Crusader War College

This article at Israpundit by Ed Remler suggests that there's a distinction between being Moral and being Moralistic:

Morality cows us. Moralists like to proclaim their conclusions as being evident: <>what is it about Thou Shalt Not Kill that you do not understand?

If you dare falter, if you cannot immediately see the validity of the argument, you are morally obtuse. Arguments of this type are moralistic as opposed to being merely moral. They aggress. The only defense against them--against being bulldozed by moralistic bullies--is tough analysis.

Similar to the distinction between moral and moralistic is that between rational and rationalistic. As I have discussed elsewhere [The Death of Yassin and the Limits of Rationality], the rationalistic argument misleads by a rhetorical focus the use of logic. It thereby suggests that its conclusions have the degree of certainty we attribute to science. In human affairs, such a suggestion is always false. It is rationality oversold by its purveyors and often overrated by its consumers.

What's the difference between being rational and being rationalistic?

Perfect logic does not guarantee certainty, for there is also the matter of ones assumptions (premises, postulates, and so on). And in human affairs, these are innumerable, commonly hidden and always uncertain. Rationalists and moralists both focus our attention on only the few assumptions they need to reach their sought for conclusions. Rationalistic rhetoric emphasizes the reasonability of favored assumptions (we all seek to maximize our happiness, seeing is believing,...); the moralistic, emphasizes the obvious truth and overwhelming force of dicta.

Carefully selected obvious truth and overwhelming dicta.

This is one of those rare insights that make the long hours of web surfing worthwhile, since such insights bring into focus and comprehensibility behaviors that otherwise seem puzzling or give one a nagging feeling. However, rather than discourse at length between the moral and the moralist, I will assume that you, my readers, are moral rather than moralists. You being familiar with the real thing allows me to speed up your education by pointing out where the counterfeit comes up short.

The goal of the Moral is to be good relative to an objective code, and influence others to be good relative to that same code. The goal of the Moralist is to win an argument by using moral arguments.

The Moral regards the code as objectively good, and holds suspect any cause that contradicts the code. The Moralist holds that a certain cause is good, and holds suspect any code that contradicts or undermines their cause.

The Moral makes judgments based on all the facts. The Moralist focuses only on selected facts that support their argument.

The Moral adheres to the code at all times. The Moralist adheres to the code only while convenient.

The Moral attempts to embrace all that the code encompasses. The Moralist selectively chooses that which supports their argument.

The code judges the moral. The Moralist judges the code.

Following all the code may be hard. Therefore, failure in others to follow the code is an occasion for the Moral to educate and encourage. The Moralist sees failure in others as an occasion for posturing, condemnation, and extortion.

Understanding the code may be hard. Therefore, the Moral are aware of the possiblity that they may be mistaken in some aspects, and thus welcome education (to better understand the code) and correction (to better follow the code). The Moralist assumes that they are always right, and thus never feel themselves in need of education or correction.

The Moral seeks for all men to follow the code. The Moralist seeks for all men to follow him.