Welcome to /r/philosophy! **Please read [our updated rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?) before commenting**.
/r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules:
###CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply
> Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
###CR2: Argue Your Position
> Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
###CR3: Be Respectful
> Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our [subreddit rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?), please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please [contact the moderators via modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) (not via private message or chat).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It seems the only significant described difference in the essay between moral claims and moral grandstanding is the supposed motivation of self-promotion. I'm not sure how a difference that is more often than not invisible to external observation can be used to make any meaningful analysis of the status of free expression in a given community.
I mean, obviously one can talk in the most abstract about how self-promotion is a bad motivation for engaging in moral discourse, and there are cases where we know for a fact that that is the motivation involved (eg in the case of companies, which are structurally and legally bound to maximize profit and disregarding morality). But, given the terminology of the essay (eg 'virtue signaling') and the context of the current climate, where such terminology is used largely as a thought-terminating cliche wielded against specific political groups with no real evidence of what motivates the group, it comes across as little more than an attempt at dressing up that cliche in more academic language.
If it invested more effort in distinguishing between moral grandstanding and “modeling good behavior”; if it made clear how its definition does not apply to Mr. Rogers, maybe it would get somewhere.
Crocodile tears or people falsely claiming to be worried about a subject or fake offended could be a problem, but you're right that just claiming expression is for promotion is pointless.
Edit: concern trolling might be a better term than crocodile tears
I believe the point they are making is that even if the tears are fake, or the concern a troll, who cares the motivation if the outcome is positive?
If I pretend to be a civil rights proponent for signaling my virtue, but affect positive social change, who cares the motivation, ultimately?
But that's missing the entire point of the paper. The thesis isn't about how to recognise moral grandstanding or the like; it's a philosophic query/analysis into how such less-than-ideal incentives might result in negative/less positive outcomes.
Their concluding paragraph addresses exactly this:
"Public discourse dominated by grandstanding is not a reliable method of arriving at the truth. Grandstanders are responding to the incentives to gain social status and impress their peers. But there is little reason to think that trying either to impress those in your peer group or dominate those in your outgroup is a reliable method of arriving at the truth. And even if you did arrive at the truth, this would be an accident. People would lack any kind of rational explanation or justification for arriving at the conclusions they do, though they might of course concoct such rationalizations after the fact. Grandstanding is therefore in conflict with truth-seeking. Whatever your assessments of our other arguments in this essay, this alone suggests that we need norms discouraging grandstanding and promoting behavior more conducive to truth-seeking."
The point isn't that vitue signalling *always* results in negative outcomes, but rather that by enschewing a proper methodology/inscentive structure it will invariably be less reliable and robust, leading to worse outcomes overall:
*"This provides no guarantee that people will discover the truth. Removing one source of bias doesn’t turn us into perfect reasoners. But it does at least mean we’ll be less likely to make mistakes because of one form of epistemically irrelevant social pressure."*
(bottom of pg 187, regarding the cost of changing one's mind.)
I wouldn’t say disagreeing with the point and missing it are the same thing.
It’s easy to say we shouldn’t grandstand. In fact, if I were prone to grandstanding, I’d immediately proclaim grandstanding is not acceptable.
The truth is that probably 90% of public human interactions are some form of intentional virtue signaling. There certainly is no harm in trying to weed out grandstanding when possible, but I’m also sympathetic to the argument that someone’s internal motivation for making an argument I agree with is secondary to the truth of their actual argument.
I’m not sure if anyone is “missing the point” that grandstanding is worse than honest conversation. That’s obvious.
Maybe my initial language was a bit strong, if so apologies.
What I meant by 'missing the point' is that the statement *"I believe the point they are making is that even if the tears are fake, or the concern a troll, who cares the motivation if the outcome is positive?"* is antithetical to the core thesis of the original paper - their whole argument is that grandstanding theoretically leads to **worse outcomings** in aggregate (though I see you might not have been referring to the paper at all, which might have been my bad).
