The specific points made in the post Purity are apparently part of a more general syndrome.

Being virtuous is wonderful thing, but feeling virtuous is a shortcut to vice. That seems to be the moral of a fascinating piece of research by two Canadian psychologists, which suggests that the greener people are, the more likely they are to lie and cheat. Doing the right thing by the planet earns us credit in our ethical investment accounts that we can then spend by dumping on our fellow human beings. The "halo of green consumerism", it is claimed, is just a license to behave less well in other areas of life. . .

This finding doesn't surprise me. It echoes a report that came out in 2008, which showed that people who were most concerned about the environment were more likely to take long-haul flights. Some of those questioned explicitly said that recycling every last scrap of paper earned them the right to fly, as though you could swap carbon footprints for green air miles.

It would be wrong, however, to think there is something particularly hypocritical about environmentalists. The general truth lurking behind these findings is that the feeling of being pure is a moral contaminant. In ethical terms, the best never think that they are the best, and those that believe themselves to be on the side of the angels are often the worst devils.

I focus on the hypocrisy of greens, but it is worth noting on occasion that they are not uniquely hypocritical: that's just my beat, the subject that I write about. I give some drive-by abuse to other hypocrites now and then, but they don't get the same amount of attention.

True virtue, in contrast, doesn't keep tabs, because it is self-effacing. Consider, for instance, how you'd answer the question, are you modest? The truly modest can't answer yes, as that would be immodest. But to answer no would be false. The only honest answer that is not self-defeating is to say, "I don't know: I try to be, but I might not succeed." It's not about false modesty, but maintaining a proper scepticism about our ability to judge our own moral fitness. Proper, because we can see how hardly anyone believes his or herself to be a villain, yet villains there surely are. And it's also so easy to be self-serving in our rationalisations.

True virtue would never liken its rewards to points on a loyalty card, not because it is its own reward, but because it is not something we should practice to accrue future benefits. If these latest studies show us anything, it's that we've lost sight of this. It is not to our credit that we see good deeds as ways of earning it. Ethics has gone beyond reciprocal altruism and become unenlightened self-interest. But I'd better stop there: I'm in danger of feeling very, very self-righteous.

That's the problem isn't it? One must not only say "I don't know", or admit on occasion that "everything I know is wrong and in time this will become clear (though I'll still be wrong)", one must spend a fair amount of time reflecting on these facts and their implications, admitting defect and committing to do better in future.

It also means actually listening to others and thinking about their views rather than spending all of your time thinking of rebuttals to those views. If you find yourself in a conversation where you are thinking about what you will say next while another is speaking then you are merely a debater or a lawyer. More, I think that one could be a better debater or lawyer by actually listening and then, after some processing time, responding. It slows down the exchange, but that's a good thing too. I'm always impressed when someone pauses to think before replying, and will give their replies even more attention as a consequence.