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.

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.)

Scroogey

moral superiority derived from a person deeming their own [...] to be of greater virtue than 

, which is bad, we're talking superiority. Your example, instead, is empathy-based moral conviction.

Stacker Saloon

saloon

> 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.