I see 4 possibilities when it comes to moral positions of a society as a response to the human condition and the moral code on how the moral philosophy spreads.
Moral authority: for example, we subscribe to a notion of God and declare a spiritual text as the source of morals.
Amoral authority: for example, citizens are expected to behave to norms regardless of ethics.
Amoral empowerment: for example, all citizens are educated with the sciences, have ideas and are left to their own devices to form a moral ontology.
Moral empowerment: for example, we take a detour and remember that Gandhi saw the struggle with the British as more of a problem with the human condition (other freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh did not). Gandhi's non-violence movement arguably morally empowered the British to realise their wrong doings. Notice, no moral authority was imposed on those who were disturbed by the discovery of their wrongdoings (and perhaps they had different moral codes of this realization).
Moral empowerment is when one has a philosophy of ethics and it also includes a moral code to incentivize others to join it's philosophy.
Consider something like absurdism. I would argue absurdism is not moral empowerment because the philosophy does not have a moral code (or considers it to be optional) on how the philosophy should be spread.