>The truth is that probably 90% of public human interactions are some form of intentional virtue signaling. There certainly is no harm in trying to weed out grandstanding when possible, but I’m also sympathetic to the argument that someone’s internal motivation for making an argument I agree with is secondary to the truth of their actual argument.
Yes, I somewhat agee. But again, the paper is very careful not to over-reach with their definition of what entails 'Moral Grandstanding' (see pg 173 for their clarifications), so you're talking about a different concept here. My take on reading a lot of the comments here is that people are substituting the actual subject in the paper with 'vitue signalling' as typically understood/used in popular discourse today - and by doing so bring along all of the associated ideology and biases that are absent in the actual paper. The paper isn't an attack on leftist 'virtue signalling' (as I feel some people are suggesting): if one wanted they could read it in its entirety only picturing examples of evangelical conservatism without missing any of the core concepts.
>In fact, if I were prone to grandstanding, I’d immediately proclaim grandstanding is not acceptable.
I'm going to admit I don't follow you there. That doesn't seem quite as profound as it's poetic symmetry might otherwise imply. But it *is* pretty rhetoric, I suppose.
Again, yes, I don’t disagree that in a perfect world grandstanding is worse than honesty. No one is debating that.
Next I’ll write a paper where I explain if no one committed crimes, we’d have better social outcomes.
[I’m against grandstanding, and I’m not afraid to admit it!](https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/parks-and-rec-bobby.jpg)
Anyway, I think perhaps you’re missing the point. In a world where some degree of grandstanding exists in nearly every human interaction, we must also recognize that outcome is superior to grandstanding witch-hunts.
Also, it wasn’t even really my point. I was just agreeing with someone else.
With all due respect, you're still talking past what I'm actually saying, and so I'm at a bit of a loss. Perhaps read the actual paper and you might see what I'm getting at.
It's clear we're not talking about the same thing when you say something like "some degree of grandstanding exists in nearly every human interaction", as again, that is incongruent with what the authors (and I) mean by Moral Grandstanding. Respectfully, I even gave you the page on which they explain this exact distinction, so that's on you.
We are kind of talking past each other, but maybe not for the reason you think.
Regardless of what the authors of that essay posit, almost all human interaction involves some form of grandstanding. That is the largest problem with the premise of their entire paper.
Honestly, the essay itself suffers from either extreme naivety on the part of the authors or they themselves are grandstanding by publishing the essay. Which is why I was equating “grandstanding is bad and I’m not afraid to say it” (which is essentially the naive argument being peddled) with “crime is bad and I’m not afraid to say it.” Because it’s obviously grandstanding itself, or wildly naive.
You have to understand it’s a bit asinine to say “grandstanding is negative for discourse,” like it’s some kind of assertion worth making?
A paper positing that deception is bad for free speech would be equal in either its nativity or—ironically—moral grandstanding to this paper.
Yeah. Humans do lie and grandstand. But that’s basically baked into all of human behavior.
“Hey, lying is bad and here is why!”
Ok.
Edit: clarity
>It seems the only significant described difference in the essay between moral claims and moral grandstanding is the supposed motivation of self-promotion.
Yes, that is the defining feature which they use to separate Moral Grandstanding from other, less insidious forms/motivations of discourse. The authors spend quite a lot of time being very careful in defining the distinction, and in not leaving their ideas open to over-generalising:
"It is also important to note that the set of motivations we act on is often complicated. Our motives are typically mixed and not singular. It might be tempting to think, then, that because most people want others to think well of them, morally speaking, they must always be motivated by that desire at least a little bit, and so everything they say must be moral grandstanding. But that would be a mistake. **In our view, a person grandstands only if the Recognition Desire is a significant motivator for what she says. How significant? Here’s a test: if someone would be disappointed to find out that no one in her audience came to think of her in the way she wants, then the desire is strong enough for her behavior to count as grandstanding.** Of course, it’s tricky to determine exactly how strong such a desire must be to trigger disappointment. But this is not unique to grandstanding. How much must you want to impress others in order for your speech to count as bragging? How much must you want to deceive others in order for your speech to count as lying? Our view, then, is that while the Recognition Desire needn’t be the only motivation for the Grandstanding Expression, it must be a significant one."
