Sanctimony, self-righteousness, and virtue signalling.

[Knower of nothing]

The great danger is the clinging to a non-universal morality. As this is easily and quickly corrupted by the convenient and flexible self-interest, all the while still making you think your morality rests on an external pillar. The last ingredient for disaster then, would be not the self-rightousness, which is inherent to all of us, but instead the sheer confidence to transform it from belief into action without being apprehended by social or physical threat.
I believe this mix of convenience and confidence at the extreme is what makes up sociopathy. The confidence alone would be fanaticism. The convience alone I think would be most people, simply doing what they want when they can and building any justification that fits the moment retroactively. Weaving around accountability and consistency with ease. It is often only the current emotions that inform the sense of justice. This is most capable of surviving society, so it makes sense to be used. Principles are rigid and rigidness means breaking under pressure, rather than adapting.

 

[Kalinychta]

That's the technical definition, though... that's not truly how the real world works. People are more complicated and nuanced than the thesaurus you pulled those lists from, or the dictionary that hands people the original definition. And really, I've never met a single person... not even one... who hasnt shown some of those qualities.

Even you, no offense meant. What you've just said here, and what you're saying in this thread overall, could easily be taken that way. The thread as a whole is basically "these are my morals. Surely you all agree with them, because if you dont, there are problems". That ABSOLUTELY fits multiple words you've listed here.

My point is that nobody is perfect with this stuff. We all do it, from time to time, and there are no exceptions to that rule. I firmly believe that.

Again though, what truly matters is your actions. There's more to being a good or bad person than fitting into some printed definition in a dictionary or whatever. To try to fit everyone into perfectly shaped boxes like that, like well... that's a very slippery slope. And it doesnt lead to a friendly place. Just something to keep in mind.

So true. Most of the time, I’ve found that the people who complain the most and the loudest about sanctimony, self-righteousness, and virtue signaling in others are those who possess those traits themselves.

 

[Magna]

So true. Most of the time, I’ve found that the people who complain the most and the loudest about sanctimony, self-righteousness, and virtue signaling in others are those who possess those traits themselves.

^ So well said as this has been my experience as well.

 

[Jonn]

That's the technical definition, though... that's not truly how the real world works. People are more complicated and nuanced than the thesaurus you pulled those lists from, or the dictionary that hands people the original definition.

The difference between being sanctimonious and virtuous is the attitude.
"Sanctimonuousness" is never a positive. It is never "virtuous".

Instead of using the word "Sanctimonious", use "virtuous" if you want to express a positive characteristic.

There are both types of people in the world.
And people can change. They simply have to work on it.

sanctimoniousness
noun [ U ]
formal disapproving

a quality of acting as if you are morally better than others:
I found his sanctimoniousness quite irritating.
a sense of smug sanctimoniousness

https://au.search.yahoo.com/yhs/sea...&param1=4056&param2=84481&p=Sanctimonuousness