On Being a Sanctimonious Prick

[viscousmemories]

As is the case with many words, I never really heard the word 'sanctimonious' until I started posting at IIDB. Until just now I thought it meant self-righteous, but apparently it means "feigning piety or righteousness", whereas self-righteous apparently means "piously sure of one's own righteousness". So it seems that on some issues where I thought I was a sanctimonious prick, I am in fact merely a self-righteous prick.

But here's the thing. There's another word along those lines: Integrity. Apparently integrity means "adherence to a strict moral or ethical code". So this is where the confusion comes in. When I steadfastly maintain my own moral viewpoint in a discussion or debate, I tend to feel that I am demonstrating integrity, but people sometimes react like I am being sanctimonious or self-righteous.

So what's the deal? How can I have integrity and not be accused of the others?

[Socratoad]

Interesting OP, One can only maintain one's integrity by doing just that. Oh yes I know what you mean though. Like Socrates my namesake I insist on maintaining my integrity for it is my most precious possession. Integrity is often mistaken for other traits, however those that really matter will sooner or later come to recognize integrity. Others mainly from a deep sense of insecurity or other hangups such as not having integrity are bound to throw stones, this is unfortunately an unfortunate dilemma of the human condition. There is a vast difference between image and character. If one values popularity over a few but loyal friends then just accept the facts that throughout life many rocks shall be thrown.

The wisdom that many fail to comprehend is that the much sought after "self-esteem" that has spawned millions of books is nothing more than integrity.

Integrity leads to serenity. Is that not what all sane humans seek?

PS: The irony is that many may now accuse me of being sanctimonious.

[Gawen]

Hmmm. I'm thinking of an airliner or ship whos fuselage/hull has been compromised...uh, hold on a tic. Compromised means "to adjust or settle by mutual concessions". Ok, let's try your word, "integrity".

I'm thinking of an airliner or ship whos fuselage/hull integrity has been compromised...*pause*

*start again*...I'm thinking of an airliner or ship whos fuselage/hull...*pause again*

I reckon VM you're gonna have to quantify the differences to those that may take umbrage...to allay their misconceptions.

Oh...by umbrage, I mean: a feeling of pique or resentment <took umbrage at the speaker's remarks>
Not: shady branches or an indistinct indication : vague suggestion or a reason for doubt.
And by misconception I mean: an incorrect conception. Not delusion, erroneous belief, error, fallacy, false belief, fancy, fantasy, hallucination, idea, illusion, mirage, misapprehension, mistake, misunderstanding, phantasy, self-deceit, self-deception, or thought.

I have no clue what "allay" means, but it sounded good...*grinnin*

[Farren]

As is the case with many words, I never really heard the word 'sanctimonious' until I started posting at IIDB. Until just now I thought it meant self-righteous, but apparently it means "feigning piety or righteousness", whereas self-righteous apparently means "piously sure of one's own righteousness". So it seems that on some issues where I thought I was a sanctimonious prick, I am in fact merely a self-righteous prick.

But here's the thing. There's another word along those lines: Integrity. Apparently integrity means "adherence to a strict moral or ethical code". So this is where the confusion comes in. When I steadfastly maintain my own moral viewpoint in a discussion or debate, I tend to feel that I am demonstrating integrity, but people sometimes react like I am being sanctimonious or self-righteous.

So what's the deal? How can I have integrity and not be accused of the others?

I think you generally come across as possessing tremendous integrity. But maybe I'm biased, since I agree with most of the things you say. I do think the distinction can be made by examining all of a person's statements all together and looking for certain qualities:

1) Are all of a person's views consistent with each other? If not, does a particular view that conflicts with others clearly serve to bring them in line with the general consensus? If so, their motives are suspect or they can't recognise their own herd-following instincts and are, at least, self-righteous and fail to see their own underlying motives.

2) Do they ever admit fault or express self-doubt? If so, how frequently and how appropriately. If such admissions are inappropriate they may be faking it to back out of corners and simply be liked. If appropriate, its a commendation of their other views as well-considered.

3) Do they show clear bias against a particular person to the point of contradicting themselves (see 1) when discussing issues with that person. If so, its not necessarily a condemnation of all their views but a clear indication that their reason and compassion can be significantly compromised by petty personality clashes, and reason to infer unwarranted bias in some of their posts.

