pull down to refresh
Doesn't self-righteousness have clearly negative connotations? From Wikipedia
Self-righteousness is an attitude and belief of moral superiority derived from a person deeming their own beliefs, actions, or affiliations to be of greater virtue than those of the average person.
If, as in the example, a person sees an animal being mistreated, and considers that an unacceptable injustice, and feels anger, motivating them to intervene, you'd call that self-righteous? Because the person believes they are morally superior due to their belief in animal rights? While, in fact, the average person would not agree?
Perceiving injustice is usually self-righteousness?
you'd call that self-righteous?
no because:
moral superiority derived from a person deeming their own [...] to be of greater virtue than those of the average person.
Self-righteousness is basically moral arrogance, which is bad, we're talking superiority. Your example, instead, is empathy-based moral conviction.
So there exists anger without self-righteousness? Then self-righteousness can't be the defining characteristic of anger.
(I'm not arguing petty anger doesn't exist or isn't the most common, or shouldn't be kept in check after having considered self-righteousness, btw.)
Well, I was mainly talking about unmotivated anger.
Anger that stems from lack of critical thinking and empathy.
Anger that stems from a single perspective being explored.
Anger that stems from solipsism.
I wasn't clear enough, but there's anger and anger.
It is, for me, embarrassing to withstand or produce a tantrum without a good cause.