This is G o o g l e's cache of http://sixteenvolts.blogspot.com/2006/03/look-at-me-i-am-so-moral.html as retrieved on 12 Sep 2006 02:13:08 GMT.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:PU5oCethnroJ:sixteenvolts.blogspot.com/2006/03/look-at-me-i-am-so-moral.html+site:sixteenvolts.blogspot.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=542


Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.

Send As SMS

« Home | What You See Is Total Crap » | Poster boy » | A few one-paragraph thoughts » | BABF20 » | Eggs Ackley strikes again » | Riding the dinosaurs to church » | It even smells like a street » | Encountering the Other » | And the big wheel keep on turning » | Flipping »

Look at me, I am so moral

If there is one thing that all people and groups of people can be relied on to have an infinite capacity of, it is their ability to turn necessity into virtue. If anybody invented a machine that converts this to energy, humanity would be set for eternity without an energy crisis.

When you look at how people of all stripes try to prove that they are morally superior, it's fascinating how often they use an argument of the form "I am moral, because I don't do X" without understanding that for this argument to apply, two premises first have to be established:

  1. It is feasible for the speaker to do X.
  2. The speaker would gain a net benefit from doing X.

Without these two premises, the argument is nothing but empty rhetoric and flapping of gums. And if you simply take a look at people and groups who use the erroneous version of this argument, you can usually immediately see why they need to use it, as they have few other claims to moral superiority.

A similar, somewhat related rhetorical trick is often used with the threat of the form "Unless you do Y, I will do X". For this to be an actual threat, two premises first have to be established:

  1. It is feasible for the speaker to do X.
  2. The speaker would not gain a net benefit from doing X.

As a special case of these premises, if the speaker has already committed to doing X for some other reasons, especially if doing X would be beneficial to the speaker, the threat is meaningless and it doesn't pay to the listener to obey it, since the speaker will do X anyways.

The previous threat can also be modified to establish the moral superiority of the speaker, when used in the negated form "Because it would cause harm to Z, I will not do X". Of course, the speaker has already committed to not doing X for some completely different reasons, which perhaps would not sound quite as noble as avoiding harming Z. This way, the speaker gets to revel in his moral superiority that doesn't really cost him anything. (I believe that the word of the day is "moral freeloading".) The only way to reveal the true nature of the speaker would be to somehow take away the real reasons why he doesn't do X, and then see if he is still interested in not doing X so that Z would not get hurt. But this is usually difficult to do, so the speaker gets to pretend that his real motives are something else than what they really are.

I don't think that the reader will need even one minute to come up with people and groups who routinely use the techniques listed above. Especially all kinds of victim groups so beloved by leftists can use them as naturally as a fish swims. For example, I understood the way these techniques work the first time many years ago when a bunch of young leftist women threatened to go on a "baby-making strike" if more nuclear power is built in Finland, since it was blatantly obvious to anybody that none of these women had any intention whatsoever to have babies anyway in the near future. A threat this inane is at par with some guy trying to rob a bank by pointing a banana at the teller, or perhaps claiming that he chooses not to become an international rock star because he is opposed to the way music industry fights music downloading. Sure thing, buddy. You sure are moral to make such a huge sacrifice for others.

In a similar vein, as I explained in my earlier post "Look at me, I'm so edgy", many voluntarily childfree people pretend that the reason why they will not have children is because the "world is so bad", without bothering to explain how exactly the world would have to be better so that they would have children. This way, they get both the comforts of being childfree and moral superiority as somebody who is concerned about the world, instead of only the comforts of being childfree.

Comments

Links to this post

Create a Link

Contact

ilkka.kokkarinen@gmail.com

Buttons

Site Meter
Subscribe to this blog's feed
[What is this?]