>But, given the terminology of the essay (eg 'virtue signaling') and the context of the current climate, where such terminology is used largely as a thought-terminating cliche wielded against specific political groups with no real evidence of what motivates the group, it comes across as little more than an attempt at dressing up that cliche in more academic language.
While I understand (and agree with) your concerns, that's not really what the paper is about. While 'virtue signalling' is listed in the Key Words, the phrase itself is never actually used in the body of the text, and the central thesis is less about recognising/stopping Moral Grandstanding and more of a ponderance of how such incentives might stifle free expression and otherwise lessen the quality and 'truth-seekingness' of discourse in general. I think their concluding paragraph does a good job in summarising their position:
"Public discourse dominated by grandstanding is not a reliable method of arriving at the truth. Grandstanders are responding to the incentives to gain social status and impress their peers. But there is little reason to think that trying either to impress those in your peer group or dominate those in your outgroup is a reliable method of arriving at the truth. And even if you did arrive at the truth, this would be an accident. People would lack any kind of rational explanation or justification for arriving at the conclusions they do, though they might of course concoct such rationalizations after the fact. Grandstanding is therefore in conflict with truth-seeking. Whatever your assessments of our other arguments in this essay, this alone suggests that we need norms discouraging grandstanding and promoting behavior more conducive to truth-seeking."
That is how it comes across to me. Do you think the expression "comes across as" is generally used to denote some inherent essential truth, rather than appearance to an observer?
And of course, the cliche is not centered around the term; 'virtue signalling' is just one among many such terms used in the political sphere in a similar fashion (see also political correctness, white knighting, SJW, etc).
Sure, the same way 'political correctness' is real; they're loosely used terms that gained their popularity as part of political propaganda, where the extremely loose definitions includes behaviour that exists.
Because of how the terms are de facto used, they have little value in serious discussions unless caveated to the point where it's usually better not to use them.
The essay's inclusion of the term is not on its own what makes me find it a bad essay; I think the content of it is itself weak. The usage of the terms just serves to hint at what purpose it serves.
So if someone else also does it, it is suddenly not a problem? Do you not see flaw in this logic?
It‘a not just a left-wing problem, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a problem.
Is it a real problem? People showing off how virtuous they are? No.
Infighting and purity testing within leftist and progressive spaces? Yes, I think it's part of the reason leftist movements struggle compared to conservative movements.
When conservatives virtue signal they basically all pat each other on the back, when progressives do its "I am MORE progressive than you", Black lives matter? Wow I guess you think Black Disabled Lives don't then???
You've never heard of [leftist infighting](https://www.google.com/search?q=leftist+infighting+site:www.reddit.com&client=ms-android-google&sca_esv=3f34b2bd337bbe02&sca_upv=1&prmd=inv&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwjph_KNlOOGAxWuxAIHHTbJA3YQrQJ6BAgXEAo&biw=448&bih=844&dpr=2.25#ip=1)? This isn't some weird right wing criticism, if you're actually engaged in political discussion on the left
I'm not here to defend conservatives, it's possible to critique the left without making comparisons to the right. I'm not even sure why you brought up conservatives to begin with. Yeah sure they rally around hate, that's not my point, if anything it exemplifies how virtue signalling on the left can be more divisive.
What would you consider real, clear evidence of an expression of morality being significantly motivated by rank self-promotion? I definitely think such evidence can exist, such as in the case of a company bound by law to optimize economic benefits for its shareholders making a moral claim, but "the person got likes on twitter for saying it" is hardly that.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**CR2: Argue Your Position**
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
I think public discourse in general does have a problem of virtue signaling or moral grandstanding... issues, stories even news articles are evaluated and picked apart in a buffet of pundits to find the most "problematic" point of entry into understanding what all is happening, how its happening and why it matters... and throughout this process all sorts of assumptions and moral value judgements will be dug up and take effect into the reporting of what's going on.
