#5: Who It Applies To

Growing up, my baba framed the principles of masculinity in a fundamental way.

1. Always protect your family, friends, and neighbors.

2. Never celebrate suffering.

3. Never harm the innocent.

There is no ambiguity.

The beauty of principles is that they are immutable.

Not shaped by circumstance or emotion.

And this idea is not new.

The earliest conceptions of moral universalism are traced back to the Seven Laws of Noah in the Talmud. The Principals for All of Humanity.

The Stoics later described this as a universal natural law. The inherent moral constitution that exists independent of identity or socioeconomic status.

During the Age of Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant articulated a framework for this philosophy through the Categorical Imperative, which one can use to determine whether an action is morally right or wrong based on reason alone.

And our current interpretation of this theory is actualized in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The conclusion has always been the same:

A compassionate society is guided by an objective moral compass.

(Even if one argues that morality varies across cultures, the recognition of unnecessary suffering and the instinct to avoid it is consistent across them.)

Social psychologist Henri Tajfel indicates that individuals derive a sense of self from the groups they belong to. Leading to in-group preference and out-group bias. Even if moral frameworks differ, the mere action of selective application implies a contradiction.

What follows is subtle, but detrimental to a globalized society.

Morality is no longer applied universally, but conditionally.

The same action is judged differently depending on who commits it and who it is committed against.

In times of war, indifference and hatred make this impossible to ignore.

Harm is reframed as necessary, and suffering becomes acceptable. Even in cases where war may be justified, the suffering remains.

It is at this point that identity has taken precedence over an individual’s morals

Psychologist Albert Bandura describes this as moral disengagement. The mental process by which an individual reframes harmful behavior to align with their beliefs. I believe people do not abandon their morals. They reinterpret them through justification. *LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY

1. Environment weakens accountability (especially during conflict)

2. Fear and hate accelerate this process.

3. Empathy becomes narrowed +

WITHOUT EVER REALIZING.

I am not here to question the existence of objective morality. Nor do I think that Identity is harmful. I think identity is what makes the human experience so beautiful, providing a sense of individuality while connecting one to a larger responsibility. I am concerned with how identity interferes with our willingness to apply it and who is considered “deserving” of moral consideration.

Interrogate what you have inherited.

Scrutinize whether your actions are rooted in principle or in identity.

And while moral clarity remains a topic of debate, the inconsistency in action is inexcusable.

I beg all of you to act in alignment with what is right, not simply what is yours.

As always, I urge you to question my beliefs.

-Z.Y.