These are just a few I can think of off the cuff, but I had a few more in mind when I started itemising. Unfortunately I'm a little pickled and can't remember the others. In any event, on the basis of most inidicators I believe you can more accurately be described as "sincere", but not necessarily "sanctimonious" or "self-righteous".

I think you're a very sincere person, vm. I don't agree with every last thing you say but I respect your opinion immensely even when I disagree. IOW if I disagree, there's always nonetheless a shadow of self-doubt because I know the contentious issue is well-considered and generous in its intent.

[Socratoad]

Methinks that self-doubt and integrity are part of the same cloth. For integrity is not arrogance, although a person may sometimes confuse one with the other. Having no claim on infallibility I have sometimes upon reflection realized the I too have been guilty of confusing the two. All one can do is to try a little harder.

I left the business world because of integrity or more correctly the lack thereof. It is very very hard to maintain integrity in the world of uber Capitalism, which may or may not be a great Op for a new thread.

[dave_a]

As is the case with many words, I never really heard the word 'sanctimonious' until I started posting at IIDB. Until just now I thought it meant self-righteous, but apparently it means "feigning piety or righteousness", whereas self-righteous apparently means "piously sure of one's own righteousness". So it seems that on some issues where I thought I was a sanctimonious prick, I am in fact merely a self-righteous prick.

But here's the thing. There's another word along those lines: Integrity. Apparently integrity means "adherence to a strict moral or ethical code". So this is where the confusion comes in. When I steadfastly maintain my own moral viewpoint in a discussion or debate, I tend to feel that I am demonstrating integrity, but people sometimes react like I am being sanctimonious or self-righteous.

So what's the deal? How can I have integrity and not be accused of the others?


Well, if we go to the discussion you and I are having now in the thread about food animal treatment I would say you are being sanctimonious. The reason why I would label your behavior as such is that I told you we were drawing lines subjectively, but at different places. I also said that I didn't consider your view wrong, just different than mine.

You responded saying you agreed entirely except that my viewpoint was wrong.

Here is the thing. You agreed that we were drawing lines subjectively and yet you labelled where I was drawing the line as wrong, therefore you are being sanctimonious.

You are arguing according to your morality, but you are holding your morality, which you admit is subjective rather than objective as superior to another moral view that is also subjective.

If you argued that your position was objectively based rather than subjectively based I would cut you some slack (maybe).

So, there are 2 subjective opinions. You labelled mine wrong. That's pretty much the definition of sanctimonious.

In past discussions you have refused to answer direct questions saying you considered them irrelevant. That strikes me as somewhat sanctimonious.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents. I still like you though :P

[Adora]

So what's the deal? How can I have integrity and not be accused of the others?

Don't interact with human beings.

[livius drusus]

So, there are 2 subjective opinions. You labelled mine wrong. That's pretty much the definition of sanctimonious.

No, it's not. Sanctimonious = "feigning piety or righteousness"; self-righteous = "piously sure of one's own righteousness". Unless you're suggesting he was faking his position, you think he's self-righteous, not sanctimonious.

I mean, really, dantonac. Read the OP at least.

[dave_a]

So, there are 2 subjective opinions. You labelled mine wrong. That's pretty much the definition of sanctimonious.

No, it's not. Sanctimonious = "feigning piety or righteousness"; self-righteous = "piously sure of one's own righteousness". Unless you're suggesting he was faking his position, you think he's self-righteous, not sanctimonious.

I mean, really, dantonac. Read the OP at least.

Is there a reason you feel the need to be insulting to me in nearly every post? Your last line was characteristicly rude.

Upon examination I would conclude that self-righteous would better fit, but to suggest that I didn't read the OP is unnecessary and serves no purpose other than to allow you to fling an insult.

[viscousmemories]

Interesting OP, One can only maintain one's integrity by doing just that. Oh yes I know what you mean though. Like Socrates my namesake I insist on maintaining my integrity for it is my most precious possession.
I feel the same way.

Integrity is often mistaken for other traits, however those that really matter will sooner or later come to recognize integrity. Others mainly from a deep sense of insecurity or other hangups such as not having integrity are bound to throw stones, this is unfortunately an unfortunate dilemma of the human condition. There is a vast difference between image and character. If one values popularity over a few but loyal friends then just accept the facts that throughout life many rocks shall be thrown.
That sounds like a reasonable conclusion to me, but given our propensity for more charitable interpretations of our own behavior, how can you trust your own judgement of what is stone throwing and what is justified criticism?