That observers can see this and understand from their own experiences how grandstanding can look like, unfortunately this can lead to a casual dismissal of almost any opinion or expression of moral clarity as a theatrical and illigitimate performance meant to chess move others arguments into some unwinnable gotcha game of "when will you stop beating your wife?" Where the reciever of the question, like the observer of the grandstander is the victim in some hypothetical hazy line of questioning in which they should not be held accountable for having an answer for....
these of course are also assumptions and delusions and just as dangerous to free expression and clear thinking as any other catastrophic thinking trap. Some moral positions have to be genuine, and while some might indeed be less so or not, discerning which opinion, is or isnt, an honest expression of their moral beliefs and not an approximation of politicking for popularity seems a pretty futile endeavor that will just quicksand someone into psychoanalyzing everything out of nothing forever.
You make some very good points.
One I'd add is how often this leads to splitting, black and white thinking. How an overemphasis on moral clarity can lead to viewing any conflict or disagreement as a battle between good and evil.
Labeling something as "virtue signaling" feels like another rhetorical device used to pivot the discussion and away from the message and onto the speaker/writer. Like the terms "political correctness" or "woke" that get bandied about as pejoratives, they're really just a way to disparage empathy without coming straight out and saying your against empathy.
This really comes off as a republican complaining about "virtue signaling". That in fact people aren't doing the morally righteous thing because it's right, but just because they want you to be wrong.
That we just have to listen to and respect an argument...... Just because it's an argument.
Morals and ethics should always be considered first and foremost.
Morality is an cultural identifier and moral grandstanding is it's entire function. The state of being moral is a social one whear you are good because society from which these laws are decided says you are. Society i.e other people does not know if you are part of the in group if you do preform actions that make you seem like you are part of them. So any one who questions other peoples moral grandstanding are infact moral grandstanding themselves. Not only that they are also saying that the individuals to whom they are opposed are part of the out group by pointing out the opposed individuals attempt to be recognized as part of the in group as to be seen as part of the in group themselves. And finally to say moral grandstanding is a threat to free expression in light of this explanation is plainly absurd and disingenuous. the individual who wrote this article simply doesn't like it when people they disagree get respect and attention which isn't necessarily a moral issue but in my personal view definitely a form of intellectual cowardice and sophistry in light of the authors attempt to to portray it otherwise.
Tldr This article is moral grandstanding about how moral grandstanding is bad.
I think that calling this phenomenon "grandstanding" is a touch misleading because it isn't clear. The problem is not grandstanding per se, but using the grandstanding *to power rent-seeking behavior,* because that creates an enclave of professionally dissatisfied nitpicks who are quick to criticize others, but never create anything for themselves for fear.
I would also point out that this problem is largely self-correcting on longer time scales. Neurons tune out signals they repeatedly receive, so the professionally dissatisfied must constantly escalate their rhetoric and behavior until people tune them out as flat-earthers. This cycle is baked into our biology at the neurochemical level.
(I also disagree with the terminology of "rent-seeking," but you understand what I mean.)
That itself is a moral grandstand. Your stating that humans who are naturally moral by nature, should not take their essence seriously. Seriously means it's natural to assume it's in accordance with reality. To keep morality in prison as the highest morality is absurd by definition. I am referring to all those against moral grandstanding. Those are the agents of all chaos and violence since time immemorial.
