Self Righteous friends

I think there are saints and sinners.

perhaps it's close to a religious/atheist thing, except that nobody I know is actually religious.

I don't think self righteousness necessarily involves carping, I think it's a sort of passive aggressive thing.

ive got an old friend who is a shining example of this. he is the classic over-achiever, and the bad part is, i know deep down he really dislikes his life ,and this is why i dont really ever hang out with him anymore. whats funny is i had almost forgotten how bad he was with it until the first time my gf met him, and after he left she was almost homicidal.

it like he lives his whole life just so he can tell you about how many great things he is doing. he is such a fake

some people can't stop judging, I'm almost convinced it's a throwback to religious thinking.

I think it's the distinction between hating the sinner and hating the sin OH NO MY ROOTS ARE SHOWING :)

xpost How do you divorce your morality from your decision-making process? Surely that's precisely the thing that informs your decision-making process and makes you the person you are?

It's hard to work out who's entitled to the moral high ground here.

this entire thread is pretty much an exercise in being self-righteous about people who are self-righteous

Dan OTM

How do you divorce your morality from your decision-making process?

I don't think you can simply say purely morality defines who people are, many decisions have nothing to do with morality, at face value. the point is, the use of the language of morality is an issue in itself.

1) A person's morality informs and shapes their values, attitudes, personality, likes and dislikes.

2) People are inherently selfish by nature and look to do things and associate with people that will give them the most perceived pleasure.

I can definitely see and accept where you're coming from if you're applying the term "self-righteous" to people who outwardly live their lives as if everyone and everything they come across require their personal stamp of approval but to me that's an argument of degree; everyone DOES consciously or subconsciously judge people and situations they are in and their internal metric of what is acceptable behavior based upon that situation informs their response. A person who responds in a pious and condescending manner has a different set of criteria for what an acceptable response is than someone who shrugs and goes on their way, but that doesn't mean that the two aren't feeling the same thing (and it also doesn't mean that person #2 isn't going to later turn the situation/person into an amusing-but-demeaning anecdote later on).

What, you save that for holidays?

On a more serious note, why are people so afraid to admit that they judge other people?

this doesnt mean i cant be friends with someone who is deeply flawed with such overpowering self rightous behavior* its not like i have my friends fill out an application before i hang out with them.

my opinions and worldview are not mine alone. there are plenty of other people who share them.

do you see the difference?

*in fact, i tend to attract these type of people as friends. its all very simple

xpost

Are we agreed that it's the distinction between whether or not the judgement attaches to the person/is 'significant'? Significant isn't the word I want there, something more like 'revealing', you know, this flaw goes to the heart of them.

Obviously Ronan and kephm, you guys feel it is morally wrong to judge someone for having a different moral code from you, otherwise this entire conversation wouldn't be happening. You are judging behavior based on what you think is right and wrong; that is a moral decision. If you're arguing that people who feel the need to tell others of their decision in an attempt to change their behavior are self-righteous, then there really isn't an argument here beyond an interesting-to-me-and-probably-only-me semantic one because I often find that type of behavior tedious and embarrassing. (It also means that every protester/activist/agitator/lobbyist/politian ever is self-righteous but perhaps we don't want to go there?)

But decisions are only described as amoral in this sense when they have the potential to be made morally. There isn't generally a moral dimension to "sneakers or boots today?"

kephm, how am I putting words in your mouth?

it's not a question of it being morally wrong for someone to have a different moral code from me, it's a question of how morality is tied into our decisions and actions. As Andrew says, many decisions have no moral association.

I'd ask you what the "something deeper" going on in "I don't like person X because...." part is. You seem to suggest it's solely and always something deeper which is tied into our morals, but it could be tied into a hundred other things.

I tend to be suspicious of talk about 'morals' and prefer to think in terms of 'ethics'.

OR

Person X wears motorcycle boots. You are afraid of people who wear motorcycle boots because you believe they want to beat you up. You think people who cause physical harm to others are wrong, therefore you disapprove of Person X.

