International politics could use much more morality, yet moralism is destroying the entire fabric of the international system. Morality entails a commitment to principles about what is right and wrong, while moralism uses moral principles to judge, condemn, and police others to form a hierarchy of moral status. Moralism can undermine morality as questioning one’s own moral principles is replaced with solely examining the morality of others.
We want our political and media establishment to ask the question of what the right thing to do is, not who is morally good and who is morally bad. Morality is about elevating key principles above power politics, while the moralist uses moral sloganeering as an instrument of power politics. Morality can entail avoiding the use of ad hominem arguments in the effort of seeing the world from the opponent’s side, while the moralist will rely primarily on ad hominem arguments to denounce those who disagree as bad people.
The Inability to Recognise Security Concerns of the Immoral “Other”
Over the decades and centuries, it was understood that states must manage security competition, as increased security for one state can reduce security for another. Thus, the first step toward stability and peace is to place oneself in the shoes of the opponent, understand their security concerns, and then find ways to mitigate security competition and pursue forms of indivisible security. Yet, a new political language has emerged across the West that is tilted toward war, in which even discussing the security concerns of opponents is immediately attacked as “legitimizing,” “justifying,” or “supporting” the opponent.
An obsession with elevating or degrading people’s moral status fuels tribal thinking, as vastly different moral principles will be applied to “us” versus “the other.” At worst, “we” may do the wrong thing but for the right reason. In contrast, the “other” may at best do the right thing but for the wrong reason. Morality in international politics can restrain power, while moralism can sanctify power. When conflicts are seen as a struggle between good and evil, one’s own actions are always legitimate, and the actions of the opponent are always illegitimate. Public discourse must be limited within these strict boundaries to be considered acceptable.
Moralists reduce complicated conflicts to a binary of good versus evil, in which intellectual pluralism is immoral. Established truths shall no longer be challenged, and academics are subsequently not asked about historical context or invited to unpack their analysis. Instead, they are confronted with the demand to “condemn” the other side as a loyalty test before being allowed to participate in the discourse. Once an opponent has been categorized as immoral, they will be interpreted as simply aggressive when they escalate and weak when they are restrained.
Strategic thinking dies under moralism because strategic thinking is about setting objectives with limited resources. This entails thinking in terms of priorities, trade-offs, motivations, capabilities, and the perspectives of the other side to predict how they will respond. A hegemon does not need to prioritize, and a moralist hegemon will encourage people to think solely in terms of right and wrong, good versus evil. We no longer ask what the Chinese, the Russians, and the Iranians want; we only discuss what kind of people they are as opponents of our liberal democracy that will allegedly serve all of mankind.
Why is the West Succumbing to Moralism?
After the Cold War, the West was no longer balanced by the Soviet Union and found itself in an ideological vacuum without its communist rival. The West subsequently pursued a world order defined as liberal hegemony, in which the West would dominate the world rather than manage great-power balancing, yet this dominance would supposedly be to the benefit of everyone, as it would elevate the role of liberal democracy and human rights. A hegemon requires legitimacy, and it is reliant on convincing its own populations that its policies represent universal moral principles and that its opponents are enemies of those virtuous principles.
The West presented the advancement of Western interests as the advancement of universal values. Competing security interests largely disappeared from the political language and were replaced with a narrative of threats to universal values posed by “rogue states.” Liberal democracy effectively became a hegemonic norm. The Westerner does not need to know any historical context, or even know where a country is on a map, to nonetheless be certain that the analytical context behind conflicts is that of liberal democracy versus authoritarianism. In the 1990s, it was possible to discuss why NATO expansionism would threaten Russian security, while in the present era, it is alleged that Russia merely fears the advancement of democracy.
“Virtuous Wars” to Restore Liberal Hegemony
The West is not merely waging an economic war against China over its alleged “overcapacity,” fighting a proxy war against Russia on the absurd premise that Russia’s military actions were “unprovoked,” or waging a direct war against Iran ostensibly to prevent nuclear proliferation or liberate women. The situation is far more serious. The West is dismantling the foundations of the international system itself—its laws, rules, diplomacy, trust, and economic and political connectivity. In the name of defending the international order, it is progressively destroying the very institutions that make an international order possible.
When we recognize competing security interests, mutual understanding and compromise are the path to peace. When we believe that the world consists of good versus bad values, then we must avoid justifying the opponent and compromise is appeasement. Peace is only possible when the good defeats evil.
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.
I hope to see a major Western newspaper publish this in its Op Ed section. Now I will hold my breath.....