3 ms·
> That’s not a controversial statement as people tend to rationalize their own behavior to justify themselves in all manners of behavior. When someone advocate
by wwweston 4y ago
> That’s not a controversial statement as people tend to rationalize their own behavior to justify themselves in all manners of behavior.
When someone advocates for a given ethical standard that permits their activities, how would you tell the difference between:
* post-hoc rationalized personal behavior
and
* real conviction in principles guiding their behavior
Personally, I start with whether they recognize any obligations/responsibilities, and my experience is that people do this across a spectrum of social outlooks. They construct the obligations differently -- there is reason to believe that people actually believe different things -- but there's no outlook on this topic that I've found corresponds to self-justification more than any other.
Rationalization's twin self-deception is nevertheless usually a worthwhile topic. But there's some good reason to suspect monogamists are not exactly in a superior position.
- nyokodo 4y ago> how would you tell the difference Well, there’s no infallible way to tell but it would pay to give extra careful critical attention to an ethical principle if that principle is extremely convenient to the lifestyle choices or proclivities of those proposing it or to oneself. Another good hint that something is self-justification or at least some kind of distortion is if there is no requirement for sacrifice, or no responsibility for the consequences, or no acknowledgment of any negative consequences. I.e. if you’re not being asked to give up/take on something you’d really rather not, and especially if you’re being told there’re no costs to these actions then be very suspicious.