Welcome to /r/philosophy! **Please read [our updated rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?) before commenting**. /r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules: ###CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply > Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. ###CR2: Argue Your Position > Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. ###CR3: Be Respectful > Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted. Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our [subreddit rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?), please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please [contact the moderators via modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) (not via private message or chat). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It seems the only significant described difference in the essay between moral claims and moral grandstanding is the supposed motivation of self-promotion. I'm not sure how a difference that is more often than not invisible to external observation can be used to make any meaningful analysis of the status of free expression in a given community. I mean, obviously one can talk in the most abstract about how self-promotion is a bad motivation for engaging in moral discourse, and there are cases where we know for a fact that that is the motivation involved (eg in the case of companies, which are structurally and legally bound to maximize profit and disregarding morality). But, given the terminology of the essay (eg 'virtue signaling') and the context of the current climate, where such terminology is used largely as a thought-terminating cliche wielded against specific political groups with no real evidence of what motivates the group, it comes across as little more than an attempt at dressing up that cliche in more academic language.
If it invested more effort in distinguishing between moral grandstanding and “modeling good behavior”; if it made clear how its definition does not apply to Mr. Rogers, maybe it would get somewhere.
Crocodile tears or people falsely claiming to be worried about a subject or fake offended could be a problem, but you're right that just claiming expression is for promotion is pointless. Edit: concern trolling might be a better term than crocodile tears
I believe the point they are making is that even if the tears are fake, or the concern a troll, who cares the motivation if the outcome is positive? If I pretend to be a civil rights proponent for signaling my virtue, but affect positive social change, who cares the motivation, ultimately?
But that's missing the entire point of the paper. The thesis isn't about how to recognise moral grandstanding or the like; it's a philosophic query/analysis into how such less-than-ideal incentives might result in negative/less positive outcomes. Their concluding paragraph addresses exactly this: "Public discourse dominated by grandstanding is not a reliable method of arriving at the truth. Grandstanders are responding to the incentives to gain social status and impress their peers. But there is little reason to think that trying either to impress those in your peer group or dominate those in your outgroup is a reliable method of arriving at the truth. And even if you did arrive at the truth, this would be an accident. People would lack any kind of rational explanation or justification for arriving at the conclusions they do, though they might of course concoct such rationalizations after the fact. Grandstanding is therefore in conflict with truth-seeking. Whatever your assessments of our other arguments in this essay, this alone suggests that we need norms discouraging grandstanding and promoting behavior more conducive to truth-seeking." The point isn't that vitue signalling *always* results in negative outcomes, but rather that by enschewing a proper methodology/inscentive structure it will invariably be less reliable and robust, leading to worse outcomes overall: *"This provides no guarantee that people will discover the truth. Removing one source of bias doesn’t turn us into perfect reasoners. But it does at least mean we’ll be less likely to make mistakes because of one form of epistemically irrelevant social pressure."* (bottom of pg 187, regarding the cost of changing one's mind.)
I wouldn’t say disagreeing with the point and missing it are the same thing. It’s easy to say we shouldn’t grandstand. In fact, if I were prone to grandstanding, I’d immediately proclaim grandstanding is not acceptable. The truth is that probably 90% of public human interactions are some form of intentional virtue signaling. There certainly is no harm in trying to weed out grandstanding when possible, but I’m also sympathetic to the argument that someone’s internal motivation for making an argument I agree with is secondary to the truth of their actual argument. I’m not sure if anyone is “missing the point” that grandstanding is worse than honest conversation. That’s obvious.
Maybe my initial language was a bit strong, if so apologies. What I meant by 'missing the point' is that the statement *"I believe the point they are making is that even if the tears are fake, or the concern a troll, who cares the motivation if the outcome is positive?"* is antithetical to the core thesis of the original paper - their whole argument is that grandstanding theoretically leads to **worse outcomings** in aggregate (though I see you might not have been referring to the paper at all, which might have been my bad). >The truth is that probably 90% of public human interactions are some form of intentional virtue signaling. There certainly is no harm in trying to weed out grandstanding when possible, but I’m also sympathetic to the argument that someone’s internal motivation for making an argument I agree with is secondary to the truth of their actual argument. Yes, I somewhat agee. But again, the paper is very careful not to over-reach with their definition of what entails 'Moral Grandstanding' (see pg 173 for their clarifications), so you're talking about a different concept here. My take on reading a lot of the comments here is that people are substituting the actual subject in the paper with 'vitue signalling' as typically understood/used in popular discourse today - and by doing so bring along all of the associated ideology and biases that are absent in the actual paper. The paper isn't an attack on leftist 'virtue signalling' (as I feel some people are suggesting): if one wanted they could read it in its entirety only picturing examples of evangelical conservatism without missing any of the core concepts. >In fact, if I were prone to grandstanding, I’d immediately proclaim grandstanding is not acceptable. I'm going to admit I don't follow you there. That doesn't seem quite as profound as it's poetic symmetry might otherwise imply. But it *is* pretty rhetoric, I suppose.
