• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Dr. Joseph Dillard is a psychotherapist with over forty year's clinical experience treating individual, couple, and family issues. Dr. Dillard also has extensive experience with pain management and meditation training. The creator of Integral Deep Listening (IDL), Dr. Dillard is the author of over ten books on IDL, dreaming, nightmares, and meditation. He lives in Berlin, Germany. See: integraldeeplistening.com and his YouTube channel.

SEE MORE ESSAYS WRITTEN BY JOSEPH DILLARD

Morality: The Foundation of Spirituality, Religion, and Integral Anything

Joseph Dillard

What can be done to increase the moral credibility of integral? To answer that question, let's take a look at why morality is so important, some important historical figures who have pointed to the importance of morality for religion and spirituality, how Integral Theory fatefully favors the interior quadrants in its approach to morality, some of the causes of the collapse of moral authority in the West, implications for Integral Theory, and some suggestions for corrective action.[1]

Commenting on 2024 in a New Year's assessment, Bernard, at the online site, Moon of Alabama, writes,

More disturbing for me though was the total breakdown of 'western' concepts that were, until recently, held high. Liberalism, as an economic and societal concept, has broken down… Most horrifying though is the breakdown of humanitarian concepts the 'west' once claimed to hold high. (John) Mearsheimer says it best when he decries the the moral bankruptcy of the West:

“Given the West's presumed commitment to human rights and especially to preventing genocide, one would have expected countries like the United States, Britain, and Germany, to have stopped the Israeli genocide in its tracks. Instead, the governments in those three countries, especially the United States, have supported Israel's unimaginable behavior in Gaza at every turn. Indeed, those three countries are complicit in this genocide. Moreover, almost all of the many human rights advocates in those countries, and in the West more generally, have stayed silent while Israel executed its genocide. The mainstream media has made hardly any effort to expose and challenge what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. Indeed some key outlets have staunchly supported Israel's actions. One wonders what people in the West who have either supported Israel's genocide or remained silent tell themselves to justify their behavior and sleep at night.”[2]

All the above already had started some time ago. But it culminated in 2024 in ways that were more noticeable than ever. The mask is off. The 'West', as we knew it, is done with.[3]

This is a bleak, pessimistic, and cynical assessment, and easy to discount for those reasons. One would do well to not underestimate the creativity and persistence of Western culture, society, technology, and science. It is also not wise to underestimate the power of money to fund research and industry as well as to bribe anyone and everyone into compliance with the interests of financial elites and its willing servants in entrenched bureaucracies, both public and private, throughout the world. It is also wise to not underestimate the power of inherited cognitive biases and their ability to be harnessed by those adept at propaganda and who have control of the means to disseminate it via mass media.

Two examples suffice. The first is the 'boiled frog' syndrome, which alludes to the human capacity to adapt to conditions that lead to extermination. See the current numbing of the public to an ongoing genocide.The second is a currency bias, which means that our attention easily shifts from current barbaric horrors, such as terrorist attacks, to the Next Big Thing.

The consequences of the persistent justification of crimes against humanity is forcing a human evolutionary advancement toward a mid-personal developmental level of questioning authority of all kinds. While this questioning has not yet risen to a late personal demand for accountability, it is a momentous development in both the evolution of human cognition and morality.

Morality as the widely accepted foundation of both Religion and Spirituality

Morality is often considered the foundation of religion and spirituality because it provides the framework for how individuals and communities live in alignment with their highest values and aspirations. This connection arises from the shared goal of morality, religion, and spirituality to guide human behavior toward the good, the true, and the meaningful.

Morality answers questions like: “How should we live?” and “What is the right way to act?” While the interpretation of moral principles can vary, leading to conflicts between religious traditions or within spiritual communities, there are underlying fundamental determinants of relationships that stay the same. We all implicitly ask of one another, “Do they respect me?” “Do they reciprocate?” “Are they trustworthy?” “Are they empathetic?” In the realm of our collective relationships our assessments of the morality of the behavior of others are more fundamental than any other factor, including our cognitive biases and the ability of others to manipulate them. The cognitive line may lead in self-development, but in our relationships with others, in the external and collective (LR) dimensions of our lives, the moral line leads.

The assessments of people living in other countries is similarly more fundamental than our intentions or the narratives about ourselves that we individually or collectively broadcast about ourselves. Most Westerners - and many Integralists - don't seem to recognize just how poorly their tolerance of an ongoing genocide reflects on them in the eyes of the global majority. We are presently confronted by the imminent eradication of Gaza Palestinians - of some two million souls. Another five to seven in the West Bank are in mortal jeopardy. The pervasive response appears to be either, “Let's not think about that,” or “It hasn't happened yet, so it might not happen,” or, “I am just one person. What can I do?” Some Integralists with whom I have come in contact with prioritize personal development and “enlightenment” over both collective welfare and accountability before law. There are also those happy spiritualists who are sure that all is in divine order, so genocide must be too.

