Post Reply Moral outrage and virtue signaling
33234 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 3/4/17 , edited 3/4/17
Political correctness is devolving further into "moral correctness".

It doesn't matter what anyone's political / non-political bent is, the road just gets worse from here.

Worse than a matter of control and conformity, because shame becomes a commodity- To be freely wield in psychological self-service.

"I'm a shining example of humanity because I speak for what everyone in a civilized modern society should believe as GOOD (and the rest of you who think any differently are backward outmoded Neanderthals who impede societal progress, a scourge to humanity)"


http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/01/moral-outrage-is-self-serving

When people publicly rage about perceived injustices that don't affect them personally, we tend to assume this expression is rooted in altruism—a "disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others." But new research suggests that professing such third-party concern—what social scientists refer to as "moral outrage"—is often a function of self-interest, wielded to assuage feelings of personal culpability for societal harms or reinforce (to the self and others) one's own status as a Very Good Person.

Ultimately, the results of Rothschild and Keefer's five studies were "consistent with recent research showing that outgroup-directed moral outrage can be elicited in response to perceived threats to the ingroup's moral status," write the authors. The findings also suggest that "outrage driven by moral identity concerns serves to compensate for the threat of personal or collective immorality" and the cognitive dissonance that it might elicit, and expose a "link between guilt and self-serving expressions of outrage that reflect a kind of 'moral hypocrisy,' or at least a non-moral form of anger with a moral facade."



http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/howie_carr/2016/09/carr_virtue_signaling_a_pc_merit_badge

Virtue signaling (VS) is a sanctimonious gesture that shows that you, a Beautiful Person, are “kind, decent and virtuous,” as a British newspaper recently defined it.


People can rage all they want... as long as they are at least half-way self aware of the guilt shifting that goes on.
Posted 3/4/17
So kinda like, I wanna feel good about myself so I'm gonna spout PC bs.

"I'm a shining example of humanity because I speak for what everyone in a civilized modern society should believe as GOOD (and the rest of you who think any differently are backward outmoded Neanderthals who impede societal progress, a scourge to humanity)"

sounds like an sjw
1409 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/4/17
I have a lot of mixed feelings about social science terms being used in public discourse. Things like "triggers" (psychological), "systemic racism," "implicit bias," etc., have their place, and are useful for discussing and understanding certain sociological and psychological phenomena, but they should NOT be used to give your opinions an air of scientific backing, and they should NOT be used to mark things that we "need to do something about."

This bit about 'moral outrage' has the same potential problems. It is interesting, and might be useful to understand how people act, but I would not like to see everyone go around telling anyone expressing this 'moral outrage' about how they don't really care, and just want to justify themselves. Basically, I'm afraid people will sling this new buzzphrase around without discretion.

I also can't help but wondering: did we really need a study to tell us that people do this?
Posted 3/4/17
If you say so, OP.
923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / PA, USA
Online
Posted 3/4/17
Formal studies were deemed necessary to figure that out? I guess professional reaffirmation of fairly common knowledge is nice, though.
10954 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 3/4/17
You know the research cited may be new, but the wisdom highlighted is not. Study the New Testament. "Pharisaical" is the term we used for centuries before "Social Justice Warrior"
30394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
YOUR MIND
Offline
Posted 3/4/17
society progresses when the people without power get power.

women able to vote = women have more power = they can get more rights.

you can be mad about racism all you want but analyzing NFL player tweets helps black people absolutely none. instead those who want change for themselves have to fight to get it.

that being said, it takes zero energy not to be an asshole. i don't know why being rude is seen as being manly these days. confucius used to say that courtesy is what made a man a man. you don't have to step on somebody's face to respect yourself.
mxdan 
11120 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 3/4/17 , edited 3/4/17
I'm so happy people brought up religion already cause I feel as though it will inevitably come up here --

I feel as though, ultimately, moral outrage stems from the fact that our two party system has been taken over by specific groups. If I had to characterize them in an elementary way I'd say they are secularists and fanaticists or strick moral baring from principal and scientific and ethical baring that stems from a reaction to that one sides principal. I think the moral absolutists you see on the left now, the 'pc' are a reaction to our countries inability to move towards progressive and scientific endeavors from the other sides complete and total disregard of it.. in other words, it's liberals getting mad.

Now I'm not saying there aren't valuable religious principals to be taken from religious undertones and use towards ethical and well thought out outcomes. But when it comes down to it, we have a party that has all but turned its back on science because the base feels threatened by science. This is an issue. And one that needs to be solved if we are to have successful policy.
Posted 3/4/17

mutronbiphase wrote:

society progresses when the people without power get power.

women able to vote = women have more power = they can get more rights.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxpVwBzFAkw

"society progresses when the people without power get power"
Read a book
33234 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 3/4/17 , edited 3/4/17

foraslan wrote:

I have a lot of mixed feelings about social science terms being used in public discourse. Things like "triggers" (psychological), "systemic racism," "implicit bias," etc., have their place, and are useful for discussing and understanding certain sociological and psychological phenomena, but they should NOT be used to give your opinions an air of scientific backing, and they should NOT be used to mark things that we "need to do something about."

This bit about 'moral outrage' has the same potential problems. It is interesting, and might be useful to understand how people act, but I would not like to see everyone go around telling anyone expressing this 'moral outrage' about how they don't really care, and just want to justify themselves. Basically, I'm afraid people will sling this new buzzphrase around without discretion.

I also can't help but wondering: did we really need a study to tell us that people do this?


Honestly I was expecting "Um aren't you being morally outraged about moral outrage" replies.

There isn't much to "do" except self-awareness. Moral outrage without self-awareness is just plain annoying to see.


karatecowboy wrote:

You know the research cited may be new, but the wisdom highlighted is not. Study the New Testament. "Pharisaical" is the term we used for centuries before "Social Justice Warrior"


Sprinkling dust and ripping robes is too old school and too subtle. We need to outright scream how virtuous we are.
You must be logged in to post.