Self-Righteousness as a Moral Problem by demandside

Self-RighteousnessasaMoralProblem

JeanetteBicknell

Publishedonline:24November2010

SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2010

Weallknowofpersonswhosewordsandactionswewouldatleastsometimeswant todescribeasself-righteous.Indeedonestrikingfeatureofself-righteousnessisits prevalence.Itcanbefoundacrosseconomicclassesandpoliticalandsocialspectra. Wecanseeitinreligiousbelieversofmanydifferentcreeds,inhumanistsand atheists,insmokersandnon-smokers,invegetariansandomnivores,andonboththe politicalleftandtheright.Infactpeoplewhohavelittleelseincommonmayshare atendencytoself-righteousbehavior.Yetithasnodefenders,inthesensethatno individualswouldliketohearthemselvesortheirfriendsdescribedasselfrighteous.Itisdifﬁculttoimaginethenon-sarcasticavowalofclaimssuchas, ‘‘SpendingtimewithBobisenjoyable,sinceheisreallyself-righteous’’or‘‘Jane wouldmakeagreatcolleaguebecausesheissoself-righteous.’’Thedesignation ‘‘self-righteous’’isacondemnation,ifnotanoutrightinsult.Thisisparadoxical,as righteousnessorjusticeisanaspect,perhapstheveryfoundation,ofselfrighteousness.

Self-righteousnessconsistsineitherexaggeratedorinappropriateclaimsofmoral injuryorpersonalmoraldevelopment,orexcessiveormisplacedpublicmoral pronouncements,whichmaybetrueorfalse.Intheﬁrstcase,theaptnessofthe chargeofbeingself-righteous,andsoamoralassessmentoftheactionsorspeech whicharethetargetofthecharge,restsontheacceptanceorrejectionofantecedent moralclaims.Yetinthesecondcasetheresolutionofthemoralissueisdifferent. Evenwhenweareintheright,andknowthatweareclearlyintheright,thereis goodreasontorefrainfromthekindofbehaviorthatwarrantsachargeofselfrighteousness.

J.Bicknell(&) Toronto,Canada

e-mail:bicknellj@hotmail.com

Verylittlephilosophicalanalysishasbeendonedirectlyonself-righteousness andrelatedmoralattitudesandemotions.1 Theconceptistraditionallymoreathome intheology,whereitiscontrastedwithrighteousnessinGodandisseenasthe enemyofrepentance.2 Howeverself-righteousnessconnectstoaclusterofrelated anddifferentissues,someofwhichhavebeenthesubjectofphilosophicalanalysis. First,self-righteousnesscanbeanalyzedaspartofanaccountofourmoralattitudes toothers.Self-righteousnesscanbefoundtogetherwithemotions,whetherselfdirectedlikepride,orother-directed,includinganger,indignation,contempt, disgust,resentment,and schadenfreude.Presumablyself-righteousattitudesand suchemotionsreinforceoneanother,andsortingoutjusthowtheemotion inﬂuencestheattitudeorispartandparcelofitwouldbedifﬁcultandmightnot helpuswithmoralquestions.Thereisalongphilosophicaltradition,fromAristotle throughP.F.Strawson,thatsomeoftheseemotionscanbepartofappropriatemoral lifeanddiscourse.Feelingsofindignationaresuitableresponsestosomeinjustices, andsomeactionswarrantmoraldisgust.Second,anaccountofself-righteousness mightbesituatedwithinavirtueethicsperspectivethatwouldhaveusconsiderit togetherwithrelatedcharactertraits.Thiscouldtaketheformofadiscussionof valuedcharactertraitswhicharepresumablyatoddswithself-righteousness,such asintegrityanddecency.3 Alternatively,self-righteousnessmightbeconsidered togetherwiththeviceofhypocrisy,asthesetwocharactertraitsaresometimesseen toco-exist.4 Someofthephilosophicalliteratureonvirtuesandvicesthusbrushes againstself-righteousness,withoutaddressingitdirectly.Finally,self-righteous behaviorraisesahostofissuesconcerningsocialrelationsandourdealingswith others.ThomasNagelhasforcefullyarguedfortheimportanceofsomeformsof concealmentandtherestraintofself-expressionforsociallife.5 Itmayturnoutthat self-righteousnessisattherootofatleastsomebehaviorthatisinimicalto harmonioussociallife.

