Home Politics Atheism Culture Books
Colophon Contact RSS

Why we find moral leaders annoying

WHY MORAL LEADERS ARE ANNOYING: Josh Rothman writes of the problem:
Moral leadership is challenging for an obvious reason -- you have to know what's right and wrong. But it's also difficult because, on the whole, people are ambivalent about moral crusaders. Now there's a name for that strange mixture of admiration, guilt, and defensive dismissiveness you feel when you encounter someone better than you: it's called "anticipated reproach," and Benoît Monin, a psychologist at Stanford, has studied it in a number of fascinating experiments. His essential finding: The more we feel as though good people might be judging us, the lower they tend to fall in our regard. As he explains in a recent paper, coauthored with Julia Minson of Wharton, "overtly moral behavior can elicit annoyance and ridicule rather than admiration and respect" when we feel threatened by someone else's high ethical standards.
This seems to echo the truth more loudly than anything else I've seen thus far today. It's true that we feel threatened by someone else's (often impractical and unrealistically) high moral standards and ethical codes. Although I tend to subscribe to a far simpler philosophy on the whole matter: modern moral crusaders seem perennially trying to convince you of their cause, and this, in itself, is annoying. Sorry, but as scintillating as I'm lead to believe they are, I just don't care for your views on whaling, global warming, or the need for healthier eating – particularly when your outlet is a Facebook page. It's hard to know how anyone could take you all so seriously.