What makes a dissident? Part 2: Strong internalized moral standards
A.k.a. not being for the Current Thing.
In the first part of this series examining what sets apart dissidents or critical thinkers, we talked about being a person of truth.
Now, I want to talk about another quality that sets apart those who don’t follow the crowd into madness: a strong, internalized moral standard which does not change depending on current moral fashion.
During recent covid tyranny here in Canada, I was astonished to see the majority of people completely abandoning principles that once seemed to be the very foundations of our society. For example, Canada prides itself on being a welcoming, inclusive, diverse, and tolerant country. And yet with apparently no moral qualms, the majority were driven as if by some mad Pied Piper into merrily discriminating against the unvaccinated in all sorts of terrible ways.
Before, it would have been taken for granted that people had control over their own bodies, and freedom to choose or reject medical treatments (except maybe childhood vaccinations, which perhaps paved the way for covid tyranny). It was understood that one’s medical status was private and nobody except a treating physician had the right to demand it.
All of a sudden, employers, would-be employers, friends, family and even restaurant hosts felt empowered to demand to know a person’s medical status, and to fire, unfriend, or refuse them service based on it.
People who chanted “my body, my choice” cheered on increasingly harsh measures against those who applied this maxim to the decision of whether or not to take an experimental medical treatment.
I was astonished to see a job portal website for a major Canadian telecoms company boldly announce that it intended to discriminate against unvaccinated applicants, all while touting a badge proclaiming it to be a “diversity champion”.
It really did open my eyes to the fact that the values that most people claim to hold, are not actually their true values. They are rather societally-generated moral positions that people latch onto in order to feel like a good person and to be accepted by others. Most people’s morals are nothing more than a conglomerate of currently-accepted views and values, no more real or deeply rooted than a wig.
This is why, for example, gay marriage flipped so quickly from being universally condemned to nearly universally accepted. Most people’s opposition was not based in transcendent values or deeply-thought-out understanding; it was simply the dominant societal position. When societal winds began to blow the other way, people shifted with them. However, their acceptance is also not based in transcendent values or deeply-thought-out reasoning; it is usually based in emotive slogans like “love is love” and the desire to conform to social norms in order to be accepted.
If tolerance, diversity, acceptance, and non-discrimination were truly values that people held, they would have committed themselves to acting on those values, even toward people they disagreed with. Instead, they came up with all sorts of plausible (to them) reasons why it was totally acceptable to discriminate against and hate these people in this case.
I think it is not surprising. As a culture, we are increasingly moving away from a universal recognition of the Judeo-Christian foundation as normative for ethics and values. A transcendent, eternal, unchanging, unquestionable source for understanding who we are as humans and how we ought to behave toward one another is gone, erased in our quest to be able to live however we want without guilt or accountability. However, it leaves a tremendous void in its place. Where does one turn in order to understand what is good and right? In the absence of a standard, and the absence of the possibility of facing a standard-Giver to whom one must one day give account, the only thing that matters is the here and now, and being accepted by one’s peers. So, we increasingly turn to them and to “authority” figures to tell us what to do and believe.
I’ve mentioned many times, and I’m not the only one, that I’ve been deeply struck by the number of Covid dissidents who explicitly cite their religious faith as their basis for speaking out. Of course, not all are religious. But in a society which increasingly isn’t, they are over-represented in the ranks of the dissidents.
That also isn’t surprising. Christianity, in particular, sets a very high moral and ethical bar, as well as making it clear that we will give account to God for how we have or have not kept his moral commandments. One no longer is measuring oneself against the society or its acceptance. That no longer matters; in fact, Jesus told us specifically many times that those who follow him will be hated as he was. A believer’s moral compass is set to a lodestar in heaven.
Strongly internalized, transcendent moral values which don’t change with the culture provide one with a rock-solid foundation from which to resist societal evil. Of course, along with this moral standard one also needs the courage to follow it when nearly everyone else is running in the opposite direction.
The transcendent is where I am trying to fix my gaze to avoid going mad in all this
Is there such a thing as an internal moral compass? I believe there is. I don’t think we should have to look to others to decide what’s good and right, whether that other be your family, peers, society or religion. I think when it comes to deep questions about what is right, one simply has to become still and focused and ask oneself. I just think people are so out of touch with themselves and their own energy and intuition that they are constantly running around looking for the latest “thing”. I know this sounds a bit airy fairy but I really do believe we all have a higher consciousness available to us, just very few people ever quiet down enough to listen to it.