1Self-RighteousnessandClaimsofInjury

Onedifferencebetweenrighteousandself-righteousbehavioristhatself-righteous behaviorisoftenself-servingordesignedtodrawattentiontoourselves.Whilea righteouspersonisconcernedthatjusticebeaccordedtoothers,aself-righteous personwouldseemtobeconcernedthatjusticebeaccordedtoherself.Claimsfor justice,whetheronbehalfofourselvesorofothers,mayormaynotbeappropriate. Theyhavetobeassessedonacase-by-casebasis.Demandsforjusticearecertainly

1 SeeThomasE.Hill,Jr.,‘‘SymbolicProtestandCalculatedSilence,’’ PhilosophyandPublicAffairs vol. 9,no.1(1979).

2 See‘‘Self-righteousness’’byC.H.Watkinsinthe EncylopaediaofReligionandEthics ed.James Hastings(Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,1920),vol.XI,pp.369–70.

3 SeeGabrieleTaylor,‘‘Integrity,’’ ProceedingsoftheAristotelianSociety,SupplementaryVolume 55 (1981).

4 SeeBe´laSzabadosandEldonSoifer, Hypocrisy:EthicalInvestigations (Peterborough,Ontario: BroadviewPress,2004).

5 SeeThomasNagel,‘‘ConcealmentandExposure,’’ PhilosophyandPublicAffairs vol.27,no.1(1998).

sometimeswarranted.Ifsomeoneistreatedunfairlyorisavictimofinjustice,then itismorallyappropriatethathemakesthisknown.Althoughthedesignation‘‘selfrighteous’’isalmostalwaysmeantasacondemnationorinsult,wecannotconclude thattheaccusationisalwaysjustiﬁed.Somesuchbehaviorismorallyneutralormay evenbepraiseworthy.Butpeoplewhopraisethebehaviororareatleastneutral towarditwillnotordinarilycallitself-righteous.Indeed,‘‘justiﬁedself-righteousness’’soundslikeanoxymoron.

Whetheraclaimofinjuryconcernstherightsofsomeonealone,someoneanda groupwithwhichapersonidentifies,orunrelatedotherindividuals,wouldseemto raisenospecialmoraldifficulties.Weneedtoassesstheclaimandtheactionstaken insupportofit.Thefactthattheclaimismadeonbehalfofourselvesorindividuals inaperson’sgroupdoesnotraisespecialdifficultiesunlessthereisademandtobe treateddifferentlyfromothersinthesamerelevantcircumstances.Weaskwhether theclaimisvalid,andthenconsiderwhetherthedemandsmadeinsupportofitare appropriateornot.

Claimsofmoralinjuryimplyameasureofmoralcertainty.Ifweclaimthatour rightshavebeenviolated,thereisapresumptionthatweknowthenatureandextent oftherightsandthatwearecompetenttorecognizethepresentconductasa violationofthem.Moralcertaintydeservesanextendedanalysisinitself.6 Any assessmentofaclaimofmoralinjury,andthemoralcertaintywhichinformsit,will dependupontheextenttowhichweshareasimilarmoralunderstandingorcanbe persuadedtoadoptit.ThemoralcertaintyexpressedinDr.MartinLutherKingJr.’s ‘‘LetterfromBirminghamJail’’islikelytobefoundadmirableandinspiringby individualsencounteringittoday.Ittakesarealefforttorealizejusthow controversialKing’spositionwasin1963andtorememberthatthemoralcertainty heexpressedsoeloquentlywasviewedwithsuspicion.

Itwillbehelpfultoworkthroughanexamplethatcontainsclaimsofinjuryand responsestosuchclaimsthatmayormaynotbeself-righteous.Thefollowing widelyreportedincidentoccurredJanuary2005inaTorontoneighborhoodpark.7 Duringacommunitysupperinthepark’srinkhouse,anewmotherpreparingto nurseherinfantinadvertentlyexposedherselftoagroupofmenputtingonhockey skates.Aparkvolunteerrushedoverandsuggestedthatthemothermightbemore comfortableintheprivacyofthespaciouswomen’swashroom,whereachairwas available.Thenursingmothersaidshefelthumiliatedandangeredbytheincident, andsentane-mailtoawebsiteforthepark,askingforanapologyandthatthepark staffandvolunteersbebettereducatedabouttherightofwomentobreastfeed.The righttobreastfeedinpublicisprotectedbythejurisdiction’shumanrightscode,in thiscasetheProvinceofOntario.Asitturnedout,thevolunteerwhoaskedthe mothertocoverupwasalsoinchargeofthewebsite.Shepostedthemother’sletter alongwithcommentsinherowndefense.Eventually,afteremailcommentsfrom peoplearoundtheworldandmuchback-and-forthbetweenthevolunteerandthe citycouncilorforthearea,theParksDepartmentissuedanapologytothemother.

