When systems begin to fail at scale, moral language rushes in to fill the gap. We hear calls for responsibility, decency, courage, humanity. Leaders are urged to “do the right thing.” Populations are exhorted to care more, to choose better, to be on the right side of history.
This response is understandable — and largely ineffective.
At planetary scale, moralisation is not just insufficient; it is actively misleading. It frames coordination failures as ethical failures of character, when they are in fact failures of structure, asymmetry, and revisability.
Global ethics cannot be moralised because morality presupposes conditions that no longer hold.
The Scale Mismatch
Moral reasoning evolved for small-group coordination:
-
Face-to-face interaction
-
Shared consequences
-
Immediate feedback
-
Recognisable agency
In such contexts, moral judgement works. Praise and blame recalibrate behaviour. Norms stabilise trust. Responsibility is legible.
At global scale, none of these conditions apply.
Actions are distributed across thousands of actors, protocols, and time horizons. Consequences are delayed, displaced, and diffused. Feedback arrives too late or in distorted form. Agency fragments into compliance with systems no one fully controls.
To moralise under these conditions is to apply a small-scale tool to a large-scale problem — and then blame people when it fails.
Why Moral Appeals Backfire
Moralisation does not simply fail to fix global problems; it often intensifies them.
This happens in three predictable ways.
First, moralisation personalises structural harm. Responsibility is localised onto individuals who lack the capacity to alter the system producing the harm. This generates guilt without leverage, outrage without pathways, virtue without effect.
Second, moralisation polarises coordination fields. Once framed as moral failure, disagreement becomes vice. Complexity collapses into camps. Revisability disappears under the pressure to be “right.”
Third, moralisation creates moral cover for structural inertia. Institutions adopt ethical language, issue values statements, appoint ethics committees — all while leaving coordination structures untouched. The appearance of morality substitutes for ethical transformation.
The system becomes morally louder and structurally quieter.
The Illusion of Moral Clarity
Moral discourse promises clarity: good versus bad, right versus wrong. At scale, this clarity is an illusion purchased at the cost of intelligibility.
Global systems are not unclear because actors are immoral. They are unclear because causal chains exceed moral resolution. Simplifying them into moral binaries makes them emotionally manageable while rendering them analytically opaque.
This is why moral clarity so often accompanies ethical catastrophe.
When a system demands speed, loyalty, and alignment, moral language supplies exactly what it needs: justification without diagnosis.
Ethics Without Virtue
A relational ethics does not begin with virtue, intention, or values. It begins with coordination effects.
The ethical question is not:
Are actors behaving morally?
but:
What patterns of coordination are being stabilised, and at whose expense?
This reframing is uncomfortable because it withholds moral satisfaction. It does not reward good intentions. It does not promise innocence. It does not offer purity.
Instead, it asks for something harder: structural attentiveness.
Why Moral Heroes Cannot Save Us
Global ethics often gravitates toward hero narratives — whistleblowers, saints, courageous leaders. These figures matter symbolically, but structurally they are marginal.
Heroism does not scale.
In fact, reliance on moral heroes often signals ethical failure: the system requires exceptional individuals to compensate for ordinary functioning. This is not ethics; it is damage control.
A system that depends on moral heroism is already ethically bankrupt.
From Moral Failure to Coordination Failure
Consider climate collapse, mass displacement, algorithmic harm, financial instability. In each case, moral arguments are abundant and action is scarce.
This is not because people do not care. It is because care has nowhere to go.
The coordination pathways that would translate concern into consequence have been blocked, slowed, or outsourced to institutions optimised for continuity rather than transformation.
Moral pressure builds — and vents sideways.
The Ethical Pivot
Global ethics must shift from moral judgement to coordination design.
This means asking:
-
Where do current systems prevent feedback?
-
Where are consequences externalised beyond visibility?
-
Where has revisability been replaced by lock-in?
-
Where does speed suppress reflection?
-
Where does abstraction erase responsibility?
Ethics becomes the practice of reopening these sites — not through condemnation, but through reconfiguration.
This is quieter than moral outrage. Slower than activism prefers. Less satisfying than righteousness.
It is also far more dangerous to entrenched power.
The Risk of Moral Comfort
Perhaps the greatest risk of moralisation is that it allows us to feel ethical without becoming responsible. We condemn, signal, align — and the system continues unchanged.
Global ethics demands the opposite: discomfort without villainy, responsibility without blame, action without moral certainty.
It asks us to give up the pleasure of being right in order to regain the possibility of being effective.
In Post 5, we turn to the most counterintuitive implication of all: why ethical action at planetary scale often looks like slowing down, complicating narratives, and refusing alignment — and why this is not weakness, but care under constraint.
No comments:
Post a Comment