• 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. He can be contacted at: [email protected]

SEE MORE ESSAYS WRITTEN BY JOSEPH DILLARD

What is an "Integral" Moral Stance?

Facing Genocide, Silence, and Spiritual Bypass in Integral Theory

Joseph Dillard

What is spirituality without morality? It is definitely a developmental line, one Wilber called “spiritual intelligence,” but how can one call “spiritual,” something that is either morally neutral (amoral) or supports immorality? For there to be a “moral spirituality” we have to take a stand on what morality is and isn't - irrespective of our level of development. If we don't or won't, on what basis can we claim to be “spiritual” anything?

The Elephant in the Integral Living Room

The biggest problem for Integral, from the long view of history, may be its failure to lead on the biggest moral issue of the 21st issue: an ongoing genocide that in many ways is comparable to the worst in contemporary historical estimation. Though not so in absolute numbers, in terms of its barbarity and criminality, it is up there with the most hideous of them. One wonders why or how anyone who considers themselves “moral” would disagree with that assessment.

Integralists tend to take one of three stances: Support of Israel, support of Palestinians, or neutrality. I am here making the case that support of Palestinian rights is the correct integral moral stance because it thereby supports Israel, personal and collective development, and the internal coherence of Integral Theory.

Taking a moral stance of supporting Palestinian rights supports Israel because without a moral justification for its existence which is credible before global opinion, Israel will collapse, and deservedly so. That is also true for our personal and collective development and the future of Integral.

While there are other extremely important contemporary issues that strike at both what it means to be human and civilized, like climate collapse, global inequality, mass displacement, AI governance, and governmental support of terrorism and pedophilia, as horrible as they are, these are chronic issues when compared to the immediate moral contradiction of children being specifically targeted for killing, burnt to death, hospitals and schools being intentionally leveled, and an entire occupied population progressively exterminated via starvation with the support of the “best and brightest,” those in the west who proclaim loudest to be upholders of democracy, law, and spirituality.

This in no way excuses non-westerners, like the corrupt Palestinian Authority, the Saudis, Emirates, Egyptian and Turkish governments, as well as those of Russia and China for standing by and doing nothing. The destitute, isolated Yemenis have been the only national group that has demonstrated by action its convictions.

We can point to the previous and current Catholic Popes who have refused to make a loud and public stand against Israel and Western support of the ongoing genocide. We can point at the support of the ongoing genocide by the leaders of almost all Western democracies. We can point to its support by almost all world media. It is easy to point to other malefactors and other instances of genocide, as in Uganda, Congo, or Somalia, largely ignored. This amounts to a “yes, but…” attempt to change the subject to avoid personal responsibility, complicity, and accountability for the current, in-your-face genocide which we indirectly support through our governments, if not directly support through our silence or support for Israel and/or Zionism.

It is also true that while Integral Theory is hardly the only or most important force complicit in this ongoing atrocity, it is one that I have a personal investment in, as I presume you, a reader here, do as well.

Integral Theory and many leading integralists fail to lead morally in an age that demands it. Wilber's avoidance of political clarity, particularly in relation to ongoing oppression and abuses of power, undermines the credibility of Integral as a comprehensive developmental model.

Moral clarity is not optional for Integral theory; it's structurally embedded. Spiritual development without ethical accountability is not “integral.” Integral's silence in the face of systemic harm contradicts its own commitment to moral evolution. This critique pushes Integral to face what it often avoids: that development isn't just vertical—it's also ethical, systemic, and collective.

How Wilber and Integralists Can Avoid Moral Responsibility

Wilber has often chosen not to speak out on pressing global moral issues, arguably out of a desire to maintain “multi-perspectivalism” or spiritual detachment. That stance can not only appear to be morally evasive; it IS, by objective standards, morally evasive. For example, it does not defend or uphold the UN Convention on Universal Human Rights. When and where does Wilber demand that it be adhered to? He doesn't. Why not?

The way Integral (and many spiritual practitioners) have gotten around this argument is to appeal to knowing and being in alignment with “Absolute Truth,” as somehow making one not accountable to collective social norms, including international law. Wilber and Cohen in particular have made this argument and defended moral relativism by appealing to it.

The problem is that this is exactly the defense Zionists, Israel, and Christian Evangelists make for defending the immoral, illegal, and criminal behavior of Israel. It is an argument German National Socialism made. It is an argument the US made for its genocide of Native American populations.

If that argument is not called out as an avoidance of collective accountability in the name of transpersonal spirituality, then we are complicit in barbarism toward our fellow humans. If not, why not?

Another common counter-argument is that, just as individual lines can race ahead in personal development, so we, as individuals, can focus on morality in our personal lives and ignore/avoid immorality in the collectives in which we are embedded.