Westerners, including many integralists, either seem to not recognize how they are viewed by the vast majority of non-Westerners, recognize how they negatively are viewed but minimize its significance, or recognize how horrified many non-Westerners are of our behavior on the world stage, while wringing their hands and justifying tolerance and inaction in one way or another. We have not begun to confront or grasp how we have sunk in the eyes of the global majority, abandoning not only our humanity but also common sense. For example, Wilber justifies inaction regarding Western complicity in genocide by attributing it to “tribal” and “mythic” levels of development of Jews and Moslems, concluding that little can be done unless and until they see the light and embrace an integral, 2nd Tier perspective. This is, of course, nonsense. One phone call from US leadership to Israeli leadership, announcing the cut-off of military aid until the genocide stops, would force its termination. Why? 80% of Israeli military capacity is supplied by the US.

How and Why Morality is Considered the Foundation of Religion and Spirituality

Examples of morality as the foundation of religion and spirituality are found in the great religions of the world. In Buddhism, for example, the Eightfold Path includes ethical conduct (right speech, right action, right livelihood) as essential for spiritual awakening. The precepts encourage avoiding harm, stealing, and false speech. Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam, among others. The concept of dharma (moral duty) is central to Hindu ethics, guiding individuals to act in harmony with cosmic order. In Islam, the Five Pillars emphasize moral actions like charity (zakat) and fasting (sawm) as expressions of faith. Sacred texts across religions embed moral teachings. The Quran emphasizes justice, charity, and honesty. The Bhagavad Gita discusses duty (dharma) and selfless action. Spiritual traditions often draw on these teachings to inspire individuals to embody moral virtues in their lives.

Religions typically include explicit moral codes, such as the Ten Commandments in Christianity and Judaism, the Five Precepts in Buddhism, or the Yamas and Niyamas in Hinduism. These serve as behavioral guidelines for adherents to live ethically and harmoniously. Spirituality often emphasizes moral principles like compassion, integrity, and mindfulness as pathways to personal growth and connection with the divine or universal.

This emphasis on the foundational nature of morality is supported by moral codes and ethical guidelines, sacred texts and teachings, community and social order, personal transformation, and as a means of connecting to the Divine or Universal Truth. Morality forms a common ground across religious and spiritual traditions, emphasizing shared values like kindness, justice, and honesty. Religion and spirituality build on this foundation to provide meaning, purpose, and context for these questions. Morality fosters cohesion and trust within religious and spiritual communities by establishing shared norms and values. Many religions institutionalize moral principles through rituals, laws, and communal practices that reinforce ethical behavior. Both religion and spirituality see morality as a means of personal transformation. By cultivating virtues like kindness, humility, and forgiveness, individuals align themselves with a higher purpose or transcendence.

Religious and spiritual moral systems aim to reduce conflict, promote cooperation, and ensure justice within societies. For example, the principle of reciprocity, fundamental to moral relationships and codified in the Golden Rule, is a universal moral principle found in nearly all major religions. Morality is often seen as a bridge to transcendence. By acting ethically, individuals move beyond selfish desires and align with higher spiritual truths or divine will. In addition, religion often ties morality to divine judgment or karma, creating a sense of accountability for one's actions. This can motivate adherence to moral principles. At its core, morality seeks to reduce harm and promote the well-being of others. Religion and spirituality expand this principle to encompass universal compassion, seeing all beings as interconnected.

Morality is often portrayed as a way to connect with the divine or ultimate reality. In Christianity, living a moral life is seen as fulfilling God's will. In Buddhism, ethical conduct is a prerequisite for enlightenment. Morality serves as the foundation of religion and spirituality because it addresses fundamental human questions, promotes social harmony, encourages transcendence, provides accountability, and fosters compassion and empathy.

Who are some of the historical figures that have argued that morality is the foundation of religion and spirituality?

These include Immanuel Kant, Confucius, Gandhi, Kierkegaard, Aquinas, the Dalai Lama, Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Albert Schweitzer. In Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason (1793), and in Critique of Practical Reason (1788), Kant argued that morality is the basis for true religion. He argued that moral law is central because it is derived from reason that it is universal and independent of religious doctrine. He proposed that religion's primary role is to support and deepen moral behavior. Kant criticized religious practices that prioritize rituals or dogma over moral action, asserting that ethical conduct is the true essence of religion.

Confucius taught that morality, which he defined as virtue and proper conduct, is the essence of spirituality and governance. In the Analects, Confucius emphasized that inner virtue (ren, or humaneness) and outward rituals (li, or propriety) are interconnected, with morality being the foundation of a harmonious society and spiritual life. He viewed Heaven (Tian) as a moral force, and humans achieve alignment with it by cultivating ethical virtues. The ideal spiritual individual, the junzi, embodies moral excellence and leads by example.

