
Moral Outrage Is Self-Serving, Say Psychologists - randomname2
http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/01/moral-outrage-is-self-serving
======
VeejayRampay
It might be self-serving, but there's still a social aspect to it. By seeing
people react to something with outrage, it tells you that it's alright to
protest and be vocal about things in life when it matters, which is extremely
important when faced with injustice.

~~~
vanderZwan
> there's still a social aspect to it

Self-serving is not the antonym of social (emphasis mine):

> 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.

------
myowncrapulence
Clickbait title. Should read "Moral outrage more likely when scapegoat
present"

------
splintercell
I have been reading 'Mental Models' by Philip Johnson-Laird where the author
argues that we apprehend the world by building inner mental replicas of the
relations among objects and events that concern us, and then we act according
to these models.

This book tries to argue against the idea that we think in terms of logical
propositions.

Take for instance this example Steven Pinker in this lecture[1] presents a
logical problem which stumps a lot of people. However, when people are
presented with a 'real world' version of the problem they do a lot better.
Phillip Johnson-Laird uses the same example and some other studies to claim
that it is because people think in terms of mental models and not in terms of
logical/deductive propositions.

Another example:

If J Edgar Hoover was born in Russia, then he would have been a communist.

If J Edgar Hoover was a Communist then he would have been a traitor.

Therefore if J Edgar Hoover was born in Russia then he would have been a
traitor.

Clearly the transitivity doesn't follow here, and this is not the only example
of apparent transitivity failure, but nearly everyone can point out the
logical problem with the transitivity inference in the third statement, but a
lot more people would fail it if presented in abstract terms.

This has been a very ameliorating book for me. It explains many things
regarding people's beliefs. When people present moral outrage, this must mean
that they need to have that mental model in their minds. Take for instance if
you started to work in a store, and the manager informs you of the following
rule:

> If the receipt is for more than $30 worth of goods, then it must have
> manager's sign on it.

Most people would have no problem in understanding and following that rule.
But if the rule was following:

> If the receipt is for less than $30 worth of goods, then it must have
> manager's sign on it.

To most people this is confusing and non-sensical. To most of us, we would try
to think for a reason behind this rule. Most probably come up with the
explanation 'There must be a lot of theft/fraud going on for smaller
receipts', or something which explains this anomaly.

This is the same reason why everytime it snows in the middle of April,
conservatives are like "Oh god, the Global Warming is killing me", and
whenever there is a hot day in winter, it's the liberals who take it as a
proof. Because to all people, the data which doesn't fit into their mental
model is noise. And all theories which people ascribe to, somehow fit in their
broader mental models.

1\.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PXy3vWZiJo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PXy3vWZiJo)

