Righteous: upright, moral, justified. Self-righteous: confident of being righteous. Righteous is positive, while self-righteous is negative. Yet shouldn’t we expect a correlation on average between how righteous someone is and how righteous they think they are? Sure it is bad to be
No matter how right someone is or people are; self righteousness is usually the source of the worlds ills. A balanced view is less malignant in general, even if wrong. Being right isn't always important.
Self righteous people are hypocrites and arrogant narcissists. Things go their way. But when life gets very bad, these people are not flexible. They become destructive...either on themselves, on others, or both.
i have an aqaintencehow thinks she knows everything their is to know But no, she is very slow on just regular stuff like reading writing etc. So all i am saying is that she trys to she presents herself as knowing a lot about the bible none of us can know page to page of the bible words and mysteries of God who createdthe world and all thats in amen.
I'd appreciate feedback on this example: How about the self-righteous person who feels they have strong morals and profess a strong faith in God, yet they're unable to speak directly to a coworker they detest? I wonder how self-righteous anyone can be when they don't have the courage to deal directly with those they oppose but prefer to spread negative comments about them to unknowing outsiders?
Two comments on those cheating on tests being self defined as moral:First, someone who's going to cheat on a test will be deceptive in an interview.Second, many define ethics by two methods, what's right and wrong in the abstract and then, a second definition, when it's beneficial to redefine wrong as right if it's in one's favor.
As to the original question, it does depend on if you're talking RELATIVE righteousness or ABSOLUTE righteousness. (In neither case will humility deny the obvious).
"For example, if you believe reasonably that many people in class cheat successfully, and beat you for a spot in a university, wouldn't it be reasonable to consider cheating? Otherwise non-cheaters fall and cheaters rise."
And if you become one more cheater-on-the-rise, how does that keep non-cheaters from falling? You've only become what you wanted to overcome. :)
A propos of Laura's comment, my SOED (consistent with my own usage of the expression, and with the claim that this is a negatiove trait) defines 'self-righteous' as excessively conscious of or insistent on one's own righteosness.
I don't think we necessarily object to people "being confident of being righteous" as the definition of "self-righteous" would suggest. Rather I think the condescending attitude that "self-righteous" people sometimes assume, and the shrillness with which they proclaim the obviousness of their righteousness is what is bothersome. It is not that self-righteous people are certain that they are righteous, but that they try to use the obviousness of their moral righteousness as evidence in determining what we should do instead of carefully explaining a logical argument. "People in Africa are starving so we should send them aid, and if you don't want to send them aid, then that's tantamount to murder, and you're a bad person. My intentions are pure because I donate all of my disposable income to charity so I am good and whatever I say we should do will be good..." Instead of arguing why the option is the best one among many, it is merely the right one.
I wonder if it would be possible to define a class of 'ego biases'. I'm reminded of the well circulated article "Unskilled and Unaware of It". Some biases help us insulate our minds from moral struggles and other insolvable problems that we would rather not think about on a daily basis. These same biases help us maintain a positive self-image, which is invaluable.
Why should we believe that their responses to their survey are an accurate reflection of how moral they truly believe they are? You are, however, measuring how moral they will report themselves to be, and who would report that that they are immoral, even if they are confident of response anonymity. Perhaps we are not so much bad at estimating our own righteousness as we are guilty of not wanting to admit to others that we are immoral.
Another definite possibility is different definitions of morality. Some people see actions which do not negatively affect other people as not being immoral, like a victimless crime, or at least they don't see how an action could negatively affect another person. Is someone immoral if they are not intelligent enough to see how their actions could affect someone else negatively? They are surely different from those who know the consequences of their actions but don't care. Anyway, cheating on an exam may or may not classify as an immoral action in their own definition of morality, but in either case, it is surely not aggegious enough of an offense to shift their perception of their own morality.
The following old trope seems to me to be true in my experience: Righteousness is not opposed to humor, but self-righteousness is (except when something nasty is said about an enemy, when laughter is not only permissible but mandatory). This suggests a genuine difference of cognitive mechanism - you can project the two quantities onto a graph, but what's really going on involves underlying structural differences.
I am willing to hear that this was tested and found to be false, since I am using anecdotal recall.