Mahatma Gandhi taught that morality is the essence of all religions. In Hind Swaraj (1909), Gandhi states that all religions are rooted in universal moral principles like truth (satya), nonviolence (ahimsa), and selflessness. He argued that true religion is not about rituals or dogmas but about living a moral life in service to others. Gandhi's spirituality was grounded in ethical practices, such as fasting, nonviolent resistance, and simplicity, which he saw as expressions of moral truth.

The existentialist philosopher Søren Kierkegaard viewed morality as a precursor to authentic religious faith. In Fear and Trembling (1843), and Either/Or (1843), Kierkegaard outlined stages of life, with the ethical stage being a higher form of existence than the aesthetic (pleasure-driven) stage. In this stage, individuals commit to moral responsibilities. While Kierkegaard ultimately prioritized faith in God, he saw moral self-awareness and ethical living as necessary steps toward genuine faith. He emphasized the importance of acting ethically even when faced with existential doubt or ambiguity.

Thomas Aquinas, the preeminent codifier of Roman Catholic dogma, taught that morality reflects divine law and is foundational to religion. In his Summa Theologica, Aquinas argued that moral law is part of the divine order and is accessible to human reason. Living morally aligns individuals with God's will. Aquinas integrated Aristotelian virtue ethics into Christian theology, emphasizing that moral virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance, are essential for spiritual growth. While morality is foundational, Aquinas believed that grace and faith elevate moral action to its highest purpose—union with God.

The Dalai Lama views ethics as the core of spirituality, independent of religious belief. In Ethics for the New Millennium (1999), he emphasizes secular ethics based on compassion, kindness, and altruism as the foundation of both spirituality and religion. While respecting religious diversity, the Dalai Lama argues that ethical conduct is the shared essence of all spiritual traditions. He views compassion as the highest moral and spiritual value, transcending religious boundaries.

The German philosopher Friedrich Schleiermacher argued that morality and spirituality are interdependent. In On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers (1799), Schleiermacher views religion as rooted in a “feeling of absolute dependence” on the infinite, which inspires moral action. He argued that morality and religion are not separate domains but deeply interconnected, with religious experience motivating ethical behavior.

The German physician and philosopher Albert Schweitzer taught, in The Philosophy of Civilization (1923), that reverence for life is the foundation of morality and spirituality. He proposed that the essence of morality and spirituality is an ethical commitment to preserve and honor all life. Schweitzer believed that moral action is the practical expression of spiritual insight, emphasizing service and compassion.

The common themes in the arguments of these historical figures include the universality of morality, which transcends religious traditions, the interconnection and interdependence of morality and spirituality, how morality informs daily life, fostering compassion, justice, and harmony, and how ethical behavior, rather than rituals or dogma, is the true essence of religion.

How and Why Integral Theory Biases the Interior Quadrants

Wilber does an excellent job of promoting morality as right intention in the interior individual quadrant and as important values in the interior collective quadrant. In particular, he does this through his statement of his Basic Moral intuition, which is a person's intuition to protect and promote the greatest depth for the greatest span. Wilber has extensively reviewed Kohlberg's stages development of moral judgment. His treatment of morality in the exterior quadrants is largely contained in Integral Life Practice.

I have noted for some years now, and written about it in a number of essays on Integral World, that Wilber's treatment of morality biases the interior quadrants. Wilber's treatment of morality in the interior individual quadrant of consciousness, self-awareness, and personal ethics is rooted in personal growth, ethical self-reflection, and the development of higher stages of consciousness. In A Theory of Everything (2000), Wilber ties moral development to psychological growth, using models like Kohlberg's stages of moral development. He discusses how individuals move through egocentric, ethnocentric, worldcentric, and kosmocentric moral stages as part of their overall development. In Integral Psychology (2000), Wilber emphasizes the importance of personal transformation in fostering moral behavior. Morality is seen as an evolving capacity tied to individual consciousness and spiritual practice, emphasizing self-awareness and ethical responsibility.

Wilber's treatment of morality in the interior collective quadrant of shared values, ethics, and worldviews within communities and cultures focuses on how cultural worldviews, including mythic, rational, pluralistic, and integral shape collective ethical norms. Wilber argues that collective moral development is crucial for addressing systemic issues. In Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (1995), Wilber links moral progress to shifts in cultural values, such as the move from mythic to rational to integral consciousness. In The Religion of Tomorrow (2017), he discusses how integral ethics can guide collective moral decisions in a pluralistic world. This focus highlights the importance of cultural dialogue and shared meaning-making in moral action but risks underemphasizing the role of structural and systemic factors.

