Falling Short of One’s Moral Benchmark
There is no greater judge than that of The Self. The person who stares back in the mirror.
Whilst we can read other people’s subjective interpretation of reality to try and formulate a general objective consensus of human emotions and reactions, the only true metric we can honestly rely on is our own subjective experience. So while I do care about other’s opinions of me (to a degree), it really pales into oblivion in comparison with my own judgement of myself. I say this not in some grandiose, pompous fashion. It is merely my own lived experience, a humbling truth. And to a certain degree it’s a perspective curated over a number of years, a result of intentional effort to deviate from the social conditioning of comparing oneself with other people, conditioning which is most grossly inculcated and perpetuated — for commercial gain — by the advertising industry.
It is precisely this capacity for self-judgement which explains why falling short of my own moral threshold induces such a great degree of remorse. The ramifications are difficult to escape. One cannot hide the indiscretion — no matter how minor — under the carpet. How do we reconcile such a reality?
As a culture and a society we have a tendency to mythologise and deify individuals of great influence and significance, past and present. This partly explains why people were so shocked by the fall from grace of the likes of ‘holier than thou’ Tiger Woods and Lance Armstrong. From a historical perspective, the reality of some of our icons is even starker. Mahatma Gandhi has been labelled a racist for his apparent disdain for black South Africans. The serial infidelity of Martin Luther King was well known, similarly too in the case of Nelson Mandela. Rather than feel despondent and cynical at such revelations, I see these in a different light. Without doubt, such indiscretions and allegations are inexcusable in their own right. But they showcase that even the best amongst us are flawed and imperfect. I find that incredibly empowering and reassuring because it means that, in spite of our inherent and intimately known personal flaws, we too can be a morally good individual. Morality is not conditional on an unblemished record — otherwise human morality wouldn’t exist. We would instead be like the gods. Omnibenevolent. The moral benchmark we set for ourselves is just that. A benchmark. It is aspirational. By definition, falling short of it is a sign that we are truly stretching ourselves beyond our perceived capacities.
In Islamic theology (amongst many others, no doubt) one’s intention is considered to be as important as the consequence of one’s actions. This is essentially the polar opposite of the utilitarian, or consequentialist, viewpoint. What I like about such a focus on intention is that, whilst the outcome of any one action is influenced by many factors outside of our control, we do have complete autonomy over the intention behind our actions. It’s a very Stoic way of approaching life — that only the inner world can be mastered, for the external world contains too many variables outside of our domain of control.
The essence of what I am trying to say is this — falling short of one’s moral benchmark and values (no matter how virtuous, or not) is an inevitable reality of the human condition. Rather than drag ourselves through a sort of personal purgatory every time we stumble — something I have done to myself many times — we should implement greater self-compassion and acknowledge that the true test of our character and virtue is determined by an inventory of our intentions, actions and their consequences taken from a more cumulative perspective. Perhaps even the act of feeling remorse for the slightest indiscretion is indicative of an awakened and virtuous mind, ensuring that the self-policing of one’s actions is infinitely more compelling that any external damnation.
The Ithaca Diaries
