#moral licensing

By: Brandon

Published: Feb 13, 2025

The Improvers of Mankind

In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche devotes a short chapter to a group of people of whom he does not think very highly: the so-called "improvers of mankind". A primary tactic of the Improvers, which Nietzsche identifies, is that of "pia fraus", or pious fraud. This is a kind of lie often told, in Nietzsche’s time, by religious men, prophets, priests, or shaman; supposedly moral people who would, ostensibly, usually be averse to deceit. The pious fraud is a lie told by pious people—true believers—in the service of some supposed larger truth, some higher good.

An example of pious fraud comes from the ancient priests who secretly scarred their hands in the manner of the crucifixion and then presented their stigmata as a miracle—a message from God to their followers. Such pious fraud is performed in the belief that the ends justify the means. What does it matter if the lie is not true in fact, when it is true in spirit? In the priest's mind, though this specific instance is not a miracle, God does perform miracles. Thus, to the priest, he is deceiving his followers­ only on the technical details—but if in doing so he converts many new people to Christianity and ensures their heavenly salvation, then is he not justified?

Many priests, shaman, and mediums know they are committing a fraud with their “miracles”. But in their minds, because it may bring their followers salvation, peace of mind, or closure, then the lie is vindicated. Many doctors, quacks, and homeopaths also use pious fraud. Again, for them, the ends justify the means: "So, what if the medicines I peddle are so often merely sugar pills or coloured oils”, they think, “the medications bring my patients relief through their belief and therefore the treatments are, in some sense, also real." Again, the lie, in their minds, is vindicated.

The willingness to engage in pious fraud arises through a mechanism known as moral licensing. Moral licensing occurs when one believes that their moral goals or good behaviour grants them “license” to do immoral things. Moral licensing is also tied to victimhood status; those who perceive themselves as victims are more likely to use such a status to exempt themselves from normal codes of moral conduct. This brings us to the new improvers of mankind: the modern Left. Or at least a subset of it: the social-justice-left. They believe they are working for cosmic justice and universal good and they view themselves as victims­­­—double the moral license!

Nietzsche, in an incredible feat of prophetic insight, said that there are those who "constantly bear the word 'justice' in their mouths like poisonous spittle, always with pursed lips, always ready to spit upon all who are not discontented but go their own way in good spirits…The will of the weak to represent some form of superiority, their instinct for devious paths to tyranny over the healthy". This is moral licensing in effect. Many on the social-justice-left are pious true believers with a victimhood complex, they believe that they act solely in service of the greater good—“justice”—and thus have the moral license and a “blank check” to do whatever is necessary, including peddle outright lies and use deception.

Pious Fraud and Social Justice

The social-justice-left frequently utilize pious fraud. They believe that though a particular claim they use to advance their goals may not be literally true, it does reflects some larger truth, and thus this pious fraud can be used as a weapon in their crusade to "improve" mankind and facilitate "social justice". Therefore, in their minds, because their lies are true in spirit if not in actual fact, then the ends justify the means.

For example, pious fraud was used by Jussie Smollett, and those who continued to support him, when he faked a hate crime against himself. While Jussie and his supporters know that his claim is false (the pious lie), they believe that white supremacy and homophobia are ubiquitous (the larger "truth" reflected by the lie), and that Jussie was merely attempting to bring attention to this larger truth, to fight racism, and improve mankind. Therefore, in their minds, his lie was justified. This is not an isolated case. There was the Nascar hate crime found by the FBI to be a hoax, the mass graves hoax in Canada, or the numerous hoaxes documented by the political scientist Wilfred Reilly, who documented hundreds of hoaxes in his book. Reilly says:

"The deeper I delved, the more it seemed that this phenomenon of fake hate crimes did not appear to be small-scale or regionally isolated. I put together a fairly large database of hate-crime allegations...A majority of these incidents, which were almost all initially reported with a great deal of fanfare and breast-beating, were later exposed as hoaxes. Well, in truth, “exposed” is a gross exaggeration. Evidence demonstrated that they were fake hate crimes. But that fact got very little exposure in the press—particularly in comparison with the initial publicity they generated. The headlines that had touted each case as a horrific example of contemporary bigotry vanished from the Internet".

If you followed the discourse around many of these hoaxes, you would have seen a surprising amount of continued support for the 'victims', and a desperate clinging to the narrative from the social-justice-left. Many activists exhibited the typical rationalizations of the pious fraudster: "well this case might not be true, but society is racist and homophobic", and thus the pious lies were justified. The ends justify the means, even if the means are widespread deception and exaggeration.

