Moral Licensing

Signs it might be this

• A complaint about one event is answered with praise for the person’s whole life.
• The list of good deeds gets longer each time you return to the subject, while the event itself is never described.
• Your complaint is framed as ungrateful, as though what you owe cancels what you raised.
• Other people are asked to vouch (‘ask anyone’), and their testimony replaces the facts.
• Agreeing with the complaint is treated as a statement that the person is bad.

Signs it is probably something else

• The track record is mentioned in a sentence, and then the specific issue is addressed.
• They own what they did and also say it is out of character for them.
• They ask you to look at the facts of this one event, not at their reputation.
• The history comes up because you asked whether this has happened before.
• The conversation ends on a concrete change, even a small one.
• The person says in one breath that they do a lot and that they got this wrong.
• The record comes up when you ask about it, not in reply to the complaint.
• The specific event is settled before the conversation ends.

Questions to ask yourself

• After the good deeds were listed, was the specific thing I raised ever discussed?
• Would my complaint still be fair if every one of those good deeds were true?
• Do they bring up their record only when I raise a problem?
• Am I being asked to weigh their whole life against one event?
• Does it feel safe to say that both things can be true?

What it is

As used here, moral licensing is offering someone’s good reputation or earlier kindness in place of an answer to what is being raised now. Psychologists also use the term for a tendency to feel freer to act badly after doing something good.

That can happen quietly, with no conversation at all. In an exchange it shows when a complaint about Tuesday is met with a list of what was done for years.

One mention of a record is ordinary context. The pattern is the record regularly taking the place of the answer.

Why it matters

A specific, current complaint goes unanswered because the conversation turns into a ruling on someone’s overall goodness. The person who raised it never asked that question and cannot win it.

The original problem stays exactly where it was.

How it shows up

• A swap: a record of past good conduct is placed where an answer to the current complaint should be.
• Can draw on many kinds of credit. Examples are years of service, donations, a clean record, belonging to a respected group, or favors done for you.
• Can come from others who vouch for the person, as in ‘he would never do that’.
• Sets up a false choice, where agreeing the complaint is fair seems to mean calling the person bad.
• Different from the research finding, which describes a private shift in behavior rather than something said aloud.

What you can do

Pick what fits. You do not owe anyone a confrontation.

Words you could use

“I believe you’ve done a lot of good, and I’m not asking you to prove it. I’m asking about one thing that happened. Can we talk about that first, and then talk about everything else if you like?”

Ask about it gently

Acknowledge the record and return to the point: ‘I know you’ve done a lot, and that’s not what I’m asking about. I’m asking about what happened on Tuesday.’

Set a clear limit

Refuse to let the complaint become a vote on their character: ‘I’m not asking you to be a bad person. I’m asking you to answer this one thing.’

Step back

If the list of achievements begins, stop competing with it. Say you will leave it there for now, then return later in writing with the one specific request.

Get support

Ask someone who knows you both whether they can hold two things at once. This person has done real good, and this event still needs an answer.

At work, school or with services

Describe the event and its effect factually. Leave their reputation out of it, and ask for the specific action you need, so a good name has nothing to answer.

Using this label fairly

• Not every mention of a good record is an evasion. Using the label on someone sincerely hurt by an accusation can shut them out of a fair hearing.
• Someone’s real history can be relevant evidence. Waving it away as ‘licensing’ discards context that may matter.

How it differs from look-alikes

A flat Denial says the thing did not occur. Licensing can concede there is a complaint and answer it with reputation.

Blame-Shifting hands the fault to you. Licensing leaves fault unmentioned and puts the speaker’s goodness on the table.

That can leave you feeling in debt. Minimization makes the harm small.

Licensing swaps in a different question: are they a good person?