Today I want to highlight a brief yet profound insight from Professor Slavíček. In his lecture on fraud in science, he makes a seemingly simple distinction: he does not moralize—he observes, analyzes, and seeks to understand the causes of deceitful practices.
This is not a minor difference in terminology. It is a fundamental difference in attitude.
When I moralize, I indulge in a pleasant sense of superiority. I enjoy the feeling that I am better than those I condemn. But such moralizing does nothing to correct the problem. At best, it may strengthen my own resolve not to behave in the same way. Yet deep down, I may even feel a quiet satisfaction that the world is corrupt—and that I am so much more virtuous than the rest.
When I analyze a phenomenon with detachment, I set out to understand its structure, its roots, and its causes. Then I can define the damage it produces, propose remedies, and compare different ways to reduce or even eliminate that particular kind of immoral behavior. I can also consider which remedies might, in turn, create new forms of misbehavior.
In short: cold observation is for those who want to correct what is wrong. Moral outrage is for those who want to feel good about themselves.