OR

Person X wears motorcycle boots. You think that people who wear motorcycle boots when there is no motorcycle in sight are pretentious posers. You think assuming the stance of something you are not is wrong, therefore you disapprove of Person X.

Any judgement of good or bad/right or wrong boils down to your experiences filtered through your tastes which are heavily informed by your morality and personality. The position I'm arguing from (perhaps a very Momusian position) is that you cannot divorce your personality from your morality (which I am perhaps incorrectly equating with ethics).

(xpost hahaha SEE I TOLD YOU THIS WAS A SEMANTICS ARGUMENT)

that's a pretty big filter. you make no provision for aesthetics.

x-post I don't think he is though, saying someone is a "pretentious poser" as in that example is clearly moral. What if the person said "person X is wearing motorcycle boots, they look ridiculous with those green leather pants".

where's the moral judgement there?

Also, the fact that there are greater and lesser value judgements does not automatically preclude them from having a common basis. It is severe and wrong to say that disapproving of someone because they killed someone is exactly the same as disapproving of someone because they wear orange and purple, but NO ONE HAS SAID THAT THEY WERE EQUIVALENT IN SEVERITY and it's disingenuous and wrong to intimate that that argument has ever been put forth on this thread.

You end up with art approved by the church or the party: Academic tedium, social realist preaching, Nazi obscenity.

I already answered this. it's different for everything and difficult to deduce in any case, why don't YOU tell me how I did it, you seem to have an answer in mind or you wouldn't be asking.

Also nobody has accused anyone of saying that judging a murderer or judging a "bad dresser" are equally severe, the point being made is that to say they are both moral judgements is incorrect.

x-post I've not labelled anything as conservative to avoid discussion, I presumed my post could be taken as read and its meaning deduced, the only one avoiding thinking about anything is you, by assuming I use the word purely as a slur, Micheal explains what I meant very well.

That's not an answer. That is the informational equivalent to saying "I don't know." I don't have an answer for you. I want you to think about it and tell me; if I had an answer for you I'd have given it, I'm not shy about that kind of thing!

Also nobody has accused anyone of saying that judging a murderer or judging a "bad dresser" are equally severe, the point being made is that to say they are both moral judgements is incorrect.

Kerry's post seem to be doing this:

hstencil, you're equating aesthetic judgments with "ideals of freedom and human worth" or "religion" - that's the problem I have with your broad interpretation of the word "values". I think it's a bit severe to equate aesthetic or lifestyle choices - what we find pleasant or unpleasant - with the sort of moral judgments found in religion.

I've not labelled anything as conservative to avoid discussion, I presumed my post could be taken as read and its meaning deduced, the only one avoiding thinking about anything is you, by assuming I use the word purely as a slur, Micheal explains what I meant very well.

You used the word "conservative" to evoke Nazi images and fascism and you did so in a manner that intimates that the position I'm arguing leads by definition to Nazism and fascism. I have not done anything like this to you.

I would also like to reiterate that I think the self-righteousness described by the thread question is driven by arrogance; namely the arrogant assumption that the self-righteous person is right and that the subject of the self-righteousness would be a better person if the self-righteous one could make him/her conform to his/her world view.

You used the word "conservative" to evoke Nazi images and fascism and you did so in a manner that intimates that the position I'm arguing leads by definition to Nazism and fascism. I have not done anything like this to you.

In all fairness, I did that. I meant only to imply that when esthetics and morality are too tightly bound to each other, one ends up with things like socialist realism or 'official' art, the greatest crime of which, Nazi hatred aside, is its tediousness and rigidity. I did not mean to suggest that your position leads to any particular kind of boring art, just exagerating a case against overly moralistic art in general. Where's Oscar Wilde when one needs him?

