What about morality in all this? – Part 1
Reading time: 2 min.
Translation: Régine Paradis
“The unbearable lightness of moral relativism can only be overcome by the awakening of conscience and commitment.” – Thomas De Koninck
We are witnessing in these times a discourse that, no matter what it says “it’s for your own good”, is in fact attacking man – his rights and freedoms. How can such a discrepancy be morally possible on the part of the bearers of this message? How is it that they cling to it so stubbornly, even though the harmful effect of their discourse has been demonstrated? And how to preserve oneself from the harmful effect of this discourse and the actions which result from it? These are three questions that this two-part article will briefly attempt to answer.
First, let’s establish some short definitions to facilitate a better understanding of the article.
Morality, like ethics, is a component of spirituality. Spirituality is a dimension of the human condition; it is the life of the spirit.1 It defines and models the human experience.
Morality is based on principles of conduct that are stimulated by duties and obligations.
Ethics are based on personal and collective values that give meaning to everyone’s actions.
Both morality and ethics rely on self-discipline as internal regulators. What the law is not, being an external regulator since it refers to laws, regulations, decrees, etc.
First question: How can such a discrepancy be morally possible on the part of the carriers of this message?
The carriers of this message, who are among others politicians, oligarchs, have in common a personality profile with a high image of themselves: they perceive themselves as strong and dominant. They do not express any empathy, aiming only at the enjoyment of their personal interests, either economic, financial or positions of power. In short, everything for themselves. The relationship with the other is one of absolute power with a view to using or even instrumentalizing them for their own ends, hence the need to demand strict and immediate submission
Spiritually, they are driven by a fanaticism, that is, an excessive passion, namely a thirst for power, not tolerating people who do not think like them. This fanaticism, which is their life of the mind, is in fact a manifestation of their level of consciousness: having little interest in sharing knowledge with others, having little introspection concerning their states and actions, having poor moral judgment concerning the impact of their actions on others
The carriers of the message adhere to a belief that there is a visible or invisible enemy. An enemy that wants to harm us or them and to eradicate it all methods are good. “Consciousness comes from spirituality… But spirituality can kill like it is the case for Muslims” 2 – Rael. Since it is a paranoid belief, it feeds a thought that becomes a persecution delusion, hence their need for constant monitoring and control.
They call themselves “victims” so that they are not held accountable for their actions . Since they are acting for their own interests, they have no moral and ethical concerns; they only seek to avoid being caught.
How is it that they cling to it so stubbornly, even though the harmful effect of their discourse has been demonstrated?
Thirsty for power, the carriers of the message need to maintain their power:3
1) to surround themselves with “specialists” who equip them to implement their ambitions;
2) to hold to a logic that individuals are only quantitative data, thus not caring about the real damage that their speech and actions have on individuals;
3) to suppress rights and freedoms by implementing exceptional measures. This opens the door to a permissiveness of their actions that can go as far as killing to neutralize the enemy, even for a virus;
4) to make changing comments, even incoherent or contradictory statements, in order to maintain a terrorizing and confusing effect that prevents analysis and questioning, making them experts in the use of doublethink language;4
5) to create a propagandistic movement of opinion for a collective adhesion to their way of seeing and doing;
6) to preach amoral behaviors to divide the population, to feed apathy towards one’s neighbor and one’s faraway in order to feed by chaos, dehumanization, regression.
Above all, the carriers of the message express moral disengagement5 by supporting statements:
a) who justify their actions as good even if the consequences are harmful;
b) who put the blame for their actions on others “it’s because of the… if we decided to do…”;
c) who minimize the impact of their actions… “it doesn’t matter”;
d) who present the victim of the consequences of their actions as the one who inflicted them.
Consequently, the carriers of the message are unable to recognize the fundamental value of human dignity. In this sense, they cannot LOVE. “When there is neither consciousness nor intelligence then there is no love… Without love you are stupid.” – Rael 6
Let’s see in part 2, the answer to the third question: And how to preserve oneself from the harmful effect of this discourse and the actions which result from it?
1 Comte-Sponville A.; (in French only) https://voir.ca/societe/2006/12/21/andre-comte-sponville-pour-une-spiritualite-laique/
2 Words Maitreya from A to Z; https://raelcanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Maitreyas-words-70-a.H.-EN.pdf, p. 96
3 Inspired by the speech of Ariane Bilheran; (in French only) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bwtDnB4cpI, Crowd Management & Individual Psychology starting at 1:05:00
5 What is Moral Disengagement? – Salud America (salud-america.org)
6 Words Maitreya from A to Z; https://raelcanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Maitreyas-words-70-a.H.-EN.pdf, p. 62