Where does self-righteous come from? Dumb?

So, how do you think a self-righteous person might answer this question?

How do you think a humble person would answer it?

I don't exempt myself from anything I wrote above. Self righteousness is part of human nature. Everyone is self righteous. Even considering oneself to be innocent in that regard, is in itself an act of self righteousness isn't it?

Move too far away from self righteousness and one is in danger of just not standing for anything and becoming permissive to the point of moral nihilism etc.

I saw your previous more insulting response before it was changed. By you or by the thought police? I find your attitude very empty. You never give a counter argument. What specifically do you disagree with in what I have written? What do YOU think is the source of self righteousness? This post was edited by Zeitgeist at March 27, 2018 7:49 PM MDT

I didn't delete anything.   I've only deleted one response in about 18 months, and that was when I had had a bad day; and in reading what I had posted in that instance, I realized I had crossed my own line.
In my circle, at a certain level of IQ, what you call "insulting responses" are an appreciated part of intellectual sparring.

And generally speaking, I cannot insult anyone without their consent---which is why my colleagues and I don't take offense at each other's comments.   

And you are right---self-righteousness is part of the human condition.  Here is a another way to put it: 

The human intellect cannot be put in possession of its object by some exterior agent that takes it there. There is for us no knowledge except our own knowledge, no truth except self-acquired truth.

Once you stated that "No, it has nothing to do with intelligence," I had a problem with your answer.  If you want to be self-righteous in the good rather than the pejorative sense of the word, intelligence has everything to do with it.  One's judgment is only as good as one's information; and the correct evaluation of information involves the ability to learn how to reason and how to evaluate what is professed as knowledge.

Your horizontal opinion structuring makes explaining any disagreement that I may have with you more laborious than I am inclined to undertake. 

For example while you wrote in your answer to Rosie's question that:

"The average beta male, who tolerates his wife's nagging and p*ssy whipping for fear of ending up divorced and financially crucified, isn't going to risk everything for the kind of woman he can get. They may lack the self awareness to see that if they had all the power in their relationship, if they could force their wife to tolerate infidelity or be replaced by someone more agreeable without any real consequences, they might just turn to the dark side."

That suggests that beta males are more motivated by a risk-reward paradigm when evaluating whether to remain faithful to their wives.

The equally plausible explanation is that such makes more highly value keeping a promise they made on their wedding when they freely chose to to bind their transcendental selves (the person that underlies who they were, are, and will be) to each other "for better or worse."

Way too much work to argue such a position, and I have no expectation of being able to change your mind---nor would I particularly want to.

Beyond that, I choose to volunteer (unbidden) as an assistant referee---what used to be called one of the lineman in soccer one of whose duties is judging when the ball has left the field of play.

I find humility to be the source of all meaningful self-confidence.

I was arguing that those who have the power to avoid significantly negative consequences are more tempted than those who don’t, all other things being equal. I was arguing that those who have never experienced power may have trouble empathising.

I do not claim fear of negative consequence is the only factor in people’s behaviour. I was simply giving an example of temptations that most people don’t experience and may therefore underestimate.

“If you want to be self-righteous in the good rather than the pejorative sense of the word, intelligence has everything to do with it.”

Yes, perhaps it is a type of intelligence. Though I prefer to call it wisdom. I have known people who I consider very intelligent, in terms of their reasoning ability, who I don't consider wise and vice versa. In most real world situations there are too many unknowns to reach proper conclusion based on reason alone. Intelligent people can still be extremely gullible. Without keen instincts, an intelligent person can still be deceived and manipulated with ease.

I have often observed that reasoning ability makes people good at analysing the information they have, but not necessarily good at considering what may be missing. They can also fail to properly question their starting assumptions. Being blinkered is not wise.

They also often have the delusion that their intelligence helps them channel Mr Spock and not be influenced by emotion. This is completely false. Emotion is the foundation of the human condition. We’re all emotional. The pride they place in their intellect can blind them to how emotional considerations are influencing their thought process.

This post was edited by Zeitgeist at March 28, 2018 1:15 PM MDT

:):):)