A large portion of society feels discomfort at the sight that the mask it continuously wears within the reality it has constructed might “crack.” When a person looks inward, they measure whether the portrait they see is acceptable to other perspectives through the social evaluations they are exposed to. This leads the individual to form ambiguous conclusions about their true self and to act not as they are, but as they decide, as they are influenced. The artificial OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) model that people possess in a moral sense does not represent a virtuous stance like other healthy evaluations. On the contrary, it turns into a regime of self-validation within a large colony. The individual does not desire to become a good person; they are terrified of the idea of not being a good person. If we are to unpack this sentence: In Morality OCD, moral action is not a singular ethical choice, but a compulsive form of regulation that emerges under the coercive influence of guilt and the perception of moral threat. Because the individual becomes obsessed with the idea of being “moral,” they do not see it merely as a tool of performance; by constantly placing their own moral compass under evaluation in their mind, they also subject themselves to the image of “I am right.” In other words, because the person continuously questions whether they are stepping outside this compass, they aim not to be right, but to act “faultlessly.” As a result, ever-renewing shame, anger, disgust, and “Moral Paralysis” emerge. An individual who experiences moral paralysis cannot act at all, even if they have command over what is right and wrong, because they adopt as a prior assumption the belief that every action they take will be measured as flawed or incorrect. The problem is not ignorance or immorality, but a state of fixation caused by excessive anxiety and overthinking. Since thinking wrongly or taking a mistaken action would mean identity collapse for an individual with Morality OCD, the individual accepts the idea that by remaining static, they will not step outside this line. However, not everyone who experiences Morality OCD necessarily experiences this state of paralysis. This is because some individuals, drawing strength from the illusion that they act through free will, may not allow the reality they accept as correct to change. Individuals who lean on Morality OCD do not have to remain completely passive or silent. A large crowd that has donned the “conscious” mask takes this as a comfort zone; therefore, crossing this line can be characterized as aggressive or action-oriented. The aim here is not to react to surrounding events, but to adopt a reflexive stance to prevent the collapse of the self-image. Here, the moral stance is not a result but a starting point. First a decision is made, then justification is produced—there is a completely reversed form of reasoning at play. An idea is not right because it is defended; it is defended because it is right. For this reason, criticism is perceived by individuals not as an exchange of ideas, but as a threat to identity and morality. Aggression generally occurs through language: by labeling, by forming sentences that imply moral superiority, and by directly targeting the other person through shortcuts. Declaring the speaker guilty instead of refuting the argument is one of the primary examples. The moment an individual realizes that their idea has become open to discussion, negotiation emerges—this is a state of uncertainty that OCD cannot cope with. When individuals take action in response to an argument, they do not demonstrate ethical courage; they take ethical proxy. That is, they bind their decision-making mechanism to another idea that selects their thoughts. They attribute responsibility to an authority, an ideology, or a collective. “This is what is right, because it is said to be so” is their internal mantra. Thus, they feel no responsibility for the attack they carry out. Most OCD-driven individuals wearing the uniform of moral guardians do not see themselves as cruel or mistaken, but as dutiful. People who actively employ moral aggression are not offended by the statement “We are not harsh enough.” Because what matters is not understanding, but consistency. Since they have never practiced empathy or even once considered the source of the problem in their lives, they establish the connection to being a responsible individual solely through the feeling of “I am a good person.” Individuals with OCD are not in a state of not knowing what is right or wrong; they have merely instrumentalized moral stance. Cancel culture is the habitat of active Morality OCD. Because canceling eliminates moral ambiguity and divides individuals into layers such as right/wrong with a clear line. Designating a target eliminates ambiguity at this point, which is why the individual most readily adopts the mask of the “exemplary” person here. Canceling is not a search for justice for them, but the elimination of anxiety. For this reason, it has no measure, is disproportionate, and has no return. The narrative quickly shifts from “They made a mistake” to “This is who they always were.” Because if a mistake is accepted, a gray area opens up and the individual must question their own position. The moral performance economy unites these individuals like rare snowflakes and allows all of them to experience the feeling of “You are a good person.” No one assumes the role of being cruel or unjust alone. In this economic model, where everyone contributes from the edges, responsibility is atomized and guilt dissipates into the air. The active Morality OCD individual is very dangerous because their intention is not evil. The intention is always to remain good. This obsession with remaining good suspends thinking, causing the individual to act purely on reflex. Morality performed through reflex is the most immoral thing. I am not claiming that canceling is inherently bad; I support the idea that in necessary situations, some people truly should not be able to live comfortably within society, and that certain political decisions should be protested with all our strength. My concern is that this culture becomes active in every situation, necessary or not, causing us to miss the moments where it actually matters. Attacking without knowing the background in every case makes it easier for us to be pushed back. Since internet culture does not really allow space to evaluate the accuracy of information, these attacks end up resulting either in some people’s lives being negatively affected, or in the side that is generally right suddenly falling into the wrong position and losing its seriousness and credibility. On a societal level, the reflection of this situation is not that individuals are immoral, but that they cannot decide which action is sufficiently moral. This dilemma poisons from the root the mechanisms of blind, deaf, and mute communities that absolve the righteous and judge the unjust, leading to the conclusion that no action is moral. This is one of the primary causes of social decay. Hannah Arendt explains this situation quite clearly in her idea of the banality of evil: “Great evils are often not committed by monstrous, sadistic, or pathological people, but by ordinary people who do not think, do not question, and obey. Evil here is not a state of monstrosity, but the result of mental laziness and the loss of moral reflex.” The disappearance of all ethical courage reveals another problem as clear as day.
Political Exploitation
An individual experiencing Morality OCD does not accept the existence of moral gray areas. In order to divide both the good and the bad into two with clear and distinct lines, they unite their arguments under this concept. At this point, political figures step in to exploit the individual’s gray areas. They label what is bad and keep what is good in view. Since this makes things easier for the individual with OCD, they surrender their decision-making ability and will to politicians. The first stage of exploitation is the infusion of moral obligation into society through certain methods. Political stance ceases to be an ethical choice and becomes a test of being a “Virtuous” person. Statements such as “If you remain silent about this, you are all guilty” corner the individual and force them into action. Remember, as stated above, the individual with Morality OCD does not want what is politically right, but the identity of being a “good person.” The second stage of exploitation is the direct injection of guilt and inadequacy into the individual. An individual who has struggled all their life with the question “Am I good?” is made to experience statements like “You are not good enough” and “You are not sensitive enough,” with politics constantly looming over them. Statements such as “This happened because of you” or “This is the state we are in because we could not intervene,” cyclically forced into the individual’s vision through news and biased media, bring about complete submission. Because the term “we” gives the individual a sense of collective moral togetherness, they are involuntarily forced to accept this immorality in shame under a vast umbrella where they are responsible for all problems. Unable to withstand these labels and the targeting of their gray areas one by one, the individual clings to the political prescriptions they see as the most just on the moral compass. The third and most dangerous point is the institutionalization of moral paralysis. People become unable to criticize what they see as wrong because criticism is risky. A wrong word, wrong tone, wrong timing can turn into a “crime.” In such environments, the politician does not make mistakes; the critic does. This, as Arendt states, is a perfect ground for the banalization of evil. No one stops to ask, “Is this really right?”; instead, they think, “Is it wrong even to question this?” Morality OCD does not produce morality; it produces moral anxiety. The individual accepts themselves in the way they have conditioned themselves. Personal morality is not formed through collective consciousness–derived evaluations of right and wrong, but through autonomous ethical reasoning shaped by individual experiences, capacity for empathy, and the practice of thinking while taking responsibility.
