I've never understood the term "virtue signalling", but, perhaps I misunderstood the nicomachean ethics. My understanding -- or at least where I've gotten to through life -- is that ethical virtue is predicated by actions, and that why we do things has little to do with whether an action is virtuous.
But, I could well be wrong. It's been a while since I've studied ethics in anything like a rigorous well. If anyone would like to explain it to me, please do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's basically exactly what I think, Terra Frank. There is a degree to which this post is a honey trap.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that I /know/ what it means, but the way I /understood/ it's use from context was that virtue signaling was a way to describe when people would talk about how virtuous they or their actions were/will be as opposed to just letting the actions speak for themselves.
ReplyDeleteAnd I can't help but wonder what you are trying to trap here, now that you've mentioned the honey trap. (fixed typo, though honesty trap was kind of amusing)
Is it bad to talk about doing virtuous things, Matt Johnson?
ReplyDeleteNo? Wait... is this the trap? /waits to karate chop you if you jump out and yell "GOTCHA" like some sort of fun house exhibit/
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't really care if you talk about being virtuous or not, but if you are asking about it in the context of "virtue signaling", then... it depends. It's only bad if you are claiming virtue by dint of the talking, without ever doing the actions themselves. It's really just concerned with if you are trying to co opt the appearance of virtue.
I mean, it's only a minor trap and you are not the intended trapped creature.
ReplyDeleteIf I claim to have done good things ("today, I gave money to a homeless dude"), then what harm has been caused? That is, by what standard do you call it bad?
Going to bed. Not sure this made sense anyway.
ReplyDeleteEh. /shrug/I suppose without knowing why you are lying about it, i.e. what are you gaining from this lie, judging harm is difficult.
ReplyDeleteAlso, have you read this and is there some aspect in particular you disagree with?
ReplyDeleteen.wikipedia.org - Virtue signalling - Wikipedia
I for one signal all of what little virtue I have, because among those virtues is honesty.
ReplyDeleteA meaningful distinction:
ReplyDelete* One action is ethically good and really helps people. It also gets you some kind of cred as a good person.
* Another action is ethically neutral and doesn't really affect anyone, but it still gets you cred as a good person.
Both of these might be called virtue signalling by someone who disagrees with the politics of said action. But nonetheless, there is a difference between them. I agree that ethics is mainly about actions rather than intentions, but when you set out with the intention (perhaps even the subconscious intention) of getting cred, you may wind up doing a lot more of the latter type of action.
I believe firmly that all credit I am due will inevitably drain away in the endless sluice of time and boredom we all plummet through, so it is of no consequence to me. Still, I feel like one should virtue signal, at least as a warning to other motorists.
ReplyDeleteLike "social justice warrior," "virtue signaling" is an insult only if you start by assuming such actions are inherently hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteDavid Hertz Well, hold on a sec.
ReplyDeleteVirtue Ethics, as i remember aristotle, is about taking the right action at the right time. Golden mean between two vices sort of thing. Acting correctly, where "correctly" is, to simplify to breaking, "like Aristotle".
Utilitarianism and its children (consequential, utility maximization, etc) are fundamentally about something different, as is deontological Kant-like morality.
Under the first, telling people about your good works might just be a good thing, especially if it leads them to act correctly. Whether or not you did the thing is a little secondary, if you would have done so, and if you lead others to do the same.
Jason Corley That's some serious nihilism there.
ReplyDeleteJesse Cox What actions, though? The actions of, say, telling people I done good? Is the claim that informing others of your virtuous actions is inherently bad?
ReplyDeleteIf a sexual predator refers to women as "hos", women take warning and protective action.
ReplyDeleteIf same predator moderates his language and (falsely) signals respect for women generally, and the importance of consent specifically, defenses may go down.
That is the context in which I have heard "virtue signaling" used well as a phrase.
Ahhh, so using words to disarm individuals for the purpose of victimizing them, Tony Lower-Basch?
ReplyDeleteThat's most def a shitty action, though I don't think it coheres with how I've heard the phrase used.
Yeah, it's a double-whammy: the people who use the term as a general pejorative both (1) promote a culture of amorality and (2) obscure a useful safety term. I assume both results are intended.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Nichols Believe me, the alternative, where I get what I am due forever, is much more horrific.
ReplyDeleteWilliam, all of that is very nice but has nothing to do with what I said.
ReplyDeleteThe distinction between the actions I described isn't that one of them is public and the other is private, it's that one of them is morally good, and the other is morally neutral, even though both get you virtue cred.
So arguments about whether it's good to tell others about your good deeds (whether you did them or not) are irrelevant, because in the latter case you not only didn't do a good deed, you are not even telling people you did a good deed. You're telling them you did a morally neutral deed.
David: I'm saying I don't understand the notion of virtue as it applies to deontology or utilitarianism. Virtue sounds like it is a crude attempt to reference virtue ethics, so the lens we look at the meaning of the word needs to be from that perspective.
ReplyDeleteAs such, I'm not sure why there's a conflation in your post about ethical goodness and helping people. Those two are not necessarily linked.
William Nichols: It is possible (perhaps even likely) that David is using a more colloquial definition of the word virtue... something along the lines of "an action which demonstrates a devotion to tribally shared goals, even if the action itself is without impact upon those goals."
ReplyDelete