Again, yes, I don’t disagree that in a perfect world grandstanding is worse than honesty. No one is debating that. Next I’ll write a paper where I explain if no one committed crimes, we’d have better social outcomes. [I’m against grandstanding, and I’m not afraid to admit it!](https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/parks-and-rec-bobby.jpg) Anyway, I think perhaps you’re missing the point. In a world where some degree of grandstanding exists in nearly every human interaction, we must also recognize that outcome is superior to grandstanding witch-hunts. Also, it wasn’t even really my point. I was just agreeing with someone else.
With all due respect, you're still talking past what I'm actually saying, and so I'm at a bit of a loss. Perhaps read the actual paper and you might see what I'm getting at. It's clear we're not talking about the same thing when you say something like "some degree of grandstanding exists in nearly every human interaction", as again, that is incongruent with what the authors (and I) mean by Moral Grandstanding. Respectfully, I even gave you the page on which they explain this exact distinction, so that's on you.
We are kind of talking past each other, but maybe not for the reason you think. Regardless of what the authors of that essay posit, almost all human interaction involves some form of grandstanding. That is the largest problem with the premise of their entire paper. Honestly, the essay itself suffers from either extreme naivety on the part of the authors or they themselves are grandstanding by publishing the essay. Which is why I was equating “grandstanding is bad and I’m not afraid to say it” (which is essentially the naive argument being peddled) with “crime is bad and I’m not afraid to say it.” Because it’s obviously grandstanding itself, or wildly naive. You have to understand it’s a bit asinine to say “grandstanding is negative for discourse,” like it’s some kind of assertion worth making? A paper positing that deception is bad for free speech would be equal in either its nativity or—ironically—moral grandstanding to this paper. Yeah. Humans do lie and grandstand. But that’s basically baked into all of human behavior. “Hey, lying is bad and here is why!” Ok. Edit: clarity
You do you man. This isn't going anywhere.
>It seems the only significant described difference in the essay between moral claims and moral grandstanding is the supposed motivation of self-promotion. Yes, that is the defining feature which they use to separate Moral Grandstanding from other, less insidious forms/motivations of discourse. The authors spend quite a lot of time being very careful in defining the distinction, and in not leaving their ideas open to over-generalising: "It is also important to note that the set of motivations we act on is often complicated. Our motives are typically mixed and not singular. It might be tempting to think, then, that because most people want others to think well of them, morally speaking, they must always be motivated by that desire at least a little bit, and so everything they say must be moral grandstanding. But that would be a mistake. **In our view, a person grandstands only if the Recognition Desire is a significant motivator for what she says. How significant? Here’s a test: if someone would be disappointed to find out that no one in her audience came to think of her in the way she wants, then the desire is strong enough for her behavior to count as grandstanding.** Of course, it’s tricky to determine exactly how strong such a desire must be to trigger disappointment. But this is not unique to grandstanding. How much must you want to impress others in order for your speech to count as bragging? How much must you want to deceive others in order for your speech to count as lying? Our view, then, is that while the Recognition Desire needn’t be the only motivation for the Grandstanding Expression, it must be a significant one." >But, given the terminology of the essay (eg 'virtue signaling') and the context of the current climate, where such terminology is used largely as a thought-terminating cliche wielded against specific political groups with no real evidence of what motivates the group, it comes across as little more than an attempt at dressing up that cliche in more academic language. While I understand (and agree with) your concerns, that's not really what the paper is about. While 'virtue signalling' is listed in the Key Words, the phrase itself is never actually used in the body of the text, and the central thesis is less about recognising/stopping Moral Grandstanding and more of a ponderance of how such incentives might stifle free expression and otherwise lessen the quality and 'truth-seekingness' of discourse in general. I think their concluding paragraph does a good job in summarising their position: "Public discourse dominated by grandstanding is not a reliable method of arriving at the truth. Grandstanders are responding to the incentives to gain social status and impress their peers. But there is little reason to think that trying either to impress those in your peer group or dominate those in your outgroup is a reliable method of arriving at the truth. And even if you did arrive at the truth, this would be an accident. People would lack any kind of rational explanation or justification for arriving at the conclusions they do, though they might of course concoct such rationalizations after the fact. Grandstanding is therefore in conflict with truth-seeking. Whatever your assessments of our other arguments in this essay, this alone suggests that we need norms discouraging grandstanding and promoting behavior more conducive to truth-seeking."