The problem is that doing so can then be used as a dodge for collective complicity, accountability, and responsibility. The rationality is something like, “I have no power to change the policies of my government or their adherence to collective moral standards, so I will focus on being moral in my personal life and relationships.” What is the problem with this argument?

Why moral relativism on genocide is not credible

A failure to move beyond “multi-perspectivalism” and spiritual detachment tilts Integral Theory toward moral relativism and individual development and away from collective “good” and any concrete, consensual definition of justice.

Consensual definitions of justice exist in the interior collective “We” quadrant of holons while law - that is, the imposition of those definitions - is fundamental to the exterior collective “Its” quadrant. Without clarity regarding “We” and backing up those intentions and values with consistent public actions in “Its,” Integral, as a holon cannot tetra-mesh. By “tetra-mesh,” I refer to Wilber's principle that holons require some degree of balance among the four quadrants to sustain synthesis, that is, a dialectical advance from one level of development to a higher one.

Since Wilber states that morality is a “core” line necessary for stage development, the relationship of morality to Integral Theory cannot be ignored. To his credit, Wilber has included moral behavior in his “Integral Live Practice.” To recommend moral behavior is one thing; anyone can do it. However, there exist external, collective definitions of what is moral and what is not in the exterior collective quadrant. Are those necessary to take into account for personal development or can they be ignored?

Wilber's Integral Perspective

Wilber points to the psychological root causes of genocide (and immorality in general). His solution is that immoral groups (“like Hamas”) need transformation to 2nd Tier or “therapy,” implying that their ideological extremism reflects deep psychological and tribal wounds, not just political opposition. This downplays moral agency and ignores structural injustices, lacks moral clarity, and reinforces a Western-centric lens.

In a public conversation (via Frank Visser), Wilber stated that groups like Hamas “need therapy,”

Wilber's ideal response is a transpersonal expansion toward worldcentric and kosmocentric awareness. There is nothing in such a stance that prevents passivity or neutrality in the face of atrocities.

Wilber emphasizes spiritual consciousness over taking specific sides. How is avoidance of taking a moral stance not evidence of ethical failing?

Wilber's ultimate aim is universal compassion, spiritual awakening, and transcendence of ego. All that is good, however, it focuses on individual development at the expense of collective justice. The result is developmental imbalance due to a lack of actionable political solidarity, leading to personal and collective collapse.

Why Tetra-Mesh is a Requirement for Integral Anything

According to Wilber, tetra-mesh is necessary to develop from one stage to a higher one. If there is no tetra-mesh on the moral core line, what does that say about our actual individual and collective level of development?

The problem is that a failure to take a strong stance on calling out collective injustice gives moral cover, by Wilber's example, for other Integralists to also duck the issue. If “We” (LL) agree on human rights, and “Its” (LR) codifies these in law, but “I” (UL) or “My Behavior” (UR) ignores them, integration breaks down. There is no tetra-mesh.

The reason why moral clarity is a pre-requisite for collective development and tetra-mesh, and not simply a consequence of it, has to do with the history of developmental imbalance. When we develop specific lines, like spiritual intelligence or business aptitudes to the neglect of core lines we make ourselves vulnerable to a devastating personal collapse.

A vivid example is the young athlete who aspires to excellence, dedicating heart and mind to its pursuit, and then suffers a career-terminating injury. Without life balance to fall back on, they risk years of existential anxiety, depression, and life stasis: a ship without a rudder.

There are many vivid historical examples of nations that build on their strengths while ignoring potential external threats. For example, the Mayas built their culture on the cultivation of corn when there were already crop alternatives available that were drought resistant and whose cultivation could have avoided - or at least postponed - societal breakdown.

Today, in our contemporary world, Western democracies continue to deny and ignore the failure of sanctions on Russia, China, and Iran, even as the evidence exists that those sanctions have made those countries more self-reliant while weakening the West. The West continues to advocate for a “rules-based order,” while undercutting international institutions like the International Criminal Court, International Court of Justice, the International Trade Commission, and international nuclear arms treaties.

If we simply focus on our personal development, or that of those groups with which we identify, while ignoring our accountability before greater collective, human goods - such as the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we generate serious developmental imbalances on both personal and collective levels that court disaster. Ignoring collective social norms and laws is whistling past the graveyard.

Is Integral ambivalent on the genocide in Gaza?

Theoretically, it claims that “yes, collective norms and adherence to them is necessary for tetra-mesh and development.” On the other hand, Integral Theory appears to support spiritual bypass by taking personal morality for granted as a given and ignoring the necessity for collective accountability. We have seen this in Wilber giving Adi Da, Marc Gafni, and Andrew Cohen a moral pass, meaning he has been either reluctant or refused to come out and condemn their behavior as immoral.

