When being “good” becomes a cage
I recently listened to a long, intense podcast conversation that stayed with me long after it ended. What held my attention wasn’t agreement or disagreement but rather the emotional dynamic beneath the words.
The conversation revolved around radically different ways of understanding morality, responsibility, and human behaviour. One perspective invited complexity, paradox, and the coexistence of opposites. The other worked hard to uphold clear moral boundaries and a strong commitment to being “good”.
What fascinated me was not the debate itself, but the strain that emerged when certainty was challenged.
Moral certainty as a place of safety
The host clearly cared about doing the right thing.
Protecting life.
Preventing harm.
Standing for what matters.
Those values were sincere.
At the same time, as the conversation deepened, there was a growing intensity around defending moral clarity. The more ambiguity entered the discussion, the more tightly those values were held.
This revealed something important:
For many thoughtful, ethical people, morality functions as a source of identity and safety.
When that framework is challenged, the nervous system reacts less favourably, causing deep internal conflict.
When goodness becomes identity
Many of us learned early that being a good person meant restraining anger, suppressing selfishness, and distancing ourselves from anything considered dark or unacceptable.
Over time, “being good” becomes something we perform and protect.
When someone suggests that we also contain aggression, cruelty, or shadow, it can feel deeply destabilising. This is not because those traits just suddenly appear out of the blue, but because they threaten the story we tell about who we are.
At that point, morality stops being about discernment and starts functioning as self-protection.
The energetics of an unacknowledged shadow
Unacknowledged parts of the self do not just disappear.
They surface time and again through rigidity, righteousness, emotional charge, exhaustion, and reactivity. They leak into how we communicate, how we lead, and how we relate.
This is especially visible in people who carry a strong sense of responsibility for doing good in the world. The internal pressure to remain on the “right” side becomes really heavy to hold up.
The energy required to maintain that position is immense.
Balance as a state of integration
Balance arises from inclusion and it recognises that you have a full range of human traits and capacity within you, such as tenderness and aggression, generosity and self-interest.
When you really embrace this, your boundaries become clearer and easier to uphold. You make decisions from a calmer and less reactive position.
Integration of all of what makes you human, both light and dark, creates a kind of steadiness and care that removes moral inflation and judgment.
Freedom through wholeness
As I listened to the conversation unfold, it became clear that 3 small shifts could have changed the entire tone.
A willingness to acknowledge your own personal shadow.
A recognition of the internal complexity that exists within all of us.
A moment of “zoomed out” self-reflection rather than strident defence.
That kind of acknowledgment does not weaken our values but rather strengthens them.
When inner conflict softens, our energy restores, and our identity becomes a chance to experience freedom and expansion.
A question or two to sit with
This conversation raised some questions that feel worthy of holding gently:
Where am I using righteousness to feel safe?
And another:
What part of myself is asking to be acknowledged so I can move with more ease, balance, and freedom?
These are energetic questions, not moral ones. And they invite a different kind of integrity and enquiry, one balanced up with more wholeness rather than control.
If you’re interested in the full podcast episode, you can find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0W4WlE7GiI
Trigger warning.. does contain some heavy POV’s that may be highly confronting.