6 SeeJudithLichtenberg,‘‘MoralCertainty,’’ Philosophy vol.69,no.268(1994).

7 SeeJulieTraves,‘‘TheBra-hahathatWentGlobal,’’ GlobeandMail Saturday,February19,2005.

Theincidentitselfdoesnotposeanyverythornymoralproblems.Itwouldbea challengetoﬁndanotherincidentsoemblematicofatempestinateapotthatdrew similarlyheatedinternationalattention.Inthecityinwhichitoccurred, breastfeedingissupportedbythegeneralpublicandthemedicalestablishment, andtherighttobreastfeedinpublicisestablishedinlaw.Nodoubtpublic breastfeedingmaymakesomepeopleuncomfortable,buttheirdiscomfortcannotbe usedasareasontodenysomeoneelsealegalright.Themotherinthisstorysimply shouldnothavebeenaskedtocoveruporremoveherself,andthevolunteer,when informedorremindedofthelaw,shouldhaveapologized.Themother’sinitial claimandactionsinsupportofitseemsreasonable.Shewasknowledgeableabout herrights,insistedonthem,askedforanapologyandrequestedthattheparkstaff andvolunteersbebettereducated.Theseactionsconstituteaclaimforjusticefor herselfandothersinherposition.Herclaimwaslegitimateandthebehaviorin supportofitseemsproportionate.Herrightswereindeedviolated.Shewasmadeto feelbadanddeservedanapology.Shedidnotdemandanyspecialtreatmentthat wouldnotbegiventoanyothernursingmother.Herrequestforanapologydidnot intendtoinﬂamethesituationortoharmanyone.

Oneresultofthediscussionsofaristhatadistinctionneedstobedrawnbetween self-righteousnessperseandascriptionsoraccusationsofself-righteousness.A commonsteptakenbypeoplewhoperpetrateorarecomplicitinmoralharmisto belittleorignoretheclaimsmadebyindividualswhomtheyhaveinjured,especially whentheinjuredindividualsbelongtotraditionallyoppressedorlesssocially powerfulgroups.Individualsrighteouslyprotestingtheirinjuryoroppressionare condemnedasself-righteous.Thewrongedpartyistheninthedifﬁcultpositionof havingtodefendnotonlytheoriginalclaimofmoralharm,butalsothechargeof beingself-righteous.ThisisvividinKing’s‘‘LetterfromBirminghamJail,’’where hehastodefendboththeappropriatenessofhistacticsintheﬁghtforcivilrights andhisownroleinthestruggle.

Whilethenursingmother’srightswereviolated,inlatercommentstothepress sheexpressedaviewofherinjurythatseemedexaggerated.Sheremarkedtoa journalistthatshewasdisappointedbypeoplewhotriedtoreducetheincidenttoa matterofhurtfeelingsratherthansubstantiverights:‘‘Yes,myfeelingswerehurt. RosaParksprobablyhadsomehurtfeelingstoowhensherefusedtositintheback ofthebus.’’8 Herethemother’sclaimtoinjuryseemsexcessive,andhercomparison ofherownsituationtothatofRosaParksisfactuallyinappropriateandalso unfortunate,tosaytheleast.Themotherwasnotarrested;herrightswereviolateda singletimebyavolunteerinthepark,notrepeatedly,andnotbyapersonwith formalauthority.Nursingmothersarenotahistoricallyoppressedgroup.More crucially,demandingimplementationofanalreadylegallyrecognizedrightisvery differentfromstandinguptoalonghistoryoflegallyentrenchedsocialandpolitical oppression.Thelazyinvocationofthename‘‘RosaParks’’inanattempttobolster someone’sownclaims,isatleastmorallyinsensitive.

