Why it’s different when two people say the same thing

Who says something and why they say it can be more important than what they say. When Julius Malema says most Indian South Africans are racist, he is accused of smearing an entire community.

But, his supporters point out, former Constitutional Court judge Zac Yacoob said something very similar and no-one complained.

When two people make the same point but one is blamed while the other is not, surely that is a double standard? Not necessarily. Two people can criticise the behaviour of others in exactly the same way and yet mean something entirely different. Yacoob is of Indian origin — he was criticising the racial attitudes of the group into which he was born. So it seems likely that he was not encouraging people to dislike the group but seeking to change its behaviour.

Someone born into another group — like Malema — could have a very different goal: to persuade people that the group they are accusing is evil.

In both cases the accuser is making a moral point. But in one the goal is moral: to improve behaviour; in the other it is not — because the aim is to encourage people to label others.

In a society as divided as ours there are countless examples. What could be more moral than criticising corruption? But who does it and why makes a huge difference.

In the mouths of some, it is a call for more honest government, for others a way of labelling black people who occupy most positions in government. Whether the person making the claim is black or white can be an important pointer to what they are trying to achieve.

A key factor in checking what moral statements really mean is whether the person speaking wields power in society. The same words can be used to bolster or challenge the powerful.

Take the statement “black South Africans should rely on their own efforts, not those of whites”.

Said by a white suburbanite, that might mean that black people should not expect whites to do anything about black poverty. From the mouth of Steve Biko, it meant that black people should depend not on white goodwill but on their own efforts to challenge white supremacy.

So precisely the same statement can either justify inequality or urge people to end it.

In a society in which there are deep divisions and some still wield power over others, not all moral statements are really moral.

Those that aim to encourage people to behave better are moral; those that use the same words to label others are not.

Often, although not always, moral statements are more likely to have a moral aim in mind when the speaker criticises their own group.

Those that challenge the unjust use of power are moral, but the same words become immoral when the goal is to justify that power.

Does this mean only Indians can criticise Indians or only men can criticise men? Or that only what powerless people say can be moral? Of course not.

What it does mean is that making a moral point does not necessarily make you moral. It depends on what you are trying to achieve — whether you are pointing a finger at your own group or another is not the only factor but is important.

Moral points are moral when they challenge the unfair use of power, not when they justify it. They are moral when they urge people to change, not when they clothe dislike of those who are unlike us in a moral fig leaf.

The more public figures — and citizens — recognise this, the more likely we are to become a moral society, not one that uses morality as a club to beat others.