The wisdom that many fail to comprehend is that the much sought after "self-esteem" that has spawned millions of books is nothing more than integrity.
That's an interesting theory. I would think self-esteem is a by-product of having integrity, but I'm not sure I'd say they're synonyms. But I'll definitely think about that some more.

Integrity leads to serenity. Is that not what all sane humans seek?
Does it though? It seems to be the opposite to me: That those with the most integrity are the least serene as a result of internal struggle and external opposition. Thinking now of MLK, JFK, Gandhi, etc. I don't really know much about any of their personal histories actually, but from what little I know of them I've never thought them to be as much serene as tormented.

PS: The irony is that many may now accuse me of being sanctimonious.
No way! You're clearly self-righteous. :D

[livius drusus]

Is there a reason you feel the need to be insulting to me in nearly every post?

That seems hyperbolic.

Your last line was characteristicly rude.

One person's rude is another person's exasperated.

Upon examination I would conclude that self-righteous would better fit, but to suggest that I didn't read the OP is unnecessary and serves no purpose other than to allow you to fling an insult.

Well, you didn't answer the one question vm actually asked in his OP ("How can I have integrity and not be accused of the others?"), nor did you use the definitions he cited. It looked to me like you were doing something I've seen a million times on discussion boards: responding solely to the title with little to no consideration of the argument made in the actual post.

Having said that, I apologize for insulting you. It was not my intent in this post or in any other. I will make an effort not to do so in the future.

[viscousmemories]

Hmmm. I'm thinking of an airliner or ship whos fuselage/hull has been compromised...uh, hold on a tic. Compromised means "to adjust or settle by mutual concessions". Ok, let's try your word, "integrity".

I'm thinking of an airliner or ship whos fuselage/hull integrity has been compromised...*pause*

*start again*...I'm thinking of an airliner or ship whos fuselage/hull...*pause again*

I reckon VM you're gonna have to quantify the differences to those that may take umbrage...to allay their misconceptions.

Oh...by umbrage, I mean: a feeling of pique or resentment <took umbrage at the speaker's remarks>
Not: shady branches or an indistinct indication : vague suggestion or a reason for doubt.
And by misconception I mean: an incorrect conception. Not delusion, erroneous belief, error, fallacy, false belief, fancy, fantasy, hallucination, idea, illusion, mirage, misapprehension, mistake, misunderstanding, phantasy, self-deceit, self-deception, or thought.

I have no clue what "allay" means, but it sounded good...*grinnin*

If you had a serious point here you're gonna have to restate it for me. I can see a couple possible angles of seriousness, but right now I'm leaning toward the belief that you were being entirely silly. :P

[Socratoad]

Integrity leads to serenity. Is that not what all sane humans seek?
Does it though? It seems to be the opposite to me: That those with the most integrity are the least serene as a result of internal struggle and external opposition. Thinking now of MLK, JFK, Gandhi, etc. I don't really know much about any of their personal histories actually, but from what little I know of them I've never thought them to be as much serene as tormented.



Ah but I guess we are speaking about two sides of a coin. Yes one does at least I and I suspect you are outraged by the lack of integrity one sees all around in politics and business in particular. But the serenity I speak of is that which is obtained by looking in the mirror and knowing that one has not lied to oneself. This self-esteem is not some sort of stoicism where one assumes integrity by posing in some sort of monk-like status in the midst of starvation, cruelty. Such sham displays have more to do with escapism than integrity. And so like you I am content within my own skin while at the very same time outraged by injustice all around me.

And that applies to my theory of self-esteem. I came up with that all by my little self, although oh so many disagree with me.

An example: Why was Eli Wiesel able to maintain such high esteem in Dachau even though he and so many others were treated worse than dogs (so to speak). He can through while many many turned on one another. I attribute that to him always maintaining his integrity.

[dave_a]

Well, you didn't answer the one question vm actually asked in his OP ("How can I have integrity and not be accused of the others?"), nor did you use the definitions he cited.

