#moral compass

[vintage-tigre]

[crimsonprose]

*two disclaimers: I normally hate making prediction posts, and I keep changing my mind about this one, so don't be surprised if I change it again before S4*

woke up thinking about this post from last fall. I know the OP was trying to make a slightly different point, but for me it serves as a reminder that Nat has historically been considered the "moral compass" of the show, while Lottie has... not.

in fact, I think the way S3 ends really drives home the point that Lottie has fallen to new depths of shall we say "corruption" (for lack of a better term), while Nat has risen to near hero status. this is represented by Lottie's time in the cave while Nat was climbing the mountain to call for rescue, but that's kind of been the contrast between them ever since Doomcoming.

btw, this is not to say that our fandom has not already recognized Nat's imperfections or debunked the "moral compass" allegations. in fact, no one has done this better or with more nuance and love than my moot, and I highly suggest checking out her gray morality post and her post about Nat's avoidance.

up until now, however, we've only ever seen her on the edge of violence. she had the knife at one point during Doomcoming, but she didn't use it. she threatened Jackie after Jackie made that comment about Nat being "mayor of poundtown," but she didn't follow through with it.

she also shoves Misty and cusses her out when she discovers the black box, but she quickly stops herself from harming her any further and even teams up with her (and Van) to use parts from it to fix the transponder.

there are many instances, in fact, in which Nat teeters on that edge of violence without going all the way there. let's also not forget that she initially came after Lottie with a tree branch when she first escaped at the compound.

and yet, I was reminded today that we already know she can and has gone over that edge. we just haven't seen her do it. we've only been told she has.

which brings me to the infamous mugshot photo...

when I first saw this, I assumed she'd been arrested for some petty crime— public intoxication, drug possession, or something of that sort.

but... isn't it possible (not certain, by any stretch, but possible) that we are going to see her completely fall from her position as "moral compass" in a really dramatic way?

I know that if I had a character like Nat, whom I had last placed in the position of "hero" (meaning, literally atop a mountain, calling for rescue)— and if I were writing a show that had "gray morality" as one of its central themes— I would be painfully tempted to knock her as far down as possible just to make a point.

in fact, I can almost hear Bart and Ashley in my head, saying, "oh, you thought she was a hero, huh?" while twirling their metaphorical mustaches.

I know, I know 🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅

it's fine if you disagree.

and, like, I said... do not be surprised if I change my mind again before S4. this is definitely something I never feel very sure of, but... as a writer myself, I can't help but wonder.

[bruisedandbubbly]

I have never been a people person, but I have always cared for the world.

 

@bruisedandbubbly

[a-typical]

But there is an alternative. In fact, there has always been one: 

A de-zionised, liberated and democratic Palestine from the river to the sea; a Palestine that will welcome back the refugees and build a society that does not discriminate on the basis of culture, religion or ethnicity. 

This new state would labor to rectify, as much as possible, the past evils, in terms of economic inequality, the stealing of property and the denial of rights. This could herald a new dawn for the whole Middle East.

It is not always easy to stick to your moral compass, but if it does point north – towards decolonization and liberation – then it will most likely guide you through the fog of poisonous propaganda, hypocritical policies and the inhumanity, often perpetrated in the name of ‘our common Western values’.

My Israeli Friends: This is Why I Support Palestinians – Ilan Pappe (10 October 2023)

[hale-my-nathan]

Trump Weird News - Trump's Lodestar: "Would I Do It?"

"The Constitution has been a lodestar for American democracy"

[infernalis-crypture]

Masterlist Link

Why Morality Feels Intellectual, Not Emotional

Most people talk about morality like it’s a feeling; guilt, empathy, compassion, conscience. For me, it’s math.

Right and wrong don’t register as heat or ache. They register as logic, balance, consequence. I don’t feel moral choices; I calculate them. I know what’s right because it makes sense, not because it hurts.

Morality Without Emotion

When I do the “right” thing, there’s no warmth. No pride. No satisfaction. It’s neutral; like completing a task that simply needed doing.

When I don’t hurt someone, it isn’t empathy; it’s efficiency. Causing pain complicates life, creates noise, drama, fallout. Avoiding that is pragmatic, not compassionate.

Research backs the existence of this kind of morality. Joshua Greene’s dual-process theory (2001, 2008) argues that people use two systems for moral reasoning: an emotional system (impulse, empathy, gut feeling) and a cognitive one (logical reasoning, consequence mapping). For most, both interact. For some of us, one is almost silent.