Inconclusion,themother’sinitialclaimofinjuryandrequestforanapology werereasonable,butherlaterremarksabouttheincidentwereself-righteousandso

8 Seeibid.

morallysuspect.Wewouldfindthemotherself-righteousinthefirstinstanceonlyif wethoughtthattherighttobreastfeedinpublicshouldnotbeprotectedandthat nursingmothersoughtalwaystoseekthepermissionofpeoplearoundthembefore nursing.Theseantecedentmoralclaimswouldneedtobedefendedbeforethe chargeofself-righteousnesswouldbeappropriate.Similarly,someonewhowasof theviewthatbeingaskedtocoverupwhilebreastfeedinginapublicplacewas indeedanordealsimilartothatenduredbyRosaParkswoulddisagreewiththe assessmentthatthemother’slaterclaimsofinjurywereself-righteousintheir exaggerationoftheharmshewasdone.Again,thedisagreementoverwhetherthe motherwasself-righteousornotreflectsanunderlyingdisagreementoverdeeper moralquestions.

2Self-RighteousnessandClaimsofMoralProbityorImprovement

Thelittledramaintheparkhadtwomainactors:thenursingmotherandthe volunteerwhoaskedhertocoverup.Whenthevolunteerrespondedtothemother’s letterofcomplaintonthewebsite,shedidnotapologize.Insteadshedefendedher actionsandinsistedonherownmoralprobity.Shewasinfavorofbreastfeeding, sheclaimed,andindeedwhenyoungerhadherselffoughtfortherighttobreastfeed inpublic.Howevershefearedthatcertainusersoftheparkwouldbemade uncomfortablebythepublicdisplayofabarebreast.Sherequestedaninvestigation intothematterandaclearstatementofthecity’sposition.

Claimsofmoralprobityorimprovementareexceedinglycommoninpublic discourse.‘‘Ididnotcommitthecrime,’’sayboththeinmatewhowillbe exoneratedbyDNAevidenceandtheCEOwhoislaterconvictedonthebasisof forensicaccountingorhisownloose-lippedemailmessagestocolleagues.‘‘Iam differentnow.IhavechangedsomuchthatInolongerrecognizethepersonwho didthesethings,’’sayboththegenuinelyreformedcriminalandthehopeless recidivist.Whenclaimsofinnocenceturnouttobetrue,weregretanypunishment alreadyenduredandadmirethespeaker’sresolve.Whensuchclaimsturnouttobe false,weaccusethespeakerofhypocrisyinadditiontoothersins.Therearetwo situationsinparticularinwhichtheaccusationofself-righteousnessislikelytobe made.Oneoccurswhenweareuncertainabout,ordoubt,thetruthofclaimsof moralprobity.Theotheroccurswhentheclaimsstrikeusastrueoratleast plausible,buttheirexpressionisinappropriateormisplaced,ortheirmannerof expressionistooferventorinsistent.Again,theaptnessandmoralappropriateness ofthechargeofbeingself-righteousaremattersofjudgmentanddependinparton theacceptanceorrejectionoftheunderlyingmoralprinciples,andevenoncultural norms.Adenialthatsoundspassionateorexaggeratedinaposhgentleman’sclub maysoundlow-keyorhalfheartedinacollegedormroom.

Whateverthemotivationoftheparkvolunteerwaswhensheaskedthenursing mothertocoverup,itwouldcertainlyseemthatherbehaviorsubsequenttothe incidentcouldbefairlycharacterizedasself-righteous.Heravowalofpastactivism onbehalfofnursingmotherswasentirelybesidethepoint.Therelevantissuewas notwhatkindofapersonshewas,butwhatshehadjustdone.Withoutknowingthe

city’spositionortherelevantlaw,sheinsistedontherightnessofheractions.Even afterhavingbeenremindedofthelawandinformedofthecity’spolicy,sherefused toapologize.Inraisingthepossibilitythatcertainmembersofthepublicwouldbe disconcertedbypublicbreastexposureandsotheircomfortlevelinusingpark facilitieslowered,sheattemptedtoclaimforherselfthemoralhighground.Her principalconcerninrespondingtothenursingmotherseemstohavebeentobeseen tobeintheright.Ifshethoughtitwasaprioritytoresolvetheissueorassuagehurt feelings,shewouldhavenotrefusedtoapologize.Indeedherrequestforan investigation,ifgranted,wouldhavefurtherinﬂamedthesituationandcaused additionalstresstothenursingmother.