No matter how right someone is or people are; self righteousness is usually the source of the worlds ills. A balanced view is less malignant in general, even if wrong. Being right isn't always important.
Self righteous people are hypocrites and arrogant narcissists. Things go their way. But when life gets very bad, these people are not flexible. They become destructive...either on themselves, on others, or both.
i have an aqaintencehow thinks she knows everything their is to know But no, she is very slow on just regular stuff like reading writing etc. So all i am saying is that she trys to she presents herself as knowing a lot about the bible none of us can know page to page of the bible words and mysteries of God who createdthe world and all thats in amen.
I'd appreciate feedback on this example: How about the self-righteous person who feels they have strong morals and profess a strong faith in God, yet they're unable to speak directly to a coworker they detest? I wonder how self-righteous anyone can be when they don't have the courage to deal directly with those they oppose but prefer to spread negative comments about them to unknowing outsiders?
Two comments on those cheating on tests being self defined as moral:First, someone who's going to cheat on a test will be deceptive in an interview.Second, many define ethics by two methods, what's right and wrong in the abstract and then, a second definition, when it's beneficial to redefine wrong as right if it's in one's favor.
Self Righteousness
The Overcoming Bias site has posted an interesting article on Self Righteousness. They make several interesting points:
I found a news article that is relevant to this post.
Thanks for the link on the 'Ego Biases' article - I'd love to see more on this subject.
As to the original question, it does depend on if you're talking RELATIVE righteousness or ABSOLUTE righteousness. (In neither case will humility deny the obvious).
"For example, if you believe reasonably that many people in class cheat successfully, and beat you for a spot in a university, wouldn't it be reasonable to consider cheating? Otherwise non-cheaters fall and cheaters rise."
And if you become one more cheater-on-the-rise, how does that keep non-cheaters from falling? You've only become what you wanted to overcome. :)
A propos of Laura's comment, my SOED (consistent with my own usage of the expression, and with the claim that this is a negatiove trait) defines 'self-righteous' as excessively conscious of or insistent on one's own righteosness.
I don't think we necessarily object to people "being confident of being righteous" as the definition of "self-righteous" would suggest. Rather I think the condescending attitude that "self-righteous" people sometimes assume, and the shrillness with which they proclaim the obviousness of their righteousness is what is bothersome. It is not that self-righteous people are certain that they are righteous, but that they try to use the obviousness of their moral righteousness as evidence in determining what we should do instead of carefully explaining a logical argument. "People in Africa are starving so we should send them aid, and if you don't want to send them aid, then that's tantamount to murder, and you're a bad person. My intentions are pure because I donate all of my disposable income to charity so I am good and whatever I say we should do will be good..." Instead of arguing why the option is the best one among many, it is merely the right one.
I wonder if it would be possible to define a class of 'ego biases'. I'm reminded of the well circulated article "Unskilled and Unaware of It". Some biases help us insulate our minds from moral struggles and other insolvable problems that we would rather not think about on a daily basis. These same biases help us maintain a positive self-image, which is invaluable.
Why should we believe that their responses to their survey are an accurate reflection of how moral they truly believe they are? You are, however, measuring how moral they will report themselves to be, and who would report that that they are immoral, even if they are confident of response anonymity. Perhaps we are not so much bad at estimating our own righteousness as we are guilty of not wanting to admit to others that we are immoral.
Another definite possibility is different definitions of morality. Some people see actions which do not negatively affect other people as not being immoral, like a victimless crime, or at least they don't see how an action could negatively affect another person. Is someone immoral if they are not intelligent enough to see how their actions could affect someone else negatively? They are surely different from those who know the consequences of their actions but don't care. Anyway, cheating on an exam may or may not classify as an immoral action in their own definition of morality, but in either case, it is surely not aggegious enough of an offense to shift their perception of their own morality.
I'm reminded of this:
http://www.davidbrin.com/ad...
The following old trope seems to me to be true in my experience: Righteousness is not opposed to humor, but self-righteousness is (except when something nasty is said about an enemy, when laughter is not only permissible but mandatory). This suggests a genuine difference of cognitive mechanism - you can project the two quantities onto a graph, but what's really going on involves underlying structural differences.
I am willing to hear that this was tested and found to be false, since I am using anecdotal recall.