Wilber's treatment of morality in the exterior individual quadrant of observable behavior, including the physical actions of individuals, is often approached as a reflection of interior development. Wilber discusses behaviors as manifestations of moral and ethical awareness but does not focus extensively on actions in isolation. For example, in Integral Spirituality (2006), Wilber discusses on how higher stages of consciousness lead to more ethical behavior but does not delve deeply into the specifics of moral actions. This relative neglect can lead to a gap in addressing the concrete actions individuals take, or fail to take, in response to moral crises.

Wilber's treatment of morality in the exterior collective quadrant, which addresses systems, structures, and societal institutions is under-explored compared to the interior quadrants. Wilber acknowledges systemic and structural factors but often frames them as outcomes of collective interior development. For example, in A Brief History of Everything (1996), Wilber discusses how systemic oppression, such as patriarchy and colonialism, reflects lower levels of collective moral development but does not offer detailed systemic solutions. This limited focus on systemic morality can result in an under-appreciation of how external structures perpetuate moral failures, such as genocide, irrespective of cultural or individual interiority.

Why does Integral Theory place its emphasis on moral development in the interior quadrants? Wilber's focus on consciousness and development, which prioritizes the evolution of consciousness, which naturally centers morality in the interior quadrants, is a major factor. It is also due to Wilber's background in transpersonal psychology, which emphasizes subjective and intersubjective experiences, leading to a relative de-emphasis on exterior factors. A third factor is a philosophical bias that tends to align integral theory with idealism, prioritizing the role of mind and culture over material systems.

The importance of Integral Theory's ambivalence regarding morality

A focus on morality ensures that spiritual practices lead to tangible improvements in behavior and relationships, rather than becoming abstract or self-centered. When morality is focused on values, universal moral law, or personal intent, rather than on observable behavior, the gulf between self-perception and the perception of objective parties can grow so vast as to do two things: generate a pervasive perception of hypocrisy, and block moral tetra-mesh, that is, the ability for overall development, rather than this or that line, to advance level to level. This is because morality is a core line, since it is the foundation of human interaction, religion, and spirituality.

Wilber's writings reflect ambivalence about the role and importance of morality. He sometimes states that morality is a stand-alone core line, like cognition and self-sense, and at other times he subordinates it to self sense. In Wilber's framework, a "subordinate self line" refers to a developmental line that is closely tied to the development of the self. Morality, in this context, is seen as something that evolves as the self evolves. For example, in Integral Psychology (2000), Wilber discusses how moral development is often linked to the stages of ego development. He references the work of Lawrence Kohlberg, who outlined stages of moral development that correlate with the stages of cognitive development. Wilber suggests that moral reasoning is subordinate to the self's capacity for cognition and perspective-taking, meaning that as the self grows in complexity, so does its moral reasoning. Morality is primarily understood as a function of the individual's growth in the interior quadrants—how the self integrates higher values and worldviews.

On the other hand, Wilber also describes morality as a "free-standing core line," meaning it can develop independently of the self. In some contexts, Wilber treats morality as an independent developmental line, akin to cognition, self-sense, or emotional intelligence. This approach emphasizes that morality has its own trajectory of growth and complexity, separate from other lines of development. In The Eye of Spirit (1997), Wilber discusses how moral development can occur independently of other lines, such as cognitive or emotional development. He references Carol Gilligan's work on moral development, which emphasizes care and relational ethics, as an example of a moral line that is not strictly tied to the self's cognitive or ego development. Moral reasoning evolves from pre-conventional egocentric to conventional ethnocentric to post-conventional worldcentric to post-post conventional kosmocentric. In this framing, morality is seen as a fundamental aspect of human growth, with its own unique dynamics and capacities that can develop independently of other lines. This recognizes morality as a distinct domain of human experience with its own developmental trajectory while allowing for nuanced analysis of moral growth, including how individuals may excel in some lines like cognition while lagging in others, like morality. Wilber suggests that morality, in this sense, is a distinct line that can evolve on its own trajectory, influenced by cultural, social, and interpersonal factors.

Wilber's occasional subordination of morality to the self line reflects a broader tendency in Integral Theory to prioritize interior development. While this perspective highlights the importance of personal growth, it risks neglecting the collective, relational, and systemic aspects of morality. This view minimizes the collective and external dimensions of morality. Morality, as a core line, is not only about individual self-development but also involves external, collective factors—how others assess our behavior and how social systems enforce norms. An emphasis on morality as subordinate to the self line and primarily an aspect of self-development also tends to ignore relational and cultural aspects of morality. It often emerges in the context of relationships and shared cultural frameworks, which are not reducible to the individual self.