Byrepeatedlydefendingheractions,thevolunteermadeanimplicitclaimthat hermoralstancewascorrectandthatensuringaccesstotheparkforpeoplewho mightbeoffendedbypublicbreastexposurewasmoreimportantthantherights ofwomentobreastfeedunhindered.Shedisplaysacertaintyaboutthemoral issueswhichisnotwarranted.Inherexchangeswiththenursingmotherand laterwithcityofﬁcials,sheofferedverylittleinthewayofdefenseforher views.Shedidnotclaimevertohavespokentoanyonewhowasmade uncomfortablebypublicbreastfeeding.Shewasnotabletoindicateanyrecord ofcomplaints,formalorotherwise,aboutthepractice.Evenifevidenceofsuch complaintsexisted,furtherargumentwouldberequiredastowhyoneperson’s discomfortshouldtrumpanotherperson’slegalrights.Sheofferednosuch arguments.

Thevolunteer’sfailuretoapologizetothemotherwhenremindedofthelawand informedofthecity’spolicybetraysherviewofthenursingmotherandher supporters.Theparkvolunteerstandsasanexampleofacommonformofselfrighteousness:claimingforourselvesthemoralhighgroundandmaintainingthe righteousnessofourconduct.Thisthirdformofself-righteousbehaviormightbe calledsanctimoniousself-righteousness.Whetherintendedassuchornot,itcan constituteanimplicitjudgmentofthebeliefsandactionsofothers.Thisisso becausethemoralhighgroundissosteepandnarrowthatonlyafewpeoplecan occupyitatonce.Ifonepersonisonthehighgroundthenotherscanbeonly somewherebeneath,perhapsonverydistantslopes.Evenintheeventthatwereally dooccupythemoralhighgroundandarereasonablycertainthatwedoso,thereare nonethelessgoodreasons,bothpragmaticandintrinsicallymoral,torefrainfrom moralizingself-righteousness.

Whenwepubliclyjudgeothers,explicitlyandforthrightlywithourwordsor implicitlybyouractions,thishassocialandpoliticalimplications.Examplesarenot difﬁculttoconjure.Weneedonlythinkofthevegetarianatadinnerpartywho loudlyavowsoppositiontofactoryfarming;thepoliticalsupporterwhoarguesthat votingfortheopposingcandidateistantamounttotreason;thepersoninlineatthe expresscheck-outwhofrownsandmuttersdisapprovalattheshopperwithmore thanthepermittednumberofitemsinhisbasket;ortherestaurantpatronwho,

3MoralizingJudgmentsDirectedAgainstOthers

loudlyenoughsothatotherswillhear,makesunfavorablecomparisonsbetweenthe conductofherownchildrenandtheconductofotherpeople’schildren.

Inourmorallives,itissometimesappropriateandevenrequiredthatweexpress ourmoralcommitmentsandourdisapprovalofactionswefindimmoral.Butwhile justicesometimesdemandsthatwevoiceourmoraloutrageorendorsement,justice ordecencyalsosometimesdemandsoursilence.9 Somepeoplewillfindthisclaim tobeparadoxical.Ifwearerightaboutanimportantmoralissueandconfidentthat weareright,itmightseemreasonablethatweshoulddoeverythingpossibleto communicatethistoothers.Yetwehavewaysofspeakingthatsuggestotherwise. Wemightagreewithothersaboutanimportantissuebutwishthattheywouldnot besoself-righteousinexpressingtheirviews.Whileitisdifficulttoknowjustwhen ourmoralcommitmentsarebettermadeexplicitornot,someconsiderationscanbe offered.Therewouldseemtobeatleastthreereasonswhywemightwanttorefrain fromsanctimoniousself-righteousbehavior.

First,self-righteousbehaviorislikelytobedetrimentaltoindividualswho engageinit,inthatitmayblockgenuinemorallearninganddevelopment.Whenwe actinaself-righteousmanner,wepresumethatourmoralviewsaresound.Itisone thingtoofferourconsideredviewsonmoralquestionsinaspiritofdialogueand exchange.Itisanothertopresumethatwearecorrectandthatothersmustbe mistakenoruninformed.Suchanattitudeisbetrayedbytheactionsofthepark volunteer.

Thisconcernaboutself-righteousnessresonateswiththetheologicalunderstandingofself-righteousnessasinimicaltorepentance.Peoplewhoareconvincedthat theirviewsarecorrectwillnotrepentbecausetheyseenoneedtodoso.This concernhasrelevanceinsecularcontextsaswell.Anyonewhohopestobecomea betterpersonortogainabetterunderstandingofparticularmoralquestionswould dowelltokeepanopenmindabouthisorhermoralfallibility.Theincidentinthe parkisagaintelling,sincethepersonwhotookauthorityuponherselfturnedoutto bemoreinneedofmoralandlegaleducationthanpeoplesheattemptedtoinstruct.

