The Ego of Knowledge and Morality

There’s something quite unsettling about how public discourse that I have been trying to grapple with right now.

The subject that has been in massive circulation is the conundrum that surrounds the crumbling of Hollywood; and the arts. Where the floodgates have opened, exposing a sinister graveyard, and within tombs and engraved in are the epitaphs of morality and justice. But I do not only look at the perpetrators that are feeding this sinister underbelly of disgusting perversions; but also the spectators.

What is disheartening is this phenomena I have frequently witnessed over public discourse – from what I call the ego of knowledge and morality. There may be another term that already exists which encapsulates what I want to express – and to that I wish for you learned and very knowledgeable readers to teach me this term. The responses I have come across have responded to these allegations of sexual violence with a blasé pathos. Oh, as if no one knew that Hollywood wasn’t a cesspool of sexual debauchery. I mean the casting couch exists! Or the I’m surprised anyone is surprised about this and then having a lengthy rant to diminish the significance of the arts or entertainment.

Others have gone to shun those that have spoken up about the sexual violence that they have experienced. And while I do not want to delve too much into the complexities of many contexts and differences of each case (I am not here to make a grand, universal claim that answers to all the cases what Homer Simpson may describe “being wrapped up in a neat little package”. But rather the exhibition of mass dehumanisation. People rather want to present themselves as arbiters of knowledge and morality rather than actually possessing either of these to construct insightful contributions to the situation. So what if you were the enlightened individual who understood the seedy underbelly of Hollywood; you are the same of who you criticise for being too cowardly to actually giving support or standing up to the corrupt authorities that get away with violence. The effectiveness of a moral crusade diminishes when it compromises the safety in what it is meant to protect. Here, you see a swarm of individuals who were victims, caught in the grips of corruption and exploited at their most vulnerable; and there is backlash from bystanders who are more consumed with feeding their egos criticising from their armchairs far removed from the realities in which they feel they have knowledge about.

No doubt, I do believe there are those that wish to exploit the privileges and powers that victim status grants. People get fired for having a dissenting opinion, their livelihoods destroyed, public vilification and that can very well lead to a cycle of destructive mental illness. But rather than a reflex of cynicism (as opposed to their more healthier variant skepticism – which demands evidence rather than an emotional response) that condemns the basic right of expressing oneself; baring the truths difficult to confront – for the world, and even more – for the individual; understanding rather than pitchforks is far more appropriate.

What critics of this issue ignore – is that they play right into the cycle of violence they believe to be above. The instantaneous cynicism – whether it be that the victims coming out are purely self-serving and are becoming activists for self interest, or that people that are not as enlightened as they, are far too stupid to comprehend the vicious systems that they are aware of; they press doubt in the security of those who suffer. Say, if one was in a compromising position, but knew that they were even less safe to expose their wounds to the wider society; would you truly expect them to come out?

Does it discredit their moral integrity when it comes to providing for the safety of others? Sure. But can anyone truly say they’d be the altruistic hero in which would give up their entire livelihoods for moral practice? Possibly not. And here is where those that say with pride that they would make the ultimate sacrifice of their lives for a fragile ideology, in reality would probably not.

Someone without the resources to fend for themselves or to survive an onslaught of repercussions, while fighting a bigger, stronger and intimidating evil shouldn’t be condemned to such degrees as what has been witnessed. It’s a suicide mission. And bystanders are willing for people to die by ideals of those not even involved in the predicament. People that are privileged to not suffer from horrible contexts forget that the will to survive is not exclusive to themselves. Everyone deals with it. And we all deal with it in different ways, and we all deal with different situations in our livelihoods and in our lifetimes. Who are we to judge? Would you criticise and condemn a loved one for dealing with the grief of death by being cynical of their motives? Yes, I do admit that death and sexual violence are different things – but both leave irreversible marks to those that remain, dealing with the consequences.

For awhile, I’ve written about my concern about people focusing far more on preserving a facade of caring rather than actually caring about issues. Here, that concern transfers quite aptly. I ask of those who do assert their moral and sagacious superiority – what does concern for your ego actually contribute? So what if you say you would do better if you were in that position? So what if you knew about the atrocities of the world around you. The end result is the same. You didn’t do anything about it. You had the components to make a change, yet you did not. And if anything, that type of apathy is a driving force to why bad things happen.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. – Edmund Burke. 

And nothing good comes from someone who’s all talk, but can’t back up their moralities or wisdom with actions.

C.