Wilber's integral vision emphasizes transcending tribal identification—claiming both Israelis and Palestinians must “wake up” beyond entrenched identities, as neither side is fully correct or complete. This generates moral equivalency between occupiers and occupied, which is not in alignment with international law. It also overlooks obvious and clear Israeli apartheid and genocide as well as clear and obvious UK, EU, and US support for it.

Wilber advocates that moving beyond egocentric and ethnocentric narratives to worldcentric or kosmocentric consciousness is essential for peace. Does transpersonal consciousness include transpersonal behavior and collective validation or not? Is transpersonal consciousness just an interior quadrant “thing” or is it a four-quadrant thing, requiring tetra-mesh? If it is the former, Integral theory is not integral, in that it ignores the exterior quadrants. If it includes the latter, then it must require moral tetra-mesh: moral behavior in addition to moral intent (Kohlberg) and moral collective consensus (law).

In podcasts, Wilber is cited as suggesting that holding the suffering and pain of all perspectives requires a deep “spaciousness” of consciousness—being able to contain all suffering without collapsing into one-sided outrage. Does supporting respect and demanding reciprocity imply one-sided outrage? Does supporting collective standards of morality and law imply a collapse into one-sided outrage?

This argument is an avoidance. It claims or pretends that those who are angry at obvious injustice have regressed to prepersonal perspectives due to capture by prepersonal emotions. Yet Wilber himself has argued that killing itself can be justified in terms of higher or absolute law and not be a regression to prepersonal moral outrage. (See his defense of Krishna's argument in the Baghavad Gita.)

Why Making a Commitment to Collective Moral Standards is a Requirement for Integral Anything

Why is important for Integral Theory and individual integralists, like you and me, to publicly condemn those individuals, groups, and nations that blatantly and chronically violate the UN Convention on Universal Human Rights?

That document represents current human consensus on what is moral and what is not. Wilber's Pre/Trans Fallacy states that the transpersonal, either in personal or collective development, requires integration of earlier stages. If there is no integration of international law, based on its enforcement, on what basis can one contend that they have advanced beyond it?

The importance of personally taking a clear moral posture

There is a difference between being one voice in a maelstrom of evil and not taking a moral stand at all. If we don't do so, who will? Are we not discounting or minimizing Lorenz's “butterfly effect,” a basic principle of systems theory, that the smallest of actions can ripple out and create huge, unpredictable consequences for macrosystems? Are we not discounting our own power and responsibility as an excuse for maintaining groupthink, not raising our heads above the crowd in fear we will be singled out for punishment?

There are also attempts to avoid personal responsibility and accountability by changing the subject to my own failure to practice what I preach. For instance, I have been called out for moral hypocrisy by Frank Visser for supporting Russia's invasion of Ukraine while calling out Israeli genocide. I have gone into detail elsewhere on why this is a fallacious argument, in various essays on Integral World, which you are welcome to peruse, so I will not defend my stance here. The broader point is that, even if that argument were correct and I am being morally hypocritical, it does not change the basic argument that the failure to call out our own complicity with ongoing immorality and accountability before the law is a collapse of the core moral line required for developmental tetra-mesh.

I would also respond to the argument that I should be doing more by wholeheartedly agreeing, and, at the same time pointing out that this is changing the subject away from the core issue of, “What are you doing or not doing? Are you speaking up against the hypocrisy of affirming spirituality and 2nd Tier development while ignoring complicity in moral bankruptcy?” If you are, congratulations! Now it is time to consider how each of us can do better, or more.

Other likely counter-arguments

Here is a summary of other likely counter-arguments and my responses to them:

“Integral is descriptive, not prescriptive.” True, but that doesn't absolve it from responsibility. A framework that ignores suffering or avoids moral clarity becomes complicit through omission.

“Wilber values multiple perspectives; taking sides would betray that.” Acknowledging multiple perspectives doesn't mean withholding moral judgment when basic rights are violated. One can take a nuanced stance without descending into relativism.

“Wilber includes morality in ILP (Integral Life Practice).” Yes, but personal moral behavior isn't enough. Development requires alignment with collective norms and external structures; otherwise it's ungrounded.

“Demanding morality of others turns you into a self-righteous dispenser of justice. Who are you to do that?” By referencing consensus and legalized standards of right and wrong I am not saying that I am not subject to them myself. That argument is designed to shut down oppositional voices by pointing out they are not perfect. But this argument is not about me being right, but what a moral stance is, as collectively currently conceived, why Integral and Integralists need to do a better job of advocating for it, and some reasons why some haven't, don't, or won't.

We can all do better, myself included. Call me out; it will force introspection on my part and hopefully push me toward more effective, focused action in support of collective human rights and standards of morality.