Theneedtokeepinmindourownpossiblemoralerrorleadstothesecondreason whysanctimoniousself-righteousbehaviorisbetteravoided.Therearemanymoral issuesoverwhichinformedandgood-willedadultscanlegitimatelydisagree.Most ofusrealizethatpeoplewithwhomwedisagreeonspeciﬁcissuesarenotalways fools.Self-righteousadultsnotonlypresumethattheirmoralstanceiscorrectbut alsopresumethattheyareinapositiontoinstructotheradults.Howeverthisis condescending.Condescensionevokesresentmentandhindersharmonioussocial relations.AsNagelhasarguedinaslightlydifferentcontext,theboundaries betweenwhatispubliclyexposedandwhatisnotexistforareason.Reticenceisa conditionofcivilization.

Finally,whenweengageinsanctimoniousself-righteousbehavior,wepresume thatthetransgressioninquestionissevereenoughtowarrantapublicjudgment. Judgingothers,eveninintimatecontexts,hasconsequencesandcanentailsocial andpoliticalimplications.Aftereffectsforthepersonjudgedmayinclude

9 SeeAristotle, NicomacheanEthics, trans.HippocratesG.Apostle(Grinnell,Iowa:ThePeripatetic Press,1984),1137a32–1138a3,pp.96–99.

discomfort,embarrassment,shame,anger,andevenhumiliation.Thesefeelings maybeappropriate,ifthemoraltransgressionhasinfactbeensevere.Theperson behavinginasanctimoniouslyself-righteousmannerassumesthatsheunderstands thesituationwellenough,isinpossessionoftherelevantbackgroundinformation, andisanadequatejudgeofhumanmisdeedssoastopronouncejudgmentsupon others.Thesearelargeassumptions.Itislikelytheyareseldomfulﬁlled.

Sanctimoniousself-righteousbehaviorcanbeseenasaformofmoralhubris.A personguiltyofsuchbehaviormakesoneormoreofthreedifferentkindsof unwarrantedpresumption.Hepresumesthathismoraljudgmentissoundwhenthe viewsheespousesareinfactcontroversial,ortouchonanareawherethereis legitimatemoraldisagreement.Aswell,hepresumesthathehasthemoralorsocial superioritytoinstructhisfellowcitizens.Inaddition,hepresumesthatthe transgressioninquestionissevereenoughtobepubliclycondemnedonthespot. Onlyurgentorgraveimmoralityorinjusticeseemstowarrantactingwithoutcareful reﬂectiononthepresumptionsjustoutlined.

Sanctimoniousself-righteousnessbehaviorwouldseemrarelytobeappropriate. Theplaceinmorallifeofnon-sanctimoniousmoralizing,inthesenseofpublic moralpreachingorpronouncement,istrickiertodelineate,asthisisbotha rhetoricalandamoralquestion.Sometimestheanswerdependsoncontextand socialrole.Teachersmoralizetotheirstudents.Doctorsmoralizetotheirpatients, remindingthemthattheirdutiestotheirfriendsandrelativesincludemaintaining theirownhealth.Judgesmaymoralizeatsentencing,explainingpunishmentsthat mightotherwiseappearexcessivelyharshorlenient.Pastorsmoralizetotheir congregants,whoare,afterall,presentvoluntarily.Whenaperson’sroledoesnot explicitlycallforthecorrectionofothersandtheimmoralityatissueislessserious andpressing,theanswerismurkier.Itispossiblethataspectator,reﬂectingonsome publicimmorality,decidesthataconfrontationisappropriate.Legitimateand reasoneddisagreementispossiblewithrespecttoappropriateactionstobecensured atanappropriatetimeandplace.Still,evenwhenasituationandrolecallfor moralizing,somesensitivityisrequired.Wedowelltoreﬂectbeforecorrecting others.

4InDefenseofExcessiveMoralizers

Whilesomemoralissuesadmitofreasoneddisagreement,weshouldnotlosesight ofthefactthatthereisrealmoralevilandinjusticeintheworld.Tospeakupagainst moralevil,evenwhenourprotestisunlikelytohaveanyeffect,canbe praiseworthy.Thefailuretospeakupagainstgenuineinjusticecansometimesbe attributedtocowardice,laziness,orcomplacency.Insteadofcriticizingmoralizers fortheirself-righteousness,weoughttobegratefulfortheirpersistenceinspeaking out.Ifeveryoneissilentoutofamisguidedsenseofpropriety,othersmaynotbe awareoftheproblems,anditwillbedifﬁculttosecurechange.

