zlacker

>>crbela+(OP)
"Prig" is in the eye of the beholder. What about when the "prigs" were right? I'm sure the Quakers were seen as "prigs" by the southern slaveholders/traders. The Quakers were early to the abolition party and their opposition to slavery was based on religious zeal which made them seem like "prigs" to the people in the South who's whole society and economy was built on slavery. But we now consider the Quakers were right and the slaveholders wrong. MLK was viewed as a "prig" by many southern whites for interfering in their racism. But MLK was right.

>>UncleO+cL1
I think the basis of his arguement is a prig is incentivized by calling out the moral failures of others to make themselves feel more virtuous.

Where perhaps the quakers or MLK were doing it out of moral outrage.

>>tflint+j22
> by calling out the moral failures of others to make themselves feel more virtuous.

Isn't it impossible to determine the internal motivations of others? And even if they were doing it to make themselves feel more virtuous they can still be turn out to be right on the issue, can't they? Or it's possible that there's a combination of both moral outrage and ending up feeling virtuous.