[Draft 4-12-2026]

Moral inferences & influencers

The other day at my gym, I got into a conversation about a media influencer who talked about how some contemporary despots did really bad things, but also improved the lot of others. Or how famous, honored activists (or celebrities) did some really good things, but kept secret some really bad things. Is such moral duplicity anything new under the sun? Like the “pitchfork effect.” Or “halo effect” (especially for priests).

The implication was some sort of tally of debits & credits. So that moral worthiness depends on a good enough moral “batting” average. Or that there’s adequate majority merit, like 51% good and 49% evil.

This struck me as “moral accounting,” which historically the Church rejected. Such accounting encouraged some to literally try to buy their way into heaven (indulgences) – much like compensatory carbon credits. Or, even trade or transfer (loan) merit (to get around that “eye of a needle” thing). And perpetuated the notion that great wealth is a sign of social superiority and spiritual merit.