
Is virtue signalling a perversion of morality? - SQL2219
https://aeon.co/ideas/is-virtue-signalling-a-perversion-of-morality
======
romaniitedomum
Isn't virtue signalling just a modern trendy name for what the ancients called
sanctimony?

Accusations of hypocrisy or virtue signaling are a distraction, a way to shout
down another without addressing the substance of what they've said. To me, the
important thing is to judge whether something is good or not. If it is good,
that goodness is independent of the person saying it's good, and it does not
cease to be good if the person urging it upon others doesn't really practice
it (hypocricy) or is sanctimonious about applying it.

Social media is what perverts morality, by rewarding hypocrisy and sanctimony.
The best thing to do with it is to not read it, not participate in it, not
contribute to it.

~~~
ncmncm
Complaining about virtue signaling is sanctimony. It is inherently
hypocritical, besides. Saying, "this is good, so I do it" is fundamentally
more meaningful than, "this is good, so you should do it". The latter is
sanctimony.

We may contrast actual virtue signaling with, e.g., Gwyneth Paltrow scams,
which the ill-equipped may confuse with it.

~~~
romaniitedomum
> Complaining about virtue signaling is sanctimony

So complaining about sanctimony is itself sanctimonious?

> It is inherently hypocritical, besides.

How so? Hypocrisy is when someone tells others to do something they don't do
themselves.

> Saying, "this is good, so I do it" is fundamentally more meaningful than,
> "this is good, so you should do it". The latter is sanctimony.

Not really. Sanctimony is the excessive parading of a supposed virtue. Telling
someone to do something is not in itself sanctimony.

Anyway, my original point was that hypocrisy and sanctimony are irrelevant and
a distraction in any consideration of morality. For those of us raised
Catholic, they're what we'd call venal sins, minor and forgivable. They simply
don't matter, but for some reason people online treat them as the equivalent
of virginal purity tests, and cherish them with a zeal that would put a
village mullah to shame.

The short aphorisms of Marcus Aurelius are invaluable, in my opinion, in
considering morality. "Of each thing", he says, "ask what it is in itself".
But in our modern world where we've convinced ourselves we're busy as we
bustle about with a thousand pointless activities at once, the thoughtful
consideration that the old Roman emperor urges seems very far away. And
besides, they'd probably accuse him of virtue signalling.

~~~
ncmncm
I wasn't raised Catholic, but the way I heard it, committing a venal sin
counting on it being negligible because it was venal is, itself, a mortal sin
-- which tickled me at the time.

Also, that only the sins since your last confession, or communion, or
something, count in any way at all.

No idea which if any of the above is true. Or what, exactly, would be meant by
a "virginal purity test".

But...

>> Complaining about virtue signaling is sanctimony

>So complaining about sanctimony is itself sanctimonious?

No. You are tying yourself in knots; which is your privilege. Please don't
entangle me in them.

~~~
romaniitedomum
> I wasn't raised Catholic, but the way I heard it, committing a venal sin
> counting on it being negligible because it was venal is, itself, a mortal
> sin -- which tickled me at the time.

No, a sin is either venal or mortal. The intent of the sinner doesn't enter
into it.

> Also, that only the sins since your last confession, or communion, or
> something, count in any way at all.

If you confess a sin and ask forgiveness, it's forgiven. Your slate is wiped
clean.

> Or what, exactly, would be meant by a "virginal purity test".

Simply that many in social media demand a level of purity in thought and
action from commenters and other writers that rivals in its puritanical zeal
the worst excesses of the most ignorant village mullah.

> No. You are tying yourself in knots; which is your privilege. Please don't
> entangle me in them.

But if virtue signalling is sanctimony, a point which you have not refuted,
and complaining about virtue signalling is sanctimony, then complaining about
sanctimony is indeed sanctimonious. Any entanglement is of your own making.

------
pillowkusis
I think this article boils down to "virtue signalling isn't neccessarily a bad
thing, because there are honest signals and dishonest signals[0], and honest
signals of virtue are fine, even helpful."

This is a common complaint with the phrase "virtue signalling" \-- signalling
virtue isn't a bad thing if you're actually virtuous, after all. But it's
clear from context that when people say "virtue signalling," they mean it in a
negative sense, when the signal is dishonest. Nobody has ever used "virtue
signalling" as a compliment (in the field of public discourse), so the
distinction isn't all that useful IMO.

I think in the age of Twitter, having a phrase for "dishonestly raising a
moral issue for personal gain" is helpful. It seems the hive mind has chosen
"virtue signalling" for that purpose, so while another phrase (I like "moral
grandstanding") might work better... oh well.

0:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Honest_signa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Honest_signals)

~~~
downerending
I've noticed that people who are truly virtuous rarely signal it. Over a long
period of time, you just notice that they're always like that.

------
larnmar
I read a convincing argument recently that “virtue signalling” would be more
clearly renamed “piety signalling”.

When Alice accuses Bob of virtue signalling, it usually carries the subtext
that Alice doesn’t actually agree with Bob’s assessment of what virtue is. You
rarely find the accusation in a context where someone is doing something
universally agreed to be virtuous even if they are being kinda self-
aggrandising about it. Usually the accusation comes when someone is loudly
exhibiting “virtues” which only seem virtuous to one side of the culture war.

------
m0llusk
Complaining about virtue signaling is virtue signaling. What is really going
on is people who are critical of a belief project their own disbelief and thus
find the believers to be insincere. In general the intentions of others are
difficult to work with so effective arguments and actions tend to focus on the
core material instead. Is vegetarianism a good thing? Is carbon pollution
damaging the environment? What people feel about these issues is secondary to
core science and possible actions.

~~~
blarg1
complaining about people complaining about virtue signalling is virtue
signalling

~~~
LocalH
virtue signalling all the way down

------
Udik
I think the article misses entirely the point and the problem of virtue
signalling, which is not hypocrisy in my opinion. Because the problem with
virtue signalling is more on the "virtue" part than on the "signalling" part.

People tend to align themselves to whatever they perceive to be ethical line
of the group; and some people (quite a good pecentage) do so with great
fervour and very vocally. I don't think they're hypocrites: they really do
believe what they're saying. The problem is that they're just repeating and
enforcing the values of their group, whatever those might be, and without
allowing any discussion or critical thought about them. Then it's easy to see
that those values might absolutely wrong or contradictory: yet the virtue
signallers can't see that and don't accept any discussion, because they align
fully and automatically with the others and contribute in the alignment of the
whole group.

So when the group adopts aberrant ethical rules (choose your favourite
example) it's the virtue signallers that are the more vocal in upholding and
spreading them with their perfect and pure conviction.

------
Tycho
I think the key thing is that the virtue signalling usually comes with zero
personal risk or cost. There’s no skin in the game. So it feels like a mockery
of genuine virtue. And often at odds with revealed preferences when you
examine their behaviour.