ThomasE.HillJr.offersapertinentexampleinhisdiscussionofsymbolic protest.Thisisprotestagainstinjusticethatwilllikelyfailtoleadtoanamelioration oftheinjustice.Hillarguesthatwhilewemightregardsuchprotestaspointless,

self-righteous,orevenreprehensible,wealsooftenfindsuchprotesttobemorally praiseworthy.Hisexampleconcernsaliberalbusinessmanataracistdinnerparty: ‘‘Invitedbybusinessacquaintances,heisshockedtofindthattheconversationon allsidesisopenlyandgrosslycontemptuousofcertainminoritiesongroundsof racialbiasalone.Thegueststrytooutdooneanotherwithtalesabouthowthey managetocircumventequalopportunitylaws.’’10 Thebusinessmanprotests politely,onlytobemetwithcynicallaughter.Hewonderswhethertofinishthe dinnerquietlyforthesakeofbusinessinterestsorwalkoutinprotest.Asselfrighteousnesshasbeensofarcharacterized,theliberalbusinessmanheredoesnot behaveinaself-righteousmanner.Politeprotest,silence,leavingthetable,and calmlyexpressingadissentingviewneednotbeexcessiveormisplaced.Some philosophersmayagreebutsaythattheliberalbusinessmandoesnotdoenoughto discouragetheracismofhiscolleagues.Heshouldprotestloudlyandvehemently oncehispoliteprotestfails,theymayclaim.Moralizersmayoccasionallystepona fewtoes,itmightbeargued,butthisdoesnotmatterinthegreaterschemeofthings, givenhowmuchisatstake.

Tocautionagainstself-righteousnessisnottoadvocatemoralquietism. Sometimesitisnecessarytostateourviews,takeastandonanissue,andpoint outinjusticeloudlyandvehemently.Sometimeswearejustifiedingivingoffense, dependingontheseverityoftheproblemtobefacedandthelikelyforeseeable consequencesofourprotest.Itisdifficulttosaywhethertheliberalbusinessmanis insuchasituation.Itseemsdoubtfulthataloudandvehementprotestwouldhavea salutaryeffectonhisdinnercompanions.Hiscalmprotestandpointedsilencemight bejustaseffective,becauseitishardertodismiss.Itisworthrememberingthatthe wayinwhichamoralprincipleiscommunicatedcanbeasimportantasthefactthat itiscommunicatedatall.Althoughthisisamatterofstyle,itisnotamatterofmere style.SomeofthegreatestphilosophicalmoralistsfromPlatoandAristotlethrough JohnStuartMillhavealsobeenmastersofrhetoricandkeenlyattunedtoitintheir writings.Thewayinwhichamoralprincipleiscommunicatedcaninfluencethe willingnessofanaudiencetoabsorbit.Peoplewhoarecondescendedto,whoare madetofeelmorallyinferior,orwhoarehumiliatedareunlikelytobewell-disposed towardthesourceoftheirenlightenment,eveniftheydocometochangetheir mindsaboutthemoralissueinquestion.Thegreatestmoralteachers,including greatreligiousleaders,havetaughtasmuchbyexampleastheyhavebyprecepts. Somephilosophersmightarguethattheseconcernsaboutself-righteousnessare pragmaticratherthanintrinsicallymoral.Howsomeoneprotestsagainstinjusticeis amatterofgoodmannersoretiquetteratherthanasubstantivemoralissue.One dangerofself-righteousbehavioristhatitrisksshiftingemphasisfromtheinjustice thatisprotestedtotheagentwhoisprotesting.Iftheliberalbusinessmanmountsa loudandvehementprotest,expressinghisownmoreenlightenedviews,hemight, intentionallyornot,drawattention,nottotheevilofracialinjusticebuttohisown moralsuperiority.Givingtheliberalbusinessmanthebenefitofthedoubt,wecan assumethathisprotestagainstracismissincerelymotivatedandthathedoesnot merelywanttoshowhimselftobemoreenlightenedthanhiscolleagues.Ifheis

thoughtful,hewillnotexpresshisviewsinsuchawaythatrisksdoingso.Butthisis justanotherwayofsayingthatifheisthoughtful,hewillnotengageinselfrighteousbehavior.

