Since morality lacks objective value, moral progress is a myth. Every individual reaches their own conclusions based on the unique weight of their experience. It is true that as we look back through history, our current grasp of reality has become far more vast, making our moral systems increasingly intricate. If we define progress merely as complexity, then we might say morality has progressed. Yet this progress is limited to the architecture of the system, not the validity of its conclusions. A moral conviction from the past is not inherently wrong because it is old, nor is a modern one right because it is new. There is no such thing as a universally correct or incorrect conclusion, for every perspective is a valid interpretation of the same underlying reality.
A moral interpretation only gains official status when it commands a majority. At that moment, it is codified into law. We must not be deceived by those who claim that righteousness is defined by what the law permits and evil by what it forbids. We must not be fooled by the narrative that we live in a free world where everything is allowed except the illegal. We must ask how the illegal was defined in the first place. There is no guarantee that legal prohibitions are not merely covert, unacknowledged tools used by the establishment to stifle specific freedoms. The establishment insists that anyone seeking to exercise a freedom it deems illegal must be suppressed. In such cases, the laws and the judges do not serve you, they serve the morality of the establishment.
However, let us remain clear headed. There is no eternally authoritarian establishment just as there is no perpetually victimized, holy population. Often, those who share the morality of the state are the ones who play the victim most fiercely. They face no persecution for their beliefs, yet when others find the courage to express a dissenting morality, these loyalists urge the authorities to treat that expression as a criminal act. This is how the legally innocent are persecuted. They have not broken the law through their actions, they have simply dared to manifest their own morality. Censorship is a universal constant. In conservative societies it is called the morality police while in progressive ones it is called hate speech. The labels differ, but the foundation is identical.
To be clear, acting against the law is a violation that warrants punishment, for without obedience to a shared code, society dissolves into chaos. If laws become obsolete, the people must form a majority to change them. But my central point remains that no human being should be punished for the mere expression of their morality. Every person possesses a moral compass. The intersecting points of the majority’s morality form the law, and the law decides what is right or wrong for the collective. Breaking those rules is a crime, but expressing a belief, no matter how blasphemous it may seem to the majority, should never be treated as one.
Censorship is unavoidable. Even in societies that boast of being free and inclusive, the pressure to conform is immense. This is natural. No man is a universal hero fighting for abstract truth or justice. Every man fights for his own truth and his own sense of justice. There are no martyrs for objective truth, only martyrs for the sake of their own conscience. Because people have different lives, they have different moralities. When they are in the majority, they write the laws. When they are in the minority, they must endure. This endurance is not a response to a specific injustice, but a surrender to a tragedy of life itself. No one is inherently guilty for fighting for their own values, even if that fight leads to the confrontation or subjugation of an opposing view.
I want to place a needle in the collar of every shirt to prick us whenever our heads sink into the slumber of conformity. Never let yourselves be lied to by an establishment that promises peace and freedom. The peace they offer is designed for those who already agree with them; everyone else will be marginalized. When the opposition eventually takes power, they will use the same rhetoric to achieve the same ends. Do not fall into the trap of claiming that one side is objectively better than the other. Perhaps my own morality tells me that one side must be fought, but I will not use lies to do it. I will not be a coward who hides behind the law, claiming that my enemy is “objectively” wrong or that the law is an absolute truth.
Instead, I will say that while my opponent should have the absolute freedom to express his morality, I will still oppose him. I will not do it because the law is sacred or because he is objectively evil. I will do it because I am part of the majority and he is the minority. His morality threatens mine, and for that reason, I will use my position to limit his influence. This is not a defense of dictatorship, my goal is not to propose a perfect social organization, but a description of governance stripped of all euphemisms, thus distroying the illusion that some societies are fundamentally freer than others.
We must not confuse our personal morality with the official morality of the law. Even when they align, it is often a happy coincidence. We must give to Caesar what is Caesar’s by respecting the law to maintain order, but we must never surrender our spirit. Regardless of the establishment’s threats or encouragements, we must live and act according to what we know to be true. Where we are forbidden from acting, we must at least have the courage to speak. If we maintain that inner honesty, our purpose is fulfilled, and the eventual result becomes secondary.
