The notion of a moral qualification brings us to the question of the meaning of morality in itself, or in other words, the meaning of the distinction between what is “good” and what is “evil.” Independently of anything we may have heard on this subject, we would say this: in normal conditions, that may be considered to be good which, first, is in conformity with the Divine Attraction, second, is in conformity with universal Equilibrium, and third, provides a positive result in regard to the ultimate destiny of man; and that may be considered to be evil which is contrary to the Divine Attraction and universal Equilibrium, and produces a negative result. These are concrete realities, and not sentimental evaluations or other reactions of human subjectivity. Moreover, the sense of what is good or evil may be derived quite simply from the fact that Heaven has ordered or permitted one thing and has forbidden another. [GTUFS: LogicT, The Problem of Qualifications]

Morality (double significance): That is to say on the distinction between what is good according to the law and what is good according to virtue. The two do not always coincide, for a base man can obey the law, be it only through simple constraint, while a noble man may be obliged, exceptionally, to transgress a law out of virtue, to put pity above duty, for example.* Legal or objective morality has its source in a given Revelation and also in the realities of social existence, whereas innate or subjective morality derives, on the contrary, from our theomorphic substance, or from the Intellect, as Socrates   would say, and it is obviously this intrinsic morality that we have in view when we speak of moral qualification. (* Or on the contrary to put, without pity, spiritual duty above social duty, when the alternative is forced upon him: “Honour thy father and thy mother,” but also: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother . . . he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26.) In other words: “He that loveth father and mother more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew   10:37).) [GTUFS: LogicT, The Problem of Qualifications]

Morality (intrinsic / extrinsic): There is an intrinsic morality and an extrinsic morality. The first concerns innate laws, disposed with a view to the sacerdotal nature of man and also with a view to the equilibrium of society;* the second concerns particular laws, disposed in accordance with the objective and subjective conditions of a given traditional humanity. Intrinsic or essential morality comprises the virtues; extrinsic morality, which alone is relative, concerns actions. It is the confusion of actions in themselves with inward values which constitutes moralism and gives rise to hypocrisy,^ and it goes without saying that the moral qualification refers, not to actions as such, but to the virtues. The two great dimensions, the one vertical and the other horizontal, are interdependent. One cannot follow the Divine Attraction without conforming to the cosmic Equilibrium, and one cannot conform to this Equilibrium without following the Divine Attraction, whence the two supreme commandments, namely, love of God and love of the neighbor, in which are found “the Law and the Prophets.” (* “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12). ^ A typical example of moralism is the altruism of Vivekananda with its absurd notion of “egoistic salvation”: it is in the nature of heresy that it should obstinately inflate a relative principle the meaning of which has been forgotten and the aberrant exaggeration of which is presented as an end in itself.) [GTUFS: LogicT, The Problem of Qualifications]

Morality (two sources): Morality has two sources, the revealed Law and the voice of conscience. The Law . . . has in view the Attraction and the Equilibrium of which we have spoken, in the form of an adaptation to a particular world. Conscience, for its part, naturally takes account of the legitimate interest of one’s neighbor or of the collectivity as well as the interest of the soul facing God; that is to say, the conscience of the normal man, while at the same time determined by a sacred Law, is founded on the evident fact that “the other” is also an “I” and that our own “I” is also “another,” a truth that bears fruit to the extent that man is impartial and generous. But there is also, and more fundamentally, the evident truth that man does not have his end in himself, that he depends, like the whole world, on a Cause which determines everything and which is the measure of everything, and from which we cannot escape. We can only draw close to this Cause for the sake of our happiness, or remove ourselves therefrom to our loss.* (* “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me . . . Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these ye did it not to me” (Matthew 25:40 and 45). By these words, which identify every ego with the Divine Ego, Christ testifies to the oneness of the Self, which dwells in every subjectivity.) [GTUFS: LogicT, The Problem of Qualifications]

Morality / Virtue: All that has been said up to this point makes possible an explanation of the meaning of the virtues and of moral laws; the latter are styles of action conforming to particular spiritual perspectives and to particular material and mental conditions, while the virtues on the contrary represent intrinsic beauties fitted into these styles and finding through them their realization. Every virtue and every morality is a mode of equilibrium or, to be more precise, it is a way of participating, even to the detriment of some outward and false equilibrium, in the universal Equilibrium; by remaining at the center, a man escapes from the vicissitudes of the moving periphery, and this is the meaning of Taoist “non-action.” Morality is a way of acting, whereas virtue is a way of being – a way of being wholly oneself, beyond the ego, or of being simply That which is. This could also be expressed as follows: the various moralities are at the same time frameworks for the virtues and their application to collectivities; the virtue of the collectivity is its equilibrium determined by Heaven. Moralities are diverse, but virtue as it has been here defined, is everywhere the same, because man is everywhere man. This moral unity of humankind goes hand in hand with its intellectual unity: perspectives and dogmas differ, but truth is one. [GTUFS: UIslam, The Path]