There are many examples of these pious lies sold by the social-justice-left (and it must be noted that I once considered myself a member of the political left). Claims of widespread large discriminatory pay disparity between men and women; the denial of the sex binary; and claims of impending 'genocide' against trans people, the claim that black babies fare worse under white doctors, are just some examples of pious lies sold by the left. They think that such false claims are justified because they can be used to “improve” mankind and facilitate cosmic justice in the form of equity. Look at almost any major social issue fixated on by the social-justice-left and you find distortion, lies, or misleading half-truths. Truth is sacrificed in service of their holy war against "injustice" or "inequity".

It must be noted, in fairness, that I don’t think the Right has any special claim to universal honesty (humans in general are prone to lying), but the nature of the social-justice worldview, which is one of a moral crusade against cosmic injustice, currently lends itself more to this kind of pious deceptiveness. Additionally, because of the political leanings of major institutions and media platforms, leftists pious lies receive much more support and less criticism.

A further example of pious fraud by social-justice-left (climate justice is now a huge aspect of the SJL program) is the reflexive, baseless insistence that every extraordinary weather event, storm, hurricane, or fire is a result of climate change. Extreme weather events have always occurred, humanity has always had to contend with unexpected floods, fires, and storms. And while I do agree that human activity may be affecting the climate and is certainly harming biodiversity, to claim—as climate alarmists do—that every extreme weather event is directly a result of anthropogenic climate change is so baseless as to constitute a lie. But again, the logic of the pious fraudster is applied: "so what if there is no way to know if this storm or fire is not directly climate change related, climate change is happening (and having disparate or unequal impacts on favored groups), therefore we are justified in making these false claims if it promotes climate action".

Stephen Schneider, a leading member of a climate working group for the IPCC, displayed some subtle logic of the pious fraudster when he said:

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

This reflects the commitment of the pious fraudster to the end goals of his ideology over truth. Although he did add that he “hopes” they can be honest, this is not very reassuring. He said that they “have to” emphasize simple, scary, dramatic statements with doubts and uncertainty omitted. Clearly, he acknowledges that, in the pursuit of climate action, there are goals above truth or honesty—“generating support” and “capturing the public’s imagination” among them. This behaviour distorts the entire information ecosystem, and creates supposedly truth-seeking institutions and cultures which are completely perverted away from their mission—engaged now in advocacy and propaganda, not committed to delivering the full picture.

The Problem with Pious Fraud

The problem with pious fraud is that attempts to bring about some 'improvement' through deception often makes life worse for everyday people. Pious lies, while ostensibly in the service of a greater good, harm the people whom the social-justice-left supposedly care about. If the pious lies are believed, they can create social movements and social panics which are largely based on a web of fabricated events and exaggerations. Entire worldviews and movements can be built, in large part, on a body of interconnected falsehoods. This destroys common sense-making, impedes effective policy design, and—given the social-justice-left’s focus on race and gender specifically—erodes social trust and cohesion.

Fundamentally, the pious improvers of mankind lie and exaggerate because they believe it is their job to make decisions on behalf of others, they believe that they know best, that they act solely in the service of some greater good—and that truth and transparency can be sacrificed in the service of their holy mission. In reality, Nietzsche would say, many of them are simply acting out their resentment, through which they can achieve some form of retribution for perceived cosmic injustices.

Moral Licensing: When Doing Good Leads To Doing Bad

Have you ever eaten a bunch of ice cream and said it’s okay because you worked out that day? Or have you ever been rude to someone and justified it by thinking that you are actually a good person? I just listened to the first episode of the podcast Revisionist History by Malcolm Gladwell in which he analyzes a concept called moral licensing. Co-authors Philipp Simbrunner and Bodo Schlegelmilch of…

Moral Licensing, dapat dicontohkan bilamana kita telah melakukan suatu hal yang baik, kita merasa sudah cukup dan berhak untuk mengabaikan perbuatan baik lain, atau berbuat sedikit banyaknya perilaku yang immoral. Hal tersebut dikarenakan secara tidak sadar kita merasa telah memiliki “lisensi baik” atas diri kita akibat dari sudah melakukan hal baik. Sehingga, pada kemudian waktu, bilamana ada kesempatan, kita merasakan penurunan kecemasan akan perbuatan atau pilihan immoral yang kita buat setelah kita merasa, sebelumnya, sudah berbuat baik. 

Secara sederhana, terminologi ini mungkin bisa jadi dasar atas keinginan “cheating” saat seseorang sedang diet. Saat mereka merasa telah melakukan hal yang baik pada diri mereka seminggu sebelumnya, mereka merasa sudah memiliki lisensi untuk melakukan perilaku makan yang berlebih di akhir pekan. Moral licensing, juga dapat berlaku sebaliknya, sebagai contoh, seseorang perokok yang berniat untuk berhenti merokok bulan depan, seminggu sebelum menjelang bulan yang baru tiba, ia membeli puluhan slop rokok, karena ia merasa “akan” berbuat baik di bulan berikutnya, yang pada akhirnya Ia memaksimalkan minggu-minggu terakhirnya dengan terus-terusan merokok. Lalu, sudah seberapa besar kebaikanmu yang menyebabkan dirimu merasa sudah layak melakukan hal immoral?