Beyond moral euphemisms
Since morality lacks objective value, moral progress is a myth. Every individual reaches their own conclusions based on the unique weight of their experience. It is true that as we look back through history, our current grasp of reality has become far more vast, making our moral systems increasingly intricate. If we define progress merely as complexity, then we might say morality has progressed. Yet this progress is limited to the architecture of the system, not the validity of its conclusions. A moral conviction from the past is not inherently wrong because it is old, nor is a modern one right because it is new. There is no such thing as a universally correct or incorrect conclusion, for every perspective is a valid interpretation of the same underlying reality.
A moral interpretation only gains official status when it commands a majority. At that moment, it is codified into law. We must not be deceived by those who claim that righteousness is defined by what the law permits and evil by what it forbids. We must not be fooled by the narrative that we live in a free world where everything is allowed except the illegal. We must ask how the illegal was defined in the first place. There is no guarantee that legal prohibitions are not merely covert, unacknowledged tools used by the establishment to stifle specific freedoms. The establishment insists that anyone seeking to exercise a freedom it deems illegal must be suppressed. In such cases, the laws and the judges do not serve you, they serve the morality of the establishment.
However, let us remain clear headed. There is no eternally authoritarian establishment just as there is no perpetually victimized, holy population. Often, those who share the morality of the state are the ones who play the victim most fiercely. They face no persecution for their beliefs, yet when others find the courage to express a dissenting morality, these loyalists urge the authorities to treat that expression as a criminal act. This is how the legally innocent are persecuted. They have not broken the law through their actions, they have simply dared to manifest their own morality. Censorship is a universal constant. In conservative societies it is called the morality police while in progressive ones it is called hate speech. The labels differ, but the foundation is identical.
To be clear, acting against the law is a violation that warrants punishment, for without obedience to a shared code, society dissolves into chaos. If laws become obsolete, the people must form a majority to change them. But my central point remains that no human being should be punished for the mere expression of their morality. Every person possesses a moral compass. The intersecting points of the majority’s morality form the law, and the law decides what is right or wrong for the collective. Breaking those rules is a crime, but expressing a belief, no matter how blasphemous it may seem to the majority, should never be treated as one.
Censorship is unavoidable. Even in societies that boast of being free and inclusive, the pressure to conform is immense. This is natural. No man is a universal hero fighting for abstract truth or justice. Every man fights for his own truth and his own sense of justice. There are no martyrs for objective truth, only martyrs for the sake of their own conscience. Because people have different lives, they have different moralities. When they are in the majority, they write the laws. When they are in the minority, they must endure. This endurance is not a response to a specific injustice, but a surrender to a tragedy of life itself. No one is inherently guilty for fighting for their own values, even if that fight leads to the confrontation or subjugation of an opposing view.
I want to place a needle in the collar of every shirt to prick us whenever our heads sink into the slumber of conformity. Never let yourselves be lied to by an establishment that promises peace and freedom. The peace they offer is designed for those who already agree with them; everyone else will be marginalized. When the opposition eventually takes power, they will use the same rhetoric to achieve the same ends. Do not fall into the trap of claiming that one side is objectively better than the other. Perhaps my own morality tells me that one side must be fought, but I will not use lies to do it. I will not be a coward who hides behind the law, claiming that my enemy is “objectively” wrong or that the law is an absolute truth.
Instead, I will say that while my opponent should have the absolute freedom to express his morality, I will still oppose him. I will not do it because the law is sacred or because he is objectively evil. I will do it because I am part of the majority and he is the minority. His morality threatens mine, and for that reason, I will use my position to limit his influence. This is not a defense of dictatorship, my goal is not to propose a perfect social organization, but a description of governance stripped of all euphemisms, thus distroying the illusion that some societies are fundamentally freer than others.
We must not confuse our personal morality with the official morality of the law. Even when they align, it is often a happy coincidence. We must give to Caesar what is Caesar’s by respecting the law to maintain order, but we must never surrender our spirit. Regardless of the establishment’s threats or encouragements, we must live and act according to what we know to be true. Where we are forbidden from acting, we must at least have the courage to speak. If we maintain that inner honesty, our purpose is fulfilled, and the eventual result becomes secondary.