By subordinating morality to the self line, there's a risk of implying that moral development is solely about internal integration, neglecting how individuals are held accountable by others or by broader societal norms. Morality often hinges on how others evaluate our actions in terms of fairness, justice, or harm. This involves external, observable behavior and its impact on others, not just internal self-development.

Justice and law is about external, objective assessments of our behavior. Nobody likes to be held accountable to secular law because it is often arbitrary and experienced to be unfair. However, law exists as collective, consensus determinants of what is moral and what is not. It reminds us that morality is not only a personal determination; it can be a very real and objective determination, with severe personal consequences. Wilber rarely touches on this reality; it is as if it does not exist in his system or, if it does, then somehow it is mitigated by personal development. But what is the correlation? How does personal development protect us from outgroups? Can it not increase our vulnerability to censorship and abuse? I am thinking of the censorship being applied to those speaking out against the ongoing genocide, as well of the persecution of various whistle blowers like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, who threatened a powerful status quo based on strong moral conviction.

If morality is reduced to an individual's self-line development, it can downplay the importance of collective accountability in enforcing ethical standards. For instance, someone may achieve worldcentric awareness or some other high level of self-integration but still act immorally if their behavior is not checked by external systems of accountability.

To resolve this tension, morality must be understood as both a stand-alone developmental line in order to recognize its unique trajectory and importance in human growth and also as a quadrant-spanning phenomenon that involves UL moral reasoning, UR observable moral actions, LL shared cultural norms and ethical frameworks, and LR systems of law, justice, and social accountability. Morality cannot be fully understood or developed without considering its relational and systemic dimensions. This broader framing avoids reducing morality to self-development and acknowledges the critical role of collective assessments and cultural systems in shaping ethical behavior.

Integral Theory and Morality

The implications for Integral Theory of recognizing that morality is a core line that is subject to observation and accountability by others are significant. Core lines, according to Wilber, must tetra-mesh, that is, arrive at some degree of stable congruency among all four quadrants to support advancement to the next higher level of development. Again, individual lines, like cognitive or spiritual intelligence, can race ahead, but without tetra-meshing of the moral line, overall development, as differentiated from self-development, cannot, will not, and does not move ahead.

Wilber emphasizes that development occurs across multiple lines of intelligence, including cognitive, self, moral, and spiritual, and these lines must align—or “tetra-mesh”—to support authentic growth at higher levels of development. In this framework the cognitive line determines the complexity of an individual's worldview, that is, whether it is egocentric, ethnocentric, worldcentric, or cosmocentric. The self line reflects the individual's sense of identity and emotional maturity. The line of spiritual intelligence pertains to the individual's capacity for transcendent or mystical experiences. The moral line governs both ethical reasoning and behavior, including empathy and justice. If morality is a core line of development and core lines must “tetra-mesh” for authentic progression through levels of development, then a significant failure in the moral line has major implications for an individual's overall level of development.

For authentic development to occur, these lines must work in harmony. A significant lag in one line, such as morality, can undermine the authenticity of higher-level claims in other lines. For example, if someone claims cosmocentric spiritual awareness but endorses or ignores genocide, they are demonstrating a profound lack of moral development. That contradicts the supposed universality and compassion inherent in cosmocentric perspectives. That in turn reflects a developmental plateauing or pathology. The individual may be stuck at a lower level of development on the moral line, which limits their overall integration. Wilber refers to this as “developmental arrest” or “shadow material.”

If someone demonstrates worldcentric cognitive reasoning but fails morally by using their cognitive abilities to justify harmful actions, this undermines cognitive claims to a high level of moral development. This can also indicate developmental plateauing, pathology, or “pseudo development.” Such individuals may exhibit vertical growth in some lines, such as those of cognition or spiritual intelligence, but lack horizontal integration, resulting in an imbalance that undermines their authenticity. The moral line serves as a crucial indicator of authentic growth because it reflects the application of higher awareness in real-world behavior. Authentic development requires not just vertical growth in individual lines but horizontal integration across all lines, particularly in areas like morality that directly impact others.

Advanced development in the spiritual or cognitive lines without moral alignment can also reflect a compartmentalized or fragmented self, where insights are not embodied in ethical action. Therefore, the self line, which identifies with its worldcentric thinking and cosmocentric mystical experiences, may in fact be a “pseudo self,” unrecognized by the individual themselves, who is convinced of their higher level of development.

If an individual ignores or endorses genocide, this reflects a failure of the moral line to reach even a worldcentric level, let alone a cosmocentric one. This failure undermines claims of cosmocentric spirituality or worldcentric cognition because true cosmocentric awareness implies universal compassion and the valuing of all beings. Ignoring genocide contradicts this. A worldcentric perspective recognizes the inherent dignity and rights of all people. Endorsing genocide indicates a lack of congruence with this level.