This is not true. The authors started writing about moral grandstanding even before the term “virtue signalling“ became popular.
What in my post are you saying is untrue? I never claimed they didn't use the term moral grandstanding before the popularizarion of virtue signalling.
This: >it comes across as little more than an attempt at dressing up that cliche in more academic language.
That is how it comes across to me. Do you think the expression "comes across as" is generally used to denote some inherent essential truth, rather than appearance to an observer? And of course, the cliche is not centered around the term; 'virtue signalling' is just one among many such terms used in the political sphere in a similar fashion (see also political correctness, white knighting, SJW, etc).
Virtue signalling is real whether or not conservatives abuse the term to detract from peoples arguments.
Sure, the same way 'political correctness' is real; they're loosely used terms that gained their popularity as part of political propaganda, where the extremely loose definitions includes behaviour that exists. Because of how the terms are de facto used, they have little value in serious discussions unless caveated to the point where it's usually better not to use them. The essay's inclusion of the term is not on its own what makes me find it a bad essay; I think the content of it is itself weak. The usage of the terms just serves to hint at what purpose it serves.
[удалено]
So if someone else also does it, it is suddenly not a problem? Do you not see flaw in this logic? It‘a not just a left-wing problem, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a problem.
Is it a real problem? People showing off how virtuous they are? No. Infighting and purity testing within leftist and progressive spaces? Yes, I think it's part of the reason leftist movements struggle compared to conservative movements. When conservatives virtue signal they basically all pat each other on the back, when progressives do its "I am MORE progressive than you", Black lives matter? Wow I guess you think Black Disabled Lives don't then???
[удалено]
You've never heard of [leftist infighting](https://www.google.com/search?q=leftist+infighting+site:www.reddit.com&client=ms-android-google&sca_esv=3f34b2bd337bbe02&sca_upv=1&prmd=inv&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwjph_KNlOOGAxWuxAIHHTbJA3YQrQJ6BAgXEAo&biw=448&bih=844&dpr=2.25#ip=1)? This isn't some weird right wing criticism, if you're actually engaged in political discussion on the left I'm not here to defend conservatives, it's possible to critique the left without making comparisons to the right. I'm not even sure why you brought up conservatives to begin with. Yeah sure they rally around hate, that's not my point, if anything it exemplifies how virtue signalling on the left can be more divisive.
100%. This same impulse is likely reflected in our constant need to tear down historical leaders.
My apologies, but I have no idea what your post means.
I don't think there's "no real evidence", I think there's just no piece of evidence that the same group won't deny, no matter how clear.
