Holier-Than-Thou

It seems impossible to find an online article about topics like bicycle commuting, watching less television, or vegetarianism that do not inspire comments from people who claim that the authors (or other commenters or other people who perform the behavior) are taking a "holier-than-thou" attitude toward people who drive their cars, watch TV, or eat meat. And while it's certainly true that there are people who both (1) feel virtuous because they perform these behaviors that express moral values and (2) are happy to share their opinion that they are morally superior to others who do not perform these behaviors, I believe that a lot of the sanctimony is in the eyes of the reader.

I've noticed several themes in these articles that some readers claim to exhibit a holier-than-thou attitude:

* Discussions of the benefits (e.g., financial, psychological, physical - not moral) of the behavior

* Discussions about how the behavior is easier than the reader might think

* Stories of personal conversion to the behavior

Some of these articles are intended to be persuasive, but some are not (at least, not consciously). In particular, personal conversion stories are sometimes full of very positive evaluations of the behavior because the author is extremely excited and happy with this change in their life, and this enthusiasm can be read as proselytizing.

Of course these articles provoke counterarguing (including the consideration of costs that off-set the benefits) and other defensive strategies in people who do not perform the behaviors. But it's interesting to me that the primary form of source derogation (and what I personally view in a lot of cases as the last ditch effort of the individual who cannot generate counterarguments that even the individual herself believes are convincing) is that the author of the message is taking a morally superior tone. It's one thing to say that you reject the argument because the argument itself is not convincing or because the author is untrustworthy or lacks relevant expertise. It's quite another to say that you reject the argument because the author presents it in a morally superior way.

Why do people use somebody's "holier-than-thou attitude" as a basis for rejection? Maybe others buy into the idea that people who are not “nice” (e.g., make even an implicit suggestion that their own behavior is better than yours) should be shunned or publicly defamed (with an attendant devaluing of their opinions) more than I do. Maybe others are not as adept at constructing convenient rationalizations for the discrepancies between their values and their behavior as I am. Maybe others think that somebody rubbing them the wrong way really is a legit reason for ignoring what they have to say.

Whatever the case, I just want to say to these people who are quick to make accusations of sanctimony:

The fact that some people who perform this behavior believe they are morally superior to those who do not is not, in itself, a valid reason to reject the idea that people, including you, should perform the behavior.