Group Moral Licensing
We are more willing to do bad if we have recently done good. We also think we get more excuses to do bad if our group is good:
Five studies supported the hypothesis that people are more willing to express prejudiced attitudes when their group members’ past behavior has established nonprejudiced credentials. Study 1a showed that participants who were told that their group was more moral than similar other groups were more willing to describe a job as better suited for Whites than for African Americans. In Study 1b, when given information on group members’ prior nondiscriminatory behavior (selecting a Hispanic applicant in a prior task), participants subsequently gave more discriminatory ratings to the Hispanic applicant for a position stereotypically suited for majority members (Whites). In Study 2, moral self-concept mediated the effect of others’ prior nonprejudiced actions on a participant’s subsequent prejudiced behavior such that others’ past nonprejudiced actions enhanced the participant’s moral self-concept, and this inflated moral self-concept subsequently drove the participant’s prejudiced ratings of a Hispanic applicant. In Study 3, the moderating role of identification with the credentialing group was tested. Results showed that participants expressed more prejudiced attitudes toward a Hispanic applicant when they highly identified with the group members behaving in nonprejudiced manner. In Study 4, the credentialing task was dissociated from the participants’ own judgmental task, and, in addition, identification with the credentialing group was manipulated rather than measured. Consistent with prior studies, the results showed that participants who first had the opportunity to view an in-group member’s nonprejudiced hiring decision were more likely to reject an African American man for a job stereotypically suited for majority members. These studies suggest a vicarious moral licensing effect. (more)
Citizens of the United States are especially proud of a history of (supposedly) doing good. The US sees itself as having saved the world from Nazism and Communism, of creating and sustaining modern medicine, of educating the world via the best universities, of being the main innovators in computer tech, of upholding the highest standards of civil and gender rights, of being unusually devoted to religion, etc.
All this self-respect, deserved or not, probably makes US citizens more willing to do bad, both individually and collectively. Dear US citizens: please ask yourself how sure you can be that your actions on the world stage are actually for good.
It's a natural tendency for anyone / country possessing power (doing good also enhances power) and making errors while exercising their influence to achieving further goals. May be this tendency could be due to rampant industrialisation, globalisation, and the consequent acquisition of economic development, pci gaps and leading countries (first world) into a false sense of superiority, Today we do observe many economic, and social gaps in these societies.
Doing 'good' and expecting returns for the same is not 'doing good'. Selfish tendencies are an act of survival for the weak and insecure in a moral sense. That's why priests who traditionally hold power over man as the avatar of God, loses out on the power race, when the followers / subjects get to understand the sometimes selfish tendencies of the priest/ king/ government. Modernity, through active media channels and networking has helped in enabling a more equitable and transparent world into our common future.
The US like any other country had the opportunity to 'do good', in the pure sense of giving and not through exploitation. I hasten to state that the writer's positive statements about America is so true and has gained the respect and maybe envy of the other nations. A big brother will gain respect and love from his actions (helpful) for his siblings and members beyond the family. America has a respectable history of philanthropy, social security schemes et. al. Collective good cannot come without enlightened leadership which stands up stoically against greed, selfishness, pride, and the other basic errors going against encouraging and ensuring a more humane society. A more humane society established globally will ensure minimum equity, sharing, trust and consequently, happiness for all of man.
Prince Charles is an immoral, hypocritical idiot. He is no icon of morality or of science or of liberalism and is no member of any groups that are (as far as I know). I don't see any way that he could possibly get a claim on group morality by belonging to a particular group.
I don't really understand your position. If you don't accept the science of AGW, then Al Gore's actions will have no impact on AGW, no impact on Greenland melting, no impact on sea level rise, and so can't have a moral value.
If you do accept the science of AGW, then if GHG emissions are compensated for (as Al Gore's are), then there is no increase in GHG due to certain activities, there is no increase in global warming due to certain activities, there is no accelerated melting of Greenland, there is no accelerated rise in sea level, there can be no moral issue over a non-existent increase.
Compact fluorescent light bulbs are more energy efficient than tungsten filament, they also last a lot longer (~10x). They are cheaper both to purchase and to operate. If one replaces ten 100 Watt incandescent bulbs with ten 18 Watt compact fluorescent bulbs, one uses ~820 fewer Watts per hour of operation. If we look at the energy cost of operating an electric oven
http://www.consumerenergyce...
Assuming the liberal NYT readers use a slightly more efficient electric convection oven, the power consumption is 1.39 kwhr for 45 minutes at 325 F. Assuming steady state, an hour at 500 F in an 80 F ambient would use ((60/45) * (500-80) / (325-80) )* 1.39 = 3.18 kwhr.
So by operating 10 CFL instead of 10 incandescent bulbs for 3.9 hours, the CFL user who bakes pizza in an oven for an hour is energy consumption neutral. If pizza is cooked this way once a week, then using CFLs for less than one hour a day makes up for the energy use in cooking the pizza.
Where is the immorality in that?
If you don't accept the science of AGW, then there is no ice melting and sea level rise to talk about. If you do accept the science of AGW, then maybe cooking pizza that way is profligate, but it needn't be.
Does anyone dispute that adultery is immoral? Do those “moral leaders” claim that what they are doing is mitigating their immorality? If Gingrich had open marriages with his former wives, where having sex with other people was understood by them to be acceptable, then what he did would not be immoral. But he and is former wives did not have open marriages. Gingrich has not gotten his earlier marriages annulled, which means they never happened (in Gingrich's eyes). So cheating on his then wives is not now adultery because those were just fake marriages.
Is this the kind of “morality” that is acceptable for “leaders” to exhibit?