--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tralfamidorgooglycrackers"
<tralfamidorgooglycrackers@...> wrote:
> I used the word in reaction to your statement, "I personally have
> problems with inducing an employee to defraud his or
> her employer, but I seem to be the only person on the planet who
feels
> any scruples in that regard."
>
> This implicitly states that all others seem to lack "scruples in that
> regard". You're within your right to disagree that
> "self-righteousness" is applicable in interpreting that statement.
>
> - Harry
>
>>>Once again we must refer to the dictionary: scruples="misgivings"
or "qualms". The term is morally neutral. I could have scruples about
eating grapefruit. So, to restate, since I have never heard from
anyone that they have "scruples" about bribing someone in this
context, I therefore conclude that I might very well be alone in
having such scruples. This observation does NOT cast any aspersions on
those who do not have such scruples. The word gets misused, in that it
is applied to a moralistic context. It's much like the term "attitude"
has grown to mean something negative, as in, "he has an attitude";
this usage is, of course, incorrect.
Using only dictionary definitions can be dangerous. For me, the
concept of "Perception is Reality" applies. No matter what we may
think, it is how others perceive it and react to it that matters. I
may be a hard worker, but if my boss "thinks" I am a slacker, I won't
be working there long. So if the common use of scruples does include
the perception of a moral judgment, then you have to take that into
consideration of how people will react to the statement. If I were to,
without any preceding context, make the statement "She is a B*tch," I
would bet real money that no one will assume that I am speaking about
a female dog, even though that is the first definition listed in most
dictionaries.