Critique of Integral's Approach to Genocide

What can we conclude from this about the authentic or actual overall level of development of those who ignore or support genocide? In Integral theory, the ignoring or endorsing of genocide would reflect a level of development that has not yet reached worldcentric awareness on the moral line. It would indicate either an overall egocentric, pre-conventional or an ethnocentric, conventional stage of overall development - despite how highly developed other core lines may be. This is because the focus of ethnocentric development is on one's group, tribe, nation, or religion; others outside this group are often dehumanized or seen as threats. “What benefits my group is good.” Actions are justified if they protect or promote the in-group, even at the expense of others. Endorsing or ignoring genocide at this stage could arise from viewing the targeted group as “the other,” unworthy of moral consideration. This is a common mindset behind historical genocides, where perpetrators frame their actions as protecting or advancing their in-group. Ignoring or endorsing genocide reflects a developmental level no higher than ethnocentric on the moral line. At this stage, moral concern is limited to one's group, and those outside the group are excluded from ethical consideration.

The morality at egocentric, pre-conventional development is “What benefits me is good.” There is little to no regard for others unless it directly affects the self. Ignoring or endorsing genocide at this stage may well stem from a complete lack of empathy for others outside oneself. Ignoring or support of genocide reflects an inability to recognize the humanity and moral worth of those outside their immediate group, which is a hallmark of lower levels of moral reasoning. It reflects an inability to see the intrinsic value of others' lives. We find this rhetoric not only among Israelis but among supporters of Israel in the West, strongly implying an overall egocentric level of development.

If an individual claims higher worldcentric or kosmocentric level of development while ignoring or endorsing genocide, this indicates a significant developmental imbalance or pseudo-development, where higher capacities in some lines, such as cognition or spirituality, are not matched by moral growth.

An individual's overall level of development cannot be accurately assessed without considering the moral line. In Wilber's framework, authentic development requires the moral line to progress alongside other lines. A failure in the moral line undermines claims of higher overall development. Significant moral failures—such as endorsing genocide—indicate a lack of true integration, suggesting that claims of advanced development in other lines are either incomplete or inauthentic. This reinforces the importance of morality as a core line that must tetra-mesh with others for genuine, holistic growth.

What are some of the major causes of a relative disregard of immoral behavior by the West, in the eyes of other societies?

The historical Western disregard for the consequences of appropriating wealth, status, and privilege at the expense of much of the rest of the world, as well as the apparent minimization of ongoing genocides by some integralists and Integral Theory, can be analyzed through a combination of worldview, cognitive biases, and defense mechanisms.

There has been a historical Western disregard for exploitation. Western colonial powers, which contain many European nations as well as the United States, have historically operated under a worldview of ethnocentrism and Eurocentrism, believing in the inherent superiority of Western culture, religion, and governance. This worldview justified the exploitation of non-Western peoples as a “civilizing mission” as the “White Man's Burden”). The rise of capitalism placed economic growth and profit above moral considerations, embedding a worldview that wealth accumulation justified exploitation. Economic systems were structured to benefit Western elites while marginalizing others, often rationalized as the “natural order” or “free market dynamics.” Christianity, particularly in its missionary form, was used to justify colonial exploitation, portraying it as a divine mandate to convert and “save” non-Christian peoples.

Cognitive biases, which are inherited heuristics or adaptive approximations, also play a role. In a cognitive bias called “in-group bias,” Western nations prioritized the well-being and prosperity of their own populations, disregarding the suffering of non-Western peoples and minorities. Historical narratives, including the version of history taught to children, were shaped to reinforce the belief that Western dominance was beneficial, ignoring evidence of harm caused by slavery, colonialism, and exploitation. This is another cognitive bias called “confirmation bias.”Western nations often pointed to advancements in science, technology, and governance as justification for their actions, framing exploitation as a trade-off for progress. This is a third variety of cognitive bias used to minimize exploitation, apartheid, and genocide, called “moral licensing.”

In addition to disregard and cognitive biases, defense mechanisms, such as justification and rationalization, play an important role in supporting both avoidance of immorality and its active support. The exploitation of non-Western peoples has been rationalized as necessary for progress, stability, or “saving” them from perceived backwardness. For example, genocide is a moral good if the genocider's victimhood can be established through official manufactured narrative. We see this effective strategy in current use in the perennial victim status claimed by Jews, even those supporting the ongoing genocide. Slavery was justified on economic grounds and framed as a paternalistic system that “civilized” enslaved peoples. The atrocities committed during colonialism and slavery were often denied or minimized in historical accounts, allowing societies to avoid guilt or accountability. Western nations continue to project their own greed and violence onto the “other,” currently Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and Arabs, portraying them as “authoritarian,” “criminal,” or “terroristic,” in order to justify continued Western hegemony.