Howwetreateachother,includingwhenwejudge,whenweshareour judgments,andthestancewetaketoourownmoralcommitmentsaredifﬁcultand importantmattersthatgototheheartofourmorallives.Thebigquestionsof moralitywithlife-or-deathconsequencesarerelativelyrareinmostofourlives. Yetweallhavetodealwithotherpeopleonadailybasis.Someofthemengagein conductthatwewouldprefertheyrefrainfrom,andsomeofthemengagein conductthatweﬁnddeeplyobjectionable.Howwerespondtosuchconductisa challengeattheheartofsociallifeandassuchisanythingbuttrivial.

5TheEtiologyofaMoralError

Webeganwiththeobservationoftheparadoxthatself-righteousnessisbothwidely condemnedandwidelypracticed.Certainlysomeofthepeoplewhoareannoyedby self-righteousnessinothersareatthesametimeguiltyofitthemselves.Itisclear thatself-righteousnessisatemptationthatmanyofusﬁnddifﬁculttoresist.A psychologistmightexplainthepropensitytoself-righteousnessintermsofreactionformationandanindividual’sfearofbeingdiscoveredasguiltyofwhatevermoral errorshedenounces.Thiskindofexplanationmaybecorrect,butitdoesnotspeak tothesourceofthemoralerrorthatislogicallypriortothepsychologicalcondition. Self-righteousnesswouldnotbeacrediblepsychologicalstrategyifitdidnot conveysomethingverydeepwithrespecttomoralthought.

Behindself-righteousnessaretwodifferentkindsoffalsebutseeminglyplausible assumptions.Firstistheassumptionthatonlymorallypureindividualscanoffer soundmoraljudgmentsorthatonlyindividualswhooccupythemoralhighground haveaccesstothemoraltruth.ThisissimilartotheassumptionFrancisBacon makesinhisscientificmethodologywhenheclaimsthatonlypureandunbiased observerscanmakegenuinescientificdiscoveries.11 Bothassumptionsarefalse. Thetruthofmoralorscientificclaimsstandapartfromthecharactersoftheir enunciators.Thesamekindoferrorisatplaywheneverafallacy adhominem is committed.Thequestionableassumptionembodiedbysuchfallaciesisthatsome featureofaspeaker’scharacterorpastactionsmakesitimpossibleforhimtoknow thetruthaboutsomematter.Whileitiseasytoseetheerrorinparadigmcases,its livelinessandlongevityshowsthatitisnotalwayseasytodiscernandavoid.

Thesecondkindoferrorhastodowithwhatwemightcallthetemptationof moralcertainty.Manyofourdecisionsaremadeunderconditionsofuncertainty. Whetherweshouldplanapicnicdependsontheweatheratsomelaterdate.Which programofstudywillleadtoalucrativecareerdependsonthestateoftheeconomy severalyearslater.Whetheraparticularhousewouldbeawisepurchasedependson theabsenceofstructuralﬂawsthatahouseinspectionfailstouncover.Ifthereis

11 SeeFrancisBacon, TheNewOrganon eds.LisaJardineandMichaelSilverthorne(Cambridge, England:CambridgeUniversityPress,2000).

anythingthatwecanbesureof,wemightliketothink,atleastwecanbesureofour ownmoralconvictions.Butthisistomistakethenatureofmoralthinking.Wemay besureofourconvictions,withoutbeingsureofhowtoapplytheminvariouskinds ofreal-lifesituations,andwithoutbeingsureaboutwhethertocorrectotherswhen theyfallshort.Thisuncertaintyandtentativenessdoesnotmakeusmoral backslidersbutindicatesthatweareawareofthecomplexitiesofmorallife.

Theerrormadebymoralizingself-righteousindividualsistomisunderstandthe natureofmoralfallibility.Theybelievethattheymustpresentthemselvesaspure andwithouterrorbeforetheirclaimswillbetakenseriouslybyothersandinorder thattheirclaimswillbejustiﬁed.Intheirquestforanexcessiveandimpossible moralcertainty,theyfallpreytomoralhubris.12

12 Forcomments,suggestions,anddiscussionofearlierdrafts,IamespeciallygratefultoRobertHanna andIanJarvie,andalsotoWendyDonner,JayDrykyk,DavidElliot,RockneyJacobsen,RandalMarlin, ananonymousreferee,andThomasMagnell,Editor-in-Chiefofthe JournalofValueInquiry.