I didn't use the definitions he cited (an error, not an omission), but I did answer the question. Don't label another person's subjective opinion as objectively wrong. Disagree with it, argue why one's own position is preferable/superior, but don't label other people's opinions as wrong. That's an answer to the question.

Having said that, I apologize for insulting you. It was not my intent in this post or in any other. I will make an effort not to do so in the future.

thanks.

[lisarea]

As is the case with many words, I never really heard the word 'sanctimonious' until I started posting at IIDB. Until just now I thought it meant self-righteous, but apparently it means "feigning piety or righteousness", whereas self-righteous apparently means "piously sure of one's own righteousness". So it seems that on some issues where I thought I was a sanctimonious prick, I am in fact merely a self-righteous prick.

Indeed.


But here's the thing. There's another word along those lines: Integrity. Apparently integrity means "adherence to a strict moral or ethical code". So this is where the confusion comes in. When I steadfastly maintain my own moral viewpoint in a discussion or debate, I tend to feel that I am demonstrating integrity, but people sometimes react like I am being sanctimonious or self-righteous.

One thing you have to remember about dictionaries is that they're descriptive. Their task is to accurately describe the meanings of words (for the most part), not to prescribe meanings. Some do a better job of describing usage than others, and for all, it's a challenge. Words have objective meanings, to be sure, but they have connotations as well, which are probably more difficult to describe in many cases. So you can have two words, integrity and self-righteousness (or sanctimony) that have very similar objective definitions, but very different connotations. You'll find a lot of word sets that are similar, in that they have the same or similar objective meanings, but the connotations are different--ameliorative, pejorative, or neutral.

The difference is in how the words are used, and the motivations of the speaker. The dictionary's mandate, generally, is to try to accurately describe the way those words are used. Personally, I use integrity to describe an ethical system to which someone adheres consistently. I use sanctimony to describe an ethical system that someone pretends to adhere to, and self-righteousness to describe when someone thoughtlessly applies their personal perspective to others without consideration. A sanctimonious person is someone who protests outside an abortion clinic the week after she's had an inconvenient pregnancy terminated herself. A self-righteous person is someone who opposes abortion and judges those who have them without having made any serious attempt to put herself into their shoes, and a person with integrity is someone who chooses to carry a pregnancy that was the result of a violent rape because she sincerely believes that it's the right thing to do.

So a sanctimonious person is just a species of hypocrite, IMO. A self-righteous person is someone with an unjustly black-and-white perspective or who lacks the ability or willingness to understand perspectives other than their own. A person with integrity is someone who acts in accordance with their beliefs, even at personal cost to themselves. In my opinion. But I'm right.

Again, from my subjective (but unwaveringly correct) perspective, the differences are blustering, humility, and externalism. People who judge and correct THEMSELVES have integrity. Self-righteousness and sanctimony tend to be directed toward others. Which is entirely appropriate at times, but the definition of appropriate is, of course, subjective.


So what's the deal? How can I have integrity and not be accused of the others?

You can't. People can accuse you of whatever they like. The best thing you can do is maintain your own integrity and not worry too much about what other people accuse you of, I guess. There are always sanctimonious and/or self-righteous pricks out there who will attach pejorative connotations.

[viscousmemories]

You are arguing according to your morality, but you are holding your morality, which you admit is subjective rather than objective as superior to another moral view that is also subjective.

If you argued that your position was objectively based rather than subjectively based I would cut you some slack (maybe).
I accept that through your interaction with livius you changed your claim here to assert that my comment in that thread was self-righteous and not sanctimonious, and I think that's a fairly accurate assessment of my opinion. Although I think "piously sure" implies a sort of zealous devotion to the idea that I wouldn't say I have, so I think self-righteous is probably wrong overall. In fact just this morning it occurred to me that I should have made an exception for medical science, because in fact I do believe (today, anyway) that all rights should be weighted such that we can justifably torture mice in search of a cure for cancer (for example) when doing so is deemed necessary.

I don't think the issue of subjective/objective morality is relevant. We both agree (I think) that all morality is subjective. But if it is my subjective opinion that rape is wrong (which it is) then I am going to maintain that anyone whose subjective moral opinion contradicts mine is wrong. Because it isn't my opinion that it's wrong to rape someone only if you believe it's wrong. I believe it's wrong to rape someone no matter what you believe.

