First, the leaders of the organization were all volunteers. They gained nothing from their actions, except the good feeling of helping a worthwhile organization. So they could feel like they were at a moral positive. Their behavior in fact was at a moral positive. But from the standpoint of the behavior of the organization, the organization was at a moral zero.

A second possibly misleading circumstance was this. The leader of the organization, who was mostly doing this, was basically a friend of mine (and had little to no interaction with the other person). So she could have been worried that by supporting me, she was being biased, and hence then thought that by supporting the other person, she was being noble.

Perspectives

For example, the person who was originally against me appealed to the organization for help, and when she did, she framed her appeal so that it appeared moral. First, she asked for more support. Who can argue with that? It would have been great if the organization could have given everyone more support. But of course, they were supporting her at my expense, which is not so noble.

She also pointed out that I hadn't apologized, and all she wanted was an apology. Again, this sounds moral, and it makes me sound like a cad. It neglects the point that making me apologize makes me admit that I was wrong, and I had done my best not to do anything wrong. (And that she was not being asked to apologize.)

Conclusions

These three misleaders are not intended to be a complete list of misleading circumstances. Instead, they are the three that are suggested by the particular battle I was in. I would hence guess that there are many more.

So there is a general point (in addition to watching for these misleaders) -- things can mislead you into feeling moral when in fact you on the wrong side of the moral line. This is why you have to check.