Consider the phenomenon of homophobia. Interestingly, the term is used to refer to hatred of-in other words, moralization towards-homosexuals, while the literal etymology of the word is fear of gays and lesbians. He who coined the term homophobia apparently recognized that it is a moralistic defense mechanism that covers an underlying sense of fear. But of what might the homophobe be afraid? Interestingly, many of the most outwardly homophobic people turn out to be homosexuals who hide their homosexuality even from themselves. In other words, they fear being homosexual and the consequences thereof, and so they moralistically deny that part of themselves and accordingly moralize against other homosexuals. But why should homosexuals be afraid of this part of themselves? Because others react moralistically to homosexuality. Not only do people like Ayn Rand call homosexuality "immoral" and "disgusting"; people also physically assault homosexuals. It is therefore not surprising that many homosexuals should fear a part of themselves and react defensively to the moralization of others by following suit. The only way to break this cycle of hatred, Thich Nhat Hanh points out, is with compassion and acceptance.

How, one might ask, can one replace moralization and anger with compassion and acceptance? This is no simple matter. It is not a simple act of will. Moreover, anger is a natural emotion that will always be part of our emotional repertoire. In a moment, I will suggest some techniques for handling anger and moralistic impulses. First, though, I want to reiterate that I am by no means suggesting repression, suppression, or denial of emotions. In accordance with Thich Nhat Hanh's wise words, it is important to accept our capacity for anger and moralization, like all other emotions and behaviors. That said, here are a few healthy responses to anger and the impulse to moralize.

The first and simplest approach is to recast the situation. When someone does something that angers you or that you think is immoral, remind yourself of the story of the hurt wolf. Recognize that, at some perhaps unseen level, the person who is perpetuating evil is hurt. Perhaps this person is simply frustrated or impatient, like a person who cuts you off in traffic. Recognizing your own capacity for frustration or impatience and your own ability to cut people off in traffic when you are feeling this way can allow you to empathize with and accept the aggressive act rather than responding with commensurate road rage. It is more difficult to empathize directly with someone like Adolph Hitler, but you can at least recognize that to behave as destructively as he did, he must have been very, very mentally ill and therefore suffered a great deal.

Another way you can deal with moralization is with a simple cost-benefit analysis. The model I am about to present I learned from a personal growth seminar I was once involved with called the Landmark Forum. I am no longer involved with the company that runs these seminars, Landmark Education, because I now see clearly the destructive psychological manipulation that the company uses in its seminars. Nonetheless, I still find the model I am about to present quite valuable. It was originated by a man named Werner Erhard, who founded est, the precursor to Landmark Education. To explain moralization, Erhard uses the metaphor of racketeering. Back in the days of the Prohibition, people used saccharine storefronts such as candy stores to hide their illegal distillation and distribution of alcohol in hidden back rooms. In other words, a facade of legitimate activity hid something underlying that was illegitimate. This is the essence of racketeering or "running rackets." The same, Erhard explains, occurs with moralization. When we have a persistent complaint, whether against another person or something else in the world, we are, in a sense, running rackets. The problem with these "rackets" is that the psychological costs outweigh the benefits. When we have a persistent complaint, Erhard suggests conducting a cost-benefit analysis. You may wish to try this for yourself after this lecture. On the "payoff" side of the chart, you will likely find some of the following: being right, making others wrong, justifying yourself, invalidating others, avoiding domination, and dominating others. On the "cost" side of the chart, you will likely find some of the following: loss of or lack of love, affinity, effectiveness, tranquility, satisfaction, and vitality. Simply recognizing that the "racket" is not worth holding onto helps one to let go of it and to accept the situation or the person with compassion and tranquility. I should not that by acceptance, I don't mean passivity or complacence. You may choose to change whatever it is that you don't like, but that doesn't mean you have to complain about it. Ironically, one can change something more quickly if one doesn't waste time complaining about it and one can change another person more easily if one doesn't alienate the person by complaining about them.