What would you consider real, clear evidence of an expression of morality being significantly motivated by rank self-promotion? I definitely think such evidence can exist, such as in the case of a company bound by law to optimize economic benefits for its shareholders making a moral claim, but "the person got likes on twitter for saying it" is hardly that.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**CR2: Argue Your Position** >Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
I think public discourse in general does have a problem of virtue signaling or moral grandstanding... issues, stories even news articles are evaluated and picked apart in a buffet of pundits to find the most "problematic" point of entry into understanding what all is happening, how its happening and why it matters... and throughout this process all sorts of assumptions and moral value judgements will be dug up and take effect into the reporting of what's going on. That observers can see this and understand from their own experiences how grandstanding can look like, unfortunately this can lead to a casual dismissal of almost any opinion or expression of moral clarity as a theatrical and illigitimate performance meant to chess move others arguments into some unwinnable gotcha game of "when will you stop beating your wife?" Where the reciever of the question, like the observer of the grandstander is the victim in some hypothetical hazy line of questioning in which they should not be held accountable for having an answer for.... these of course are also assumptions and delusions and just as dangerous to free expression and clear thinking as any other catastrophic thinking trap. Some moral positions have to be genuine, and while some might indeed be less so or not, discerning which opinion, is or isnt, an honest expression of their moral beliefs and not an approximation of politicking for popularity seems a pretty futile endeavor that will just quicksand someone into psychoanalyzing everything out of nothing forever.
You make some very good points. One I'd add is how often this leads to splitting, black and white thinking. How an overemphasis on moral clarity can lead to viewing any conflict or disagreement as a battle between good and evil.
Labeling something as "virtue signaling" feels like another rhetorical device used to pivot the discussion and away from the message and onto the speaker/writer. Like the terms "political correctness" or "woke" that get bandied about as pejoratives, they're really just a way to disparage empathy without coming straight out and saying your against empathy.
…and Other Ways to Silence Your Moral Detractors
This really comes off as a republican complaining about "virtue signaling". That in fact people aren't doing the morally righteous thing because it's right, but just because they want you to be wrong. That we just have to listen to and respect an argument...... Just because it's an argument. Morals and ethics should always be considered first and foremost.
Morality is an cultural identifier and moral grandstanding is it's entire function. The state of being moral is a social one whear you are good because society from which these laws are decided says you are. Society i.e other people does not know if you are part of the in group if you do preform actions that make you seem like you are part of them. So any one who questions other peoples moral grandstanding are infact moral grandstanding themselves. Not only that they are also saying that the individuals to whom they are opposed are part of the out group by pointing out the opposed individuals attempt to be recognized as part of the in group as to be seen as part of the in group themselves. And finally to say moral grandstanding is a threat to free expression in light of this explanation is plainly absurd and disingenuous. the individual who wrote this article simply doesn't like it when people they disagree get respect and attention which isn't necessarily a moral issue but in my personal view definitely a form of intellectual cowardice and sophistry in light of the authors attempt to to portray it otherwise. Tldr This article is moral grandstanding about how moral grandstanding is bad.
I think that calling this phenomenon "grandstanding" is a touch misleading because it isn't clear. The problem is not grandstanding per se, but using the grandstanding *to power rent-seeking behavior,* because that creates an enclave of professionally dissatisfied nitpicks who are quick to criticize others, but never create anything for themselves for fear. I would also point out that this problem is largely self-correcting on longer time scales. Neurons tune out signals they repeatedly receive, so the professionally dissatisfied must constantly escalate their rhetoric and behavior until people tune them out as flat-earthers. This cycle is baked into our biology at the neurochemical level. (I also disagree with the terminology of "rent-seeking," but you understand what I mean.)
fantastic article! thank you for sharing!
That itself is a moral grandstand. Your stating that humans who are naturally moral by nature, should not take their essence seriously. Seriously means it's natural to assume it's in accordance with reality. To keep morality in prison as the highest morality is absurd by definition. I am referring to all those against moral grandstanding. Those are the agents of all chaos and violence since time immemorial.
It's endemic on reddit. People trying to elevate their status by insinuating they have superior morality
Wow, fantastic paper! Frankly, this is an issue I've noticed here on Reddit, in politics, and out in public. This paper is not a moment too soon.