The crowd and the accidental good within it.

In the Gospel of John, we read a profound insight: “But Jesus, on his part, did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people” (John 2:24). Even in the life of Jesus, we see this discernment — he recognized the moral ambiguity of the crowd and did not entrust himself to it — revealing not distance from people, but discernment about the human heart.

Gustave Le Bon, in his study The Crowd, similarly concluded that the moral standard of crowds is very low. But when we read Le Bon’s claim alongside this biblical moment, a deeper truth emerges. Crowds do not inherently lack morality, but they can dissolve individual agency. As Le Bon warns, when we surrender ourselves to the crowd, we risk losing that personal moral compass.

Let’s dive into one of Le Bons ‘tongue in cheek’ comments that requires a little nuance to get his point:

If, then, crowds often abandon themselves to low instincts, they also set the example at times of acts of lofty morality. If disinterestedness, resignation, and absolute devotion to a real or chimerical ideal are moral virtues, it may be said that crowds often possess these virtues to a degree rarely attained by the wisest philosophers. Doubtless they practice them unconsciously, but that is of small import. We should not complain too much that crowds are more especially guided by unconscious considerations and are not given to reasoning. Had they, in certain cases, reasoned and consulted their immediate interests, it is possible that no civilization would have grown up on our planet and humanity would have had no history. Le Bon, Gustave. The Crowd; study of the popular mind (pp. 29–30). Kindle Edition.

Gustave Le Bon, in his dissection of the crowd, presents us with a paradox that is both unsettling and, as he implies with a touch of wry humour, essential to understanding human history. He acknowledges that crowds often succumb to their basest instincts. Yet, he then pivots, suggesting that these same unthinking masses can, at times, exhibit “lofty morality.”

Le Bon posits that virtues like disinterestedness, resignation, and absolute devotion — qualities we typically associate with conscious ethical choice — are often displayed by crowds to a degree rarely matched by the most thoughtful philosophers. His observation here is subtly “tongue-in-cheek.” He isn’t celebrating the crowd’s moral character; rather, he’s pointing to the accidental outcomes of their lack of reasoned self-interest.

Consider this: A philosopher might choose disinterestedness after deep ethical deliberation. A crowd, however, often acts disinterestedly because they are swept up in an emotion or an ideal, without ever considering their own immediate personal gain. Their “resignation” isn’t stoic acceptance, but often passive submission to the group’s will. Their “absolute devotion” is not a reasoned commitment, but an unthinking allegiance to a leader or a cause.

Le Bon argues that this unconscious, unreasoned nature of the crowd is not something to be entirely lamented. He provocatively suggests that if crowds had always consulted their immediate interests rationally, “no civilisation would have grown up on our planet and humanity would have had no history.”

This is the core of the “accident of crowd morality.” The grand narratives, the monumental achievements, the very fabric of civilization — these have often been woven by collective action fuelled by unthinking devotion to an ideal, whether real or chimerical. The crowd, by bypassing the rational “brain” and acting from the “spinal cord,” can be driven by a powerful, unifying force that propels it towards great endeavours.

However, this perspective carries a stark warning. If this same unconscious devotion, this unthinking commitment, can accidentally build civilizations, it can just as easily be harnessed to tear them down. The power of the crowd, unmoored from reason and individual discernment, is a force that can be directed towards both the sublime and the destructive. It underscores why cultivating our capacity for critical thought and authentic self-awareness, rather than merely blending into the collective, is paramount.

Any true morality, mature ethical stance or profundity of thought originates from the individual for it is within their agency, and more likely to originate from their authentic, lived out and considered experience within the suffering and celebrations of life. Even when an individual fails to choose the good, their morality remains, in one crucial sense, higher than the crowd’s —higher than the crowd’s—for it is owned, embodied, and answerable. Self agency, with humility, allows an individual to cast aside what is a failing and rethink, not so much a crowd.

This is why the crowd tends toward untruth, and why the individual contains within them, at least from my perspective, the real hope of wisdom and insight.

So I ask you: where in your life do you simply follow the crowd, instead of choosing your own path? What would it mean to reclaim your moral responsibility, even when the crowd is cheering you on? And how can humility — like that of Christ — anchor you in the deeper truths you must choose for yourself?