How are our moral decisions influenced by factors we’re not aware of? A phenomenon known as Moral Licensing claims that when we do something good, we often subconsciously allow ourselves to then do something bad. In this episode, I take a look at whether those who donate money to charity become more likely to let […]

Сообщение Moral Licensing появились сначала на Деловидение.

“Whole-Ass One Thing” Brands and Moral Licensing 

Have you ever done something you felt was really “good” like donate to charity or help out a friend, and then afterwards treated yourself to something you would normally consider “bad”, like eating a huge chocolate bar or buying something expensive? This is actually a really common behaviour that is known as Moral Licensing.

If you’re unfamiliar with the concept, it is basically the theory that doing a “good” thing or being “good” in some way allows us to justify “bad” behaviour later.  In other words, we use examples of our own good behaviour to make us feel better when we do something morally dubious or problematic.

Examples of moral licensing range from the small-scale and relatively harmless (“I went to the gym yesterday therefore I can eat this McDonald’s”) to the more insidious and harmful (“I’ve spoken out against racism before therefore I am incapable of being racist myself”). Self-licensing of the larger scale is often unconscious but I think many of us will recognise some of those smaller behaviours ourselves- most commonly when we think we have “deserved a treat” of some kind because we have worked hard or been good in some way.  

At first, this concept seems instinctively counter-intuitive, we want to believe that doing a good and virtuous thing sets us on a path of doing more good and virtuous things, but in fact, the opposite is more often true. There have been loads of interesting studies on this (worth a longer google when you have time) that prove the point. One of my favourites was carried out at the University of Toronto, where Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong found out that students who were instructed to buy things from an eco-friendly shop were more likely to cheat and be dishonest when later asked to take part in a money-splitting task. Because they had done something “virtuous” by shopping in a more environmentally friendly way, they gave themselves tacit permission to then behave less virtuously.

This is most obviously of interest to brands in terms of targeting. If we know that people are more likely to want to treat themselves after they’ve done something “good”, then there’s a whole host of contexts that “treat” brands should be playing into. For example, should luxury handbags be advertised in gyms instead of deodorants? Should fast food be advertised on charitable giving sites?

However, personally I’m more interested in looking at brands and moral licensing from a different angle. Rather than thinking about moral licensing in terms of human behaviour, I think it’s actually more important to think about the way brands often engage in moral licensing themselves.

Moral licensing is a psychological theory yes, so not something we could normally attribute to brand behaviour. However, brands choose to behave like humans in many different ways; additionally, our current advertising culture teaches and encourages us to assign personality traits to brands and thus think of them in human terms. Because of this, I don’t think it’s huge a jump to associate psychological theory to brand behaviour – which is exactly what I’m about to do.  

If we argue that based on their behaviour and attributes, brands are viewed as personalities then it is fair to say that these personalities are as guilty as any human of moral licensing. In fact, I would go as far to say they are some of the worst offenders.

In today’s world, social justice and politics is creeping further into media and the world of brands. Advertisers are fighting to be a legitimate part of the conversation. Whether they are aligning with pop-feminism or shouting about charitable donations, it seems like they are desperate to prove their “goodness” to the world. But what often happens is that they feel like shouting loudly once is enough and then they don’t follow these claims or actions through the rest of their business.

While people may be forgiving of their own self-licensing, this is something they will not accept from a brand. From a consumer perspective, it is very obvious when brands engage in moral licensing and we just don’t buy it.

One example of this that stands out to me is Dove, famous for their Real Beauty campaign that has been hugely successful for them and is something they have stuck with for over a decade. However, the downside of politics and feminism being more accessible is that people have got smart about what these concepts actually mean. So, in recent years people have realised that the same people telling them to love their flaws with Dove are the ones releasing old-fashioned and objectifying deodorant ads for Lynx (both being Unilever companies.) Realisations like this have meant that people distrust social justice and moral standpoints from brands, so it is even more critical that when we do approach these subjects it is done well.

So what’s the answer here? I think it’s simple. Firstly, don’t underestimate your audience because they will see through any falseness. Secondly, if you want to stand for something then you have to go all in. Every aspect of your business and communications needs to align. Pick something your brand genuinely cares about and embrace it. Otherwise, your consumer will lose respect for your brand.

An example of a brand who is doing this well is Procter and Gamble, the creators of the Cannes Lions winning Always #LikeAGirl campaign. This commitment to address gender inequality is expressed across their brands, for example Ariel who in India released an ad called #SharetheLoad, tackling the disparity in household chores between men and women as asking “Why is laundry only a mother’s job?” They have also vocally supported International Women’s Day and the Women’s March.