Cognitive biases and defense mechanisms

What are some of the reasons why Integral Theory might minimize genocide? Integral Theory emphasizes stages of development - egocentric, ethnocentric, worldcentric, and kosmocentric. While this framework is valuable, it can inadvertently lead to a subtle elitism, where the suffering of those perceived as being at “lower stages” is minimized or seen as a natural consequence of their “developmental level.”We have seen that this is how Wilber views the current genocide. Secondly, Integralists may focus on interior development in consciousness and values at the expense of exterior systemic issues, including genocide. “Instead of considering how we are participating in or benefitting from the violation of international law, let's focus on our own enlightenment.” The integral worldview often emphasizes transcending national, ethnic, or other specific identities to achieve a global or kosmic perspective. While valuable, this can lead to moral detachment from pressing issues like genocide, which require immediate and localized action. Also, Integralists often emphasize the positive trajectory of human development, which can lead to a downplaying of systemic injustices or ongoing atrocities as temporary setbacks in an overall evolutionary process.

A second major factor is the employment of cognitive biases. This is hardly limited to Integralists; all humans inherit them. However, several are particularly helpful in helping to explain why Integral Theory may downplay, ignore, or not respond strongly to genocide. The first is the “Blind Spot Bias.” Integralists, like others, are prone to overlooking their own biases, particularly the influence of Western privilege on their perspectives. This bias can manifest as a failure to fully acknowledge the West's role in perpetuating systemic violence, including genocide. It is also convenient in helping us minimize the significance of privileges and advantages we have as a result of centuries of colonialism and empire.

The second is cognitive dissonance. Acknowledging ongoing genocide challenges the integralist self-image as progressive, compassionate, and inclusive. Who wants to believe that their authentic level of development is egocentric or, at best, ethnocentric? To resolve this dissonance, we may downplay or ignore such realities.

The third is “Normalcy Bias,” in which the ongoing nature of systemic violence, in the form of sanctions, economic exploitation, environmental destruction, or war may be normalized or seen as part of the status quo, reducing its perceived urgency. This is similar to the “boiling frog” syndrome, mentioned above.

A third major factor are our built-in defense mechanisms, in particular rationalization, spiritual bypassing, and compartmentalization. Integralists may rationalize inaction by emphasizing 'long-term solutions,' framing genocide as a symptom of systemic issues requiring evolutionary change. For example, they might prioritize envisioning a '2nd Tier international legal system' over holding current systems accountable. While raising consciousness is vital, it cannot replace immediate action to address exterior crises like genocide.

Regarding spiritual bypassing, Integralists may focus on meditation, inner peace, or transcendence rather than confronting systemic violence head-on. Where does Wilber talk about accountability before state and international law? Where does he remark in the remarkable lack of prosecution of white collar crime in the Western world? As I write this, the government in Britain is refusing to investigate decades of systematic rape of thousands of English school girls. Where does Wilber insist on the necessity of Integral upholding the UN Charter and its institutions? Is secular law irrelevant? Is adherence to some version of spiritual law, say Dharma, or God's promises to Israel, without compliance with secular law, a form of spiritual bypassing of accountability?

Integralists may also separate their focus on interior development from exterior issues, allowing them to engage deeply in personal or spiritual growth while neglecting systemic injustices.This is a defense mechanism called “compartmentalization.”

Recommendations for Integral Theory

By focusing on interior development, integral theory tends to overlook urgent systemic issues, such as genocide, environmental destruction, and economic inequality. Integralists may also misinterpret urgent systemic issues, such as the war in Ukraine or the genocide in Gaza, due to their interior focus and not doing enough to substantiate the claims of their cultural and social scripting as well as the narratives presented in the mainstream media. An integral approach to morality must explicitly link all four quadrants, ensuring that moral action is evaluated not only by interior consciousness but also by its tangible impact on systems and behaviors. Integralists need to look hard at why this has not been done.

To gain credibility and authenticity before a global audience, Integral must do a better job of ensuring that interior growth in self development and raising consciousness is matched by exterior action, such as advocating for systemic reform and pursuing activism. When we examine our moral intent, it is easy to conclude we are blameless, thereby excusing our complicity in immorality. Moral action must be evaluated not only by intention but also by tangible outcomes. Instead of excusing or minimizing exterior quadrant abuses that are committed in our names we have to take responsibility and be willing to be held accountable.

There are ways Integral Theory can easily place greater emphasis on morality in the external quadrants in order to provide the tetra-mesh required for morality, and therefore development as a whole, to graduate to higher developmental levels. It can do so by engaging in policy advocacy, institutional reform, or direct action against genocidal regimes. Integral can do a better job of acknowledging Western privilege and actively addressing the role of systemic structures in perpetuating violence. Such concrete involvement can be framed as moral imperatives within the integral framework. In fact, the mystery is why they are not.

