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.

reply
169 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scroogey 15 Nov

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.)

reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @sox 15 Nov

I'm not saying that I'm right by not getting angry ever (even though I do get angry sometimes, I'm human). I'm saying that if you can choose between rational thinking and anger, and you choose anger, then that's a display of self-righteousness.

reply