Why do you dislike things?

depends entirely on the thing, a million different reasons.

this is a bullshit question basically, the reasons for liking things are varied and multiple and they do depend entirely on the thing you're talking about. once again if you think there's a solely moral root to all value judgements or "why I like/dislike things" then it's up to you to prove that as much as me to defend it, which I have now done for the THIRD time. fuck these bullshit rhetorical "traps" for once Dan won't you.

I did not use the word conservative to evoke "nazi images", more utterly selective bullshit, I used the word to point out the dangers of moral considerations polluting how we aesthetically value things, ie "that record is shit because it's sexist".

How many times do I have to bring up social realism before you'll allow that I'm being ecumenical enough in my esthetic smackdown?

Who is being the self-rightous dickweed and attributing bullshit positions to me that I have never espoused? You are.

Who did not get insulting until after enduring several needlessly hostile responses full of prejudgement? Me.

Fuck you right back, you hypocritical jackass.

Sorry, I meant to be more explicit and say Socialist Realism. I don't necessarily hate any of these genres though I do tend to find Nazi art pretentious.

Kerry's post seem to be doing this:

No, I was cautioning against qualitatively linking the two.

The reason I got hostile is because I attempt to argue and you patronise me first by suggesting I use the word conservative in an utterly stupid kneejerk manner, then suggesting I used it to evoke Nazi imagery, I refuted both those arguments as "bullshit", I've yet to make a personal attack on you.

If that's your last post here then fine. If you want to stay on topic then go ahead.

x-post I think there are some extremely interesting issues there Hstencil, I personally am not smart enough to discuss them though!

zinged.

that wasn't a personal attack, btw. I was just saying that "self-righteous" is a problematic term as it assumes that someone's motivation is to express moral superiority. I would prefer to reserve such a term for someone who outright proclaims their moral superiority.

x-post, Dan:

I do not see why it is so radical and evil to suggest that your morals inform your likes and dislikes,

"Radical and evil" are not my terms. I simply don't equate "morals" with "values", period. I don't feel that my "morals" inform my own likes and dislikes.

A "value set," to me, is just a synonym for "morals," that's all I mean to say. It doesn't matter whether that "value set" or "morals" is based on religion, on ideals of freedom and human worth, or on purely aesthetic grounds.

You've got a lot of fucking nerve calling me condescending and then graciously granting me permission to stay on this thread as long as I stay on topic.

I asked you why you PERSONALLY like and dislike things because I wanted to get a better sense of where you are coming from. In general, I think that many of people's likes and dislikes are put into them via experiences with resulting pain/discomfort and pleasure/comfort. I think that moral/ethical codes are formed in the same way and that these things are intertwined and inform each other to the point where they are indistinguishable in that person's personality and outlook. This is my take on things and the position I've been arguing from this whole thread. I wanted to get a better handle on your position because, as I've been saying this entire fucking thread, I think the basis of our disagreement is a semantic one and that we are more in agreement than disagreement. I was not looking to "trip you up". I was not looking for a specific answer. I was not trying to tell you what to write.

You are projecting a gigantic amount of bullshit on me. It seems to form the basis of every interaction I have on ILE these days that isn't a stupid scatalogical joke. I am fucking tired of it.

I am very wary of judging things by the intentions of their builders. To me this is mistaking the menu for the meal. The pyramids are, ideologically, perhaps the silliest and the cruellest of any buildings on the planet but they still fill me with awe. The Parthenon is awesome, but with out its garish paint and religious function the Athenians who built it would probably find it soulless and sad. The châteaux on the Loire are lovely but they are also reminders of a time of immense privilege and inequality. Etc...

when is self-righteousness useful? Can self-righteousness be useful, or is it always harmful or detrimental?

Any thoughts?

I think these are tough questions for me to answer, which is why I find them interesting.

Ronan otm

lol old thread. i know who i was talking about tho. age hasn't lessened this trait.

tho perhaps i'm self-righteous to point it out.

Have you ever been self-righteous, and what purpose did that serve? How did you feel afterwards?

These are good questions. Some of my worst and most cringe-worthy actions have been driven by a deluded sense of self-righteousness.