In past discussions you have refused to answer direct questions saying you considered them irrelevant. That strikes me as somewhat sanctimonious.
I'm not sure if you also meant self-righteous here, but in either case I disagree. One example I can think of from our past discussions is your repeatedly asking me if I was in favor of banning all guns when we were discussing the assault rifle ban. That was plainly irrelevant to the arguments I was making and so I refused to answer it again, even though I had already answered it earlier in the thread. I don't know where you would get sanctimonious or self-righteous from that. The question appeared to me to be a red herring designed to portray me as completely anti-gun so you could avoid addressing my actual arguments. I don't see how refusing to go along with it makes me sanctimonious or self-righteous. Ignoring fallacious arguments in a debate is the appropriate response.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents. I still like you though :P
Well despite the fact that I agree with livius that you really only addressed the OP in a roundabout way, I do appreciate your input because my interactions with you on the foie gras thread did contribute inspiration for this one. Which is to say I thought I was probably coming across as self-righteous on that thread (and on many other past threads with many other people) and so I wanted to have this discussion. FWIW I like you too, even though I do think you equivocate a lot to justify your preconceptions about right and wrong. :P

[wade-w]

lisarea nailed it. Great post. :bow: :bow: :bow:

[dave_a]

In fact just this morning it occurred to me that I should have made an exception for medical science, because in fact I do believe (today, anyway) that all rights should be weighted such that we can justifably torture mice in search of a cure for cancer (for example) when doing so is deemed necessary.

I don't think the issue of subjective/objective morality is relevant. We both agree (I think) that all morality is subjective. But if it is my subjective opinion that rape is wrong (which it is) then I am going to maintain that anyone whose subjective moral opinion contradicts mine is wrong. Because it isn't my opinion that it's wrong to rape someone only if you believe it's wrong. I believe it's wrong to rape someone no matter what you believe.



Ok, but you say that you can make an exception to allow for animal torture for medical science reasons. Can you make any exception to allow for human rape under any circumstances?

That's the difference. We both hold that rape is unconditionally wrong. We both hold that animal "torture" can be morally defensible under some circumstances. You argued that we were talking about torture to produce an unnecessary snack food rather than a primary food source.

So, as I indicated in the thread, we largely agree, we just subjectively draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable conditions differently.

Labelling where I draw that line as wrong is self righteous. Particularly since we were discussing the properness of turning these subjective moral valuations into laws that force a judgement to be accepted or at least cooperated with by everyone regardless of their subjective valuations on the subject.

[pescifish]

So a sanctimonious person is just a species of hypocrite, IMO. A self-righteous person is someone with an unjustly black-and-white perspective or who lacks the ability or willingness to understand perspectives other than their own. A person with integrity is someone who acts in accordance with their beliefs, even at personal cost to themselves. In my opinion. But I'm right.

Again, from my subjective (but unwaveringly correct) perspective, the differences are blustering, humility, and externalism. People who judge and correct THEMSELVES have integrity. Self-righteousness and sanctimony tend to be directed toward others. Which is entirely appropriate at times, but the definition of appropriate is, of course, subjective.[bold emphasis mine]

As wade says, I think lisarea nailed this. A person can adhere to a strict moral or ethical code for themselves, without regard to whether it is right or wrong for others. I see self-righteousness and sanctimony as being attitudes that involve other people.

In my definition/understanding of those words: integrity can mean "live and let live" while the other two make varying degrees of implication that everyone else should "live as I say".

When it comes to discussing (rather than demonstrating) moral convictions, for me it would be pretty hard to differentiate between those three. IMO, the art[ifice] of debate demonstrates that a person can argue something perfectly without involving integrity, self-righteousness or sanctimony.

[viscousmemories]

I'm not sure why I didn't post that I agreed with wade and Pesci that lisarea nailed this issue, but I suspect it's because while I thought it was a good post I didn't fully understand her point. Or maybe I just got busy with something else.

Anyway re-reading this thread four months later and in light of other recent discussions it makes a lot more sense to me, and I think it's very insightful. Thanks lisa! :)

I think I agree with you too, pesci, but I wonder what you meant by 'artifice'. Did you mean to imply that it's strategic cleverness or deceptive trickery? (I had to look the word up and both definitions are given). :)