This is a call for accountability, a word not often found in the integral vocabulary. Accountability begins with you and me, with Integral itself, ensuring that our focus on interior development does not excuse or minimize moral failures like state terrorism and genocide. Integralists can cultivate worldcentric and kosmocentric responsibility, recognizing their interconnectedness with all beings and taking action to alleviate suffering, regardless of developmental hierarchies.

The ongoing genocide is a stark example of an exterior quadrant failure that demands immediate systemic and structural intervention. It is easy to feel helpless and hopeless because very strong interests with great inertia behind them are propelling the genocide forward. It is difficult to see how successful action can be mounted against them, since action in the UN, the International Court of Justice, and International Criminal Court, as well as findings by Amnesty International and other humanitarian groups have found vast and irrefutable evidence of genocide, but this has not led to any meaningful reduction in the ongoing genocide. An integral approach could advocate for international coalitions, humanitarian interventions, and policy changes. For example, it could form partnerships with humanitarian organizations. It could also include direct engagement with exterior quadrant issues as a core component of integral practice. By expanding its focus on the exterior quadrants, integral theory can offer a more holistic and actionable framework for addressing moral crises like genocide.

Conclusion

The historical Western disregard for exploitation and the minimization of genocide by some integralists stems from deeply ingrained worldviews, cognitive biases, and defense mechanisms. Addressing these issues requires a commitment to integrating interior and exterior perspectives, acknowledging privilege, and taking tangible action to address systemic injustices. Integral Theory has the potential to provide a comprehensive framework for moral action, but only if it fully engages with the realities of systemic violence and prioritizes both consciousness and systemic transformation.

If morality is a core line, as Wilber in some cases states it is, then Integralist and Integral Theory must insist that it tetra-mesh. If that is not done, then there exists a risk of overestimating one's developmental level while the reality is stagnation and fixation at egocentric prepersonal or early personal ethnocentric levels of development. Advancement of this or that line, such as cognition or spiritual intelligence, will not cause the self to advance if the moral line is core and does not tetra-mesh. Again, you cannot determine the tetra-mesh of your moral line by your own intuition, intent, or perceived level of development. Your morality in the exterior quadrants, which is required for moral line tetra-mesh, is determined by others. These others are not members of your echo chamber, but a cross-section of those who you perceive as “other,”—that is, not members of your ingroups.

Currently, in Integral Theory, the moral line does not tetra-mesh because the exterior quadrants are relatively weakly represented on the moral line, lacking an emphasis on individual and collective accountability before collective global norms. The implication is that regardless of how advanced this or that other line may be, complicity in genocide strongly implies that our overall development is not 2nd Tier or “teal,” but largely prepersonal, edging into early personal ethnocentrism.

To argue otherwise assumes that your individual development can jump out of and beyond the collective cultural and social holons in which it exists. While mystical experiences may indeed provide such transcendent experiences, they do not reflect our overall level of development. To think otherwise is a potential misunderstanding of the relationship between mystical experiences and overall development. It implies that we, as individual members of collectives, can remain blameless regarding actions that are taken with our implicit, if not explicit, support, and from which we benefit in one way or another. To apportion accountability is not easy in courts of law, much less in normal life situations, in which none of us want to be held accountable or to see themselves as accountable before the hard standards of secular law. However, as members of Integral and Western national groups, we are undoubtedly to a greater or lesser degree accountable for the positions and actions taken by those groups in our names. Therefore, efforts to deny or avoid any accountability do not appear realistic, appropriate, or to reflect justice. Beyond that, it reflects an effort to avoid responsibility. We have to ask ourselves, “What level of development does avoidance of responsibility reflect?”

I recognize that some readers might dismiss the above as virtue signaling or a social justice rant. However, the validity of my argument stands independent of my personal motives. I welcome challenges to it, as constructive critique is essential for refining and strengthening ideas.

NOTES

[1] I find that consulting chatbots, in this case Chat GPT, regarding content, accesses relevant information that I would otherwise leave out due to ignorance or misunderstanding. Therefore, a great deal of what follows is informed by Chat GPT.

However, having said that, I emphasize readability by weaving together its input and my comments and text revisions in one piece. This is not rigidly objective and does clearly disclose what is input from Chat GPT and what is mine. I have chosen to forego such standards in favor of readability. It should also be noted that how questions are framed to chatbots greatly influences how its answers are skewed. Therefore, that reality needs to always be kept in mind in assessing the viability of its information, and indeed the validity of this essay as a whole.

[3] John Maersheimer, "The Moral Bankruptcy of the West", mearsheimer.substack.com, Dec 24, 2024.

[3] "A Year To Soon Be Forgotten", www.moonofalabama.org, December 31, 2024