Just don't tell that to the official Russian Orthodox church. They are extremely moralistic nowadays, with some really extreme and horrid moralistic public sayings.
I hope to see a major Western newspaper publish this in its Op Ed section. Now I will hold my breath.....
This article is one of the best things I've read in a while. Nice job.
Religiosity rather than religion.
Brought to life by the cartoon character, Hegseth.
Excellent article, describes exactly how group think amongst western politicians and their advisors convince themselves they are 'the good guys' as they support genocide, wars and subjugation of their own citizens all because they are doing 'the right thing' as defined by themselves on the altar of human rights.
In grade school vernacular, it's
-Saying without doing.
-Rules for thee but not for me.
-We are the exceptional One, the golden pillar for all to emulate.
Who can remember when the Emperor denied his divinity and spoke in a human voice, with humble truth to his defeated home population (in 1945).
Prof. Diesen, this is a very astute observation. But while you use the term "West" throughout your article, I suspect the chief driver of this international "moralism" is the United States. This is a quirky side of our history, and was observed first-hand (and with great irritation) by Capt. Basil Hall during his travels throughout this country in 1827-28. He found this moralistic mentality to be a strong cultural characteristic of the northern (originally Puritan, Quaker etc.) states, but noted it was completely absent in the southern states. You might find Prof. Clyde N. Wilson's "The Yankee Problem: An American Dilemma" very amusing (as a Southerner, I laughed all the way through.)
I still remember Hillary Clinton visiting a poor African country and lecturing them about abortion.
But it seems the western European countries have adopted it.
It does indeed. But the USA has been in the lead role in NATO since the beginning. And when I think of the European wars in the past, that kind of moralism just wasn't present. Historically, when the Europeans waged wars, they seemed to be either more openly self-aggrandizing, or just filled with pure ethnic or national hatred. Prof. Diesen's article really rang a bell with me, though, about our American preachy, holier-than-thou treatment of all other nations. And I thought of Captain Basil Hall's travelog and Clyde Wilson's book instantly: It's purely "Yankee."
“The West" = the epstein class meat puppets, puppeteered by the global mafia of parasitic ashkenazi plutocrats.
The distinction between morality and moralism is important. I would add one safeguard:
The same test has to apply in every direction.
If reducing Russia, China or Iran to morally defective actors prevents us from understanding their interests and security concerns, reducing “the West” to a single morally defective actor can produce the same analytical failure in reverse.
Understanding an opponent is not legitimising everything they do. Condemning a violation is not a substitute for understanding why a conflict developed.
Perhaps the more useful rule is: judge actions by the same principles, examine interests with the same seriousness, and never close the diplomatic path merely because understanding the other side feels morally uncomfortable.
Thank you, Glenn. This essay is basically the recipe for a world the majority of people yearn for. I hope many will read it and find it helpful in our search for a world less savage. I appreciate the dedication to rational thinking your interviews and writings demonstrate.
The article makes a valid distinction between morality and moralism, but it risks replacing moralism with another form of simplification: great-power realism.
Understanding why Russia, China or Iran feel threatened is essential to strategic thinking. But understanding an actor’s security concerns does not mean accepting that those concerns give it the right to determine the sovereignty or alliances of other states. Russia may have legitimate security concerns about NATO expansion, but that does not give Russia a veto over Ukraine’s foreign policy.
The article also treats security competition as if it were symmetrical. There is a fundamental difference between feeling threatened by another country’s alliances and invading that country. Acknowledging the first does not justify the second.
Most importantly, the argument underestimates the agency of smaller states. Eastern European countries did not simply become part of the Western sphere because of Western expansionism; many actively sought NATO and EU membership precisely because they feared domination by Russia. Their security concerns deserve the same analytical attention as those of great powers.
Last century I heard this, here in the US: "We no longer know what ethics is and consequently ceased to exist."
Reading this article I can't but conclude now that the same is true in Europe too.
Morality has always been society based and rests upon religion. Further, it also changes, best example s"if we were to apply the US/European morals of 100 years ago most women would be considered immoral" and most Western Christianity's atrocities were justified by morality.
It is lack of ethics that is the root of the problems that has come around and bites us in the Global West in the arse. We shouldn't be surprised because ethics never existed in our colonial world - to this very day - and can say that starting with the industrialization this beast has come home to roost.
If we replace the word morality with the word ethics then it makes far more sense.
There are other factors that come into play, like attitudes based on selfishness what so much of liberalism has been, but it doesn't change the bottom line: Ethics no longer exists.
Any school child can understand basic moral principles. Genocide, killing innocent men, women and children is immoral. Why do the west (US, NATO and EU countries) support genocide in Gaza or stay silent, except Spain? Kidnapping a sovereign country’s elected president is immoral, why did the west not condemn this mafia atrocity? Launching an aggressive war against a sovereign country, Iran, is criminal, why does the west collectively participate in this illegal war through Israel and NATO?
Western countries have lost any moral authority to speak, just like Germany, Italy and Japan lost their chance of salvation by their citizens in the majority not opposing nazism, fascism, militarism and war crimes against humanity.
Great discussion of the issue, I wish Trump and other leaders would read it
If they did they would call it hogwash, but I agree with you. Glen has laid out a sound definition of what is happening in western civilization.
Don't hold your breath . . .
Thank you, Glen. So true.
Ein großartiger Artikel von Glenn Diesen: er trifft ein Schlüsselproblem unserer Zeit - und zeigt dem Moralismus des Westens die rote Karte!
Excellent. And very useful for people who need thoughtful writings, in the present so confused times. Thanks !