Neuroscience adds detail: individuals with reduced activity in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC); the area that links emotion to decision-making, often make highly logical but emotionally flat moral judgments (Koenigs et al., 2007). They know the rulebook perfectly. They just don’t feel it.

Guilt as Maintenance, Not Emotion

If I hurt someone, I register it as information, not sensation. The thought process isn’t “I feel bad”; it’s “That was inefficient. That might cost me access, safety, or social leverage.”

Guilt, then, is maintenance; not morality.

Studies on cognitive empathy vs affective empathy show that while people with Cluster B traits often understand what others feel (cognitive), they don’t share it (affective). This creates what researchers call “cold empathy”; emotional understanding without resonance (Blair, 2005). You can predict pain without absorbing it.

That doesn’t make someone evil; it just means moral restraint has to come from logic, not emotion.

Pragmatic Ethics

My moral system isn’t philosophical in a textbook sense; it’s utilitarian by instinct. “Right” means minimal chaos, maximal control. “Wrong” means disruption.

I rarely simulate empathy because it feels false, but I do simulate sympathy to keep peace; the way you’d use a polite tone with a customer.

Moral reasoning like this has been described in psychopathy research not as absence of morality, but as detachment from its emotional layer.

James Blair (2007) notes that individuals with antisocial traits often maintain a form of “instrumental morality”; knowing social rules, enforcing them when useful, and breaking them when it’s safe.

To outsiders, that looks callous. From the inside, it’s order.

Conflict and Containment

I’m often torn between logical “shoulds” and emotional “wants,” but morality, for me, isn’t about virtue; it’s about containment.

The moral system protects me more than others. It keeps me out of jail, out of unnecessary conflict, out of regret that doesn’t serve any purpose.

In that sense, morality is self-preservation disguised as ethics.

Philosophers like Nietzsche and later psychoanalysts like Kohut argued that much of morality is ego-driven; a personal code to manage chaos, not an objective truth. For detached minds, that’s not cynicism; it’s realism.

The Philosophy of Logic-Only Morality

Do you need empathy to be moral? I don’t think so.

Morality can be purely structural; a system of cause and effect, harm and prevention. I wouldn’t hurt a child not because I care about them, but because they’d scream, attract attention, and that would be exhausting, similarly I wouldn't allow someone else to harm the same child for the same reason. The outcome; distress, is the problem, not the suffering itself.

For me, intent and outcome define morality more than emotion. If the action harms, it’s wrong. If it stabilizes, it’s right. Emotional context doesn’t factor in.

This aligns with cognitive moral psychology findings: people with high cognitive control and low affective empathy often make more utilitarian judgments; preferring outcomes that minimize harm, even if they lack emotional discomfort doing so (Bartels & Pizarro, 2011).

The Quiet Code

Therapy didn’t make me feel moral. It just helped me understand why I function this way.

I’m not good. I’m not evil. I’m organized.

I follow a code that keeps things predictable, because predictability keeps me safe.

When people get emotional about morality, they cloud it. They act out of guilt or pity, and then regret it when that emotion fades. I prefer the clarity of logic; it doesn’t waver.

Damasio (1994) described emotion as the body’s shorthand for reasoning. Mine just writes in longhand; slower, colder, but still precise.

The Core of It

I don’t feel moral. I think moral.

I don’t empathize. I strategize.

But the outcome is often the same: fewer people hurt, fewer bridges burned, fewer consequences I don’t want.

Emotion isn’t the only path to morality. For some of us, intellect is the substitute organ; not beating, but still functioning.

[chaos-ducks]

My moral compass is all fucked up guys it keeps spinning rapidly and getting faster by the second

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

The North Star of their native moral compass September 2019 (Vol. XXXII, No. 8) "Under conditions of terror," Hannah Arendt wrote in her classic treatise on the normalization of evil, "most people will comply but some people will not...No more is required, and no more can reasonably be asked, for this planet to remain a place fit for human habitation." Under such conditions, counting ourselves among the few who refuse to comply has less to do with whether we believe ourselves to be good than it does with the deliberate protections we must place between unrelenting evil and our own sanity and goodness, for among the most insaning aspects of tyrannical regimes is the Stockholm syndrome of the psyche they inflict upon us — upon ordinary people, not-evil people, people who consider themselves decent and good, but who slowly, through a cascade of countless small concessions, lose sight of the North Star of their native moral compass.

~ Maria Popova in the brainpickings.org newsletter, "Against the Slippery Slope of Evil"