Power is Morally Neutral

In an era dominated by narratives of systemic injustice and identity-based conflicts, Russell McAlmond's philosophy of Ethical Individualism stands as a compelling alternative.

Outlined in his 2021 book Ethical Individualism: A Human Relational Philosophy, this framework emphasizes the infinite uniqueness of each human being, rejecting any form of "group judgmentalism" that assigns moral value based on collective categories.

Instead, it advocates for human relations grounded in mutual respect, trust, and dignity, viewing every person as an irreplaceable "mosaic of experiences" rather than a representative of a group. This approach is fundamentally antithetical to the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy, a paradigm rooted in Karl Marx's class analysis and extended by modern leftist thought into broader identity politics.

That dichotomy posits society as divided into inherently antagonistic groups: the powerful oppressors, deemed morally corrupt by their dominance, and the powerless oppressed, often idealized as virtuous victims. Such a framework is not only a false binary that oversimplifies human morality by judging entire groups based on supposed power dynamics but also errs in treating power as intrinsically immoral.

Ethical Individualism counters this by affirming individual moral agency and recognizing power as morally neutral—dependent entirely on the character and intentions of those who wield it.

The Foundations of Ethical Individualism

Ethical Individualism, as articulated by McAlmond, is a "human relational philosophy" designed for the 21st century, prioritizing individuality over collective identities. It argues that every person possesses an "infinite uniqueness," shaped by personal perceptions, inner experiences, and choices, which cannot be reduced to group affiliations like race, class, nationality, or power status.

Groupism, in McAlmond's view, fosters division and undermines equality by imposing stereotypes and collective guilt or privilege, leading to toxic judgmentalism. Instead, moral evaluations must focus on observable individual actions and character, promoting win-win interactions that cultivate harmony.

This philosophy emerged from McAlmond's experiences as an advocate for human equality, responding to modern discourses that exacerbate polarization through group-based narratives.

At its core, Ethical Individualism upholds moral agency as residing in the individual, not derived from or tainted by group membership. Power, wealth, or status does not inherently corrupt; rather, ethical outcomes depend on how individuals exercise their agency.

This stands in stark opposition to frameworks that essentialize groups as morally superior or inferior based on power imbalances.

The Oppressor-Oppressed Dichotomy in Marxism and Modern Leftism

The oppressor-oppressed framework originates in Marx's historical materialism, which interprets human history as a perpetual class struggle between the bourgeoisie (oppressors, who control the means of production) and the proletariat (oppressed, who are exploited for labor).

For Marx, this binary drives societal change, with oppression stemming from economic dominance, rendering the powerful inherently immoral and the powerless victims deserving of revolutionary uplift. In the 20th century, this dichotomy evolved through critical theory and the Frankfurt School, expanding beyond class to encompass race, gender, sexuality, and other identities—a process often termed "cultural Marxism."

Modern leftist thought, influenced by figures like Paulo Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, further entrenches this by portraying violence or resistance from the oppressed as justified, while deeming oppressors' actions as inherently violent.

In contemporary applications, such as critical race theory and intersectionality, the framework identifies "oppressors" (e.g., whites, males, heterosexuals) as privileged and complicit in systemic harm, while "oppressed" groups (e.g., people of color, women, LGBTQ+ individuals) are positioned as morally elevated due to their victimization.

Defenders argue it illuminates systemic inequalities, empowering marginalized voices and justifying reparative actions. However, critics contend it reduces complex societies to binaries, fostering division, excusing misconduct from "oppressed" groups, and inverting traditional moral accountability.

The False Dichotomy: Group Judgments and the Demonization of Power

This oppressor-oppressed lens is a false dichotomy because it judges entire groups as morally inferior solely based on perceived power dynamics, ignoring individual variation and agency. It assumes oppressors are uniformly corrupt, while the oppressed are inherently noble, romanticizing victimhood and potentially justifying harm against the former.

This overlooks how individuals within "oppressed" groups can perpetrate evil, or those in "oppressor" groups can act benevolently, reducing people to stereotypes and eroding personal responsibility. Moreover, it treats power as inherently immoral, equating dominance with ethical depravity, which discourages responsible leadership and perpetuates cycles of resentment.

Power as Morally Neutral

Philosophically, power is morally neutral—a capacity or tool that amplifies the wielder's existing character, intentions, and values, rather than possessing inherent good or evil. As Lord Acton noted, power "tends to corrupt," but this is a tendency, not an inevitability, influenced by psychological factors like disinhibition rather than intrinsic morality.

It can enable large-scale good (e.g., just governance) or harm (e.g., tyranny), depending on the morality of individuals or institutions. Seeking power is not unethical in itself; its ethicality lies in acquisition and use. This neutrality aligns with virtue ethics, where power requires guardrails like accountability to prevent abuse.

Ethical Individualism's Disagreement: Moral Agency and Power Neutrality

Ethical Individualism rejects the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy precisely because it violates individual moral agency, imposing group-based moral inferiority that hinders genuine connections. By focusing on uniqueness, it counters the fallacy of collective guilt, insisting judgments be based on personal ethics, not power positions.

Power's neutrality reinforces this: a powerful individual's morality is assessed by actions (e.g., benevolent use for mutual benefit), not mere possession. This promotes accountability and empathy, avoiding the dichotomy's pitfalls of division and moral inversion. In conclusion, the oppressor-oppressed framework, while aiming to address injustices, creates a false moral binary that dehumanizes through group judgments and misattributes immorality to power itself.

Ethical Individualism offers a superior path by embracing individual agency and power's neutrality, fostering relations built on respect rather than resentment. In a polarized world, McAlmond's vision reminds us that true equality arises from recognizing each person's irreplaceable humanity and agency.