CHG Issue #152: Ideals and Visions

This is a cross-post from CHG Market Commentary on Substack. If you're subscribed to this newsletter you should consider subscribing for free on Substack to get this when it comes out on Mondays and receive more frequent market updates on Substack Notes as well as other exclusive content.

We live in idealistic times; Technology has enabled us to do things that were once unimaginable. Nothing appears beyond our reach and yet inequality and divisiveness seem to be growing just as fast as we advance as a society. Last week we talked about the tension between freedom and equality and how unnatural inclusiveness is, but that is not meant as an excuse to justify discriminatory practices. It’s meant to pull the veil back on the causal forces behind all this seemingly incongruous stuff.

Moral relativism has come to define this age. In our freedom we have demanded the right to judge for ourselves right and wrong. What results is no absolute moral law and it is that which ends up leading to the very inequality and divisiveness that we seek to abolish.  History has shown that societies with and without moral laws have experienced oppression and violence. What happens is that in the absence of moral laws society ends up elevating something else in their place. Pluralism descends into relativism which argues against absolutes but is in fact an absolute itself. It is easy to see why this circular argument has kept philosophers, religious scholars, and other thinkers busy throughout history.

Ideals have no moral inspiration. Society stands up ideals, we strive to achieve them, and if we come up short we are seen as failures. There is very little intrinsic motivation to achieve ideals, it is mostly extrinsic, done to look good to others, and any intrinsic motivation there may be is self-debasing. Visions on the other hand have a moral imperative, they intrinsically motivate us. Think of Martin Luther King Jr. or Nelson Mandela who were willing to lay their lives down for their visions. By operating under moral imperatives they advanced the ideal of equality by huge strides; however by wiping away absolute moral judgments we impair our ability to be intrinsically motivated and make the world a better place. We may believe something is right or wrong but then be easily dissuaded from that belief by a well-articulated argument, or when upholding that moral belief gets us in trouble. "There are no atheists in foxholes," in other words when the going gets tough we naturally seek something with a stronger foundation than extrinsically motivating ideals.

Without any absolute moral code we are a society that is unmoored and without a leader; we live in chaos. Without a sense of universal right and wrong the most vulgar beliefs are given room to rise to the top and society is degraded. Overly zealous pursuits of moral absolutes over the course of history have been the primary cause behind the pushback against moral absolutes, but this result confuses the perpetuators of moral absolutes with morals themselves. These zealots were not too moral, they were not moral enough because moral absolutes must include humility, sensitivity, love, empathy, forgiveness, and understanding. They self-servingly imposed their idealistic moral code on others. We are all guilty of this, when we discover some great truth or the answer to some intractable problem we want to share that with others which too often descends into imposing our point of view and prevents us from listening to others.

On the contrary people who are inspired by visions and intrinsically motivated by moral imperatives find their self-interest weakened because they are rooted in a solid foundation which allows them to take more risks such as forgiving others. They are not seeking affirmation and acceptance outside of themselves because they have found it inside of themselves. They do not seek to impose their narrow version of justice because humility, empathy, and forgiveness overpower any self-serving sense of justice. Through this equanimity they are empowered to go above and beyond what they could achieve normally. Visions constantly inspire us to something greater than ourselves.

Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, Or what’s a heaven for? —Robert Browning

The tension between the DEI movement and capitalism is unnatural because the two are so naturally compatible. Under capitalism excluding anything reduces your chances for profit, therefore profit and the morality of the DEI movement are not in opposition to each other. Last week we showed how a true capitalist is indifferent towards the means of attaining profit and therefore naturally inclusive based on merit. It is only a perverted type of capitalism that is discriminatory and exploitative, and can only come from the self-serving, zero-sum fearing, participants in the system. To attack any social or economic system on these grounds misses this responsibility of the participants and to exclude or regulate elements of the system in the name of DEI is contradictory. It’s amazing how we have weaved this intricate web of contradictory imperatives, but that is what happens when there is no universal foundation.

Suffering is the universal condition of humanity but when we allow individual suffering to divide us we only increase the overall suffering of the system by trying to make one group suffer less. Instead, we can unite in this shared condition and recognize it as a shared moral foundation.

Morality has come to be thought of as a constricting force on individuals which has also led to the movement towards moral relativism. However, by pursuing the most perfect ideal of freedom we end up enslaving ourselves within a rudderless and chaotic society. The popularity of stories like ‘The Purge’ and ‘The Walking Dead’ that reveal an inherently evil human nature show how this idea is deeply understood in today’s popular culture. The paradox of freedom tells us that to be truly free we must choose our own master.

The best traders in the world surrender their beliefs and ideals to the markets which frees them to truly listen to and understand the market. Sure, Druckenmiller and PTJ will come on CNBC and tell us their beliefs, but those beliefs change the minute they come out of their mouths. However, the real differentiator isn’t their adaptability, it’s their mental flexibility combined with an immutable moral code of the markets. Fear and greed are the foundation of the markets and by framing the chaotic swirl of beliefs working within this code you can start to see the reality of the markets. "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good" advises us to not let our ideals get in the way of doing the right thing.

Paradoxically capitalism is believed to be this amoral system that elevates profit over humanity but the most successful capitalists are the ones with the strongest moral codes. They pay little attention to ideals that come and go without moral incentives, instead they stay true to a vision that brings moral incentive because ultimately that is what moves people and people move markets. This is not an absolute statement and there are certainly exceptions, but the point is that the debates about morality and capitalism have become hyperbolic and are missing the deeper point. Ideals alone can only get you so far, you need a strong foundation rooted in moral absolutes to be able to unravel the natural chaos of this world.

If you enjoyed this article you can subscribe for free to CHG Market Commentary on Substack, explore my Knowledge Base, and find more of my writing at the CFA Institute's Enterprising Investor Blog and on Medium.