We went for a coffee in town yesterday at a local coffee shop for the first time in 4 months. We were the only patrons, sat outside and were sensibly asked to provide our contact details before leaving, which we did. It's now being reported that after Super Saturday, three pubs have been forced to close following customers having tested positive for C-19.
My regular reader, Steve, commented on my post about Virtue Signalling:
My regular reader, Steve, commented on my post about Virtue Signalling:
"Not sure I completely agree with your conclusion Chairman. If someone makes a claim, i.e. "I care about X" then they should also provide evidence for that claim, ideally actions or evidence of sincerity. If you don't provide evidence and/or cannot bring past evidence to bear then I think it's fair for people to suspect VS. For example the celebrity who has never shown any interest, opinion or action on a subject who suddenly tweets about it (because the topic is trending?), in that case, raising the question of VS is neither rude nor stupid but quite reasonable. Especially if that person is choosing to be, i.e. making money from being in the public eye. Anther problem is that the definition of "virtue" isn't fixed, so what might seem virtuous to me might not seem virtuous to you, and it changes over time. For example, many people see "faith" as a virtue whereas I don't, so it's not a level playing field etc.."
Steve - sorry for taking such a long time to reply, but I did qualify what I said in terms of 'in the manner in which it's most often used," which is as a means of aggressively shutting down a conversation by those having not a scintilla of sympathy with the cause or issue under consideration.
Additionally, one can care about an issue without having a single idea as to what to do about it, thereby not exhibiting concrete evidence of supporting the issue, except with empathy. World peace, for example, is an aim most would support, but how? You can't exactly vote for it.
Then there's the aspect of guilt. You can believe we're cooking ourselves to death and feel guilty about it while doing very little about the situation due to being on a low income and trapped by the system that created the situation; there again you can intellectually believe we're cooking ourselves to death, but not feel the slightest guilt as you fully expect others to do the hard work. It's the latter who will fling the phrase Virtue Signalling around with gay abandon at those not living off-grid in a cave, which is actually very expensive.
As for faith in it's most used sense - that's piety and not necessarily virtue. Faith can compel one to do virtuous virtuous acts, but faith in and of itself is not a virtue. There again, faith can take many aspects - for example, some have an irrational and unshakeable belief, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that Brexit will produce a land flowing with milk and honey. It's certainly a faith, but there's no way that could be called a virtue. It's self delusion and self destruction, unless you're a disaster capitalist - in which case you'll likely profit from it handsomely at the expense of others.
My main problem with the term virtue signalling is that it moves the focus from the target of the moral claim to the person making it. It can therefore be used to avoid addressing the moral claim made. It's a means of deflection rather than engagement. A classic case of shooting the messenger.
Steve - sorry for taking such a long time to reply, but I did qualify what I said in terms of 'in the manner in which it's most often used," which is as a means of aggressively shutting down a conversation by those having not a scintilla of sympathy with the cause or issue under consideration.
Additionally, one can care about an issue without having a single idea as to what to do about it, thereby not exhibiting concrete evidence of supporting the issue, except with empathy. World peace, for example, is an aim most would support, but how? You can't exactly vote for it.
Then there's the aspect of guilt. You can believe we're cooking ourselves to death and feel guilty about it while doing very little about the situation due to being on a low income and trapped by the system that created the situation; there again you can intellectually believe we're cooking ourselves to death, but not feel the slightest guilt as you fully expect others to do the hard work. It's the latter who will fling the phrase Virtue Signalling around with gay abandon at those not living off-grid in a cave, which is actually very expensive.
As for faith in it's most used sense - that's piety and not necessarily virtue. Faith can compel one to do virtuous virtuous acts, but faith in and of itself is not a virtue. There again, faith can take many aspects - for example, some have an irrational and unshakeable belief, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that Brexit will produce a land flowing with milk and honey. It's certainly a faith, but there's no way that could be called a virtue. It's self delusion and self destruction, unless you're a disaster capitalist - in which case you'll likely profit from it handsomely at the expense of others.
My main problem with the term virtue signalling is that it moves the focus from the target of the moral claim to the person making it. It can therefore be used to avoid addressing the moral claim made. It's a means of deflection rather than engagement. A classic case of shooting the messenger.
2 comments:
On VS: Agreed, it's a hard thing to quantify, certainly lot's of opportunity for double-standards, but I would like to think we can objectively look at an individual situation, weigh the evidence and make a reasonable assessment of VS or not (benefit of the doubt etc.) In terms of how this criticism is "most often used", I guess that depends on what people mostly read or consume etc. For me the "most common" accusation of VS is in relation to various twitter arguments about the various "phobias" that pervade our discourse these days, things like homophobia, trans-phobia, Islamophobia etc. where I see a huge amount of VS, particularly from corporations wishing to hedge their bets and not lose business even though in reality they couldn't give a toss about the actual debate etc. Personally I feel this should be questioned when encountered or suspected, as per the celebrity example, it's deception pure and simple and many are led astray by it IMO.
Re Faith: I think many people feel that "faith" most certainly is a virtue, however I see your point, perhaps I should have qualified that by saying "religious faith", although some people would argue this for non-religious faith too (i.e. nationalism!).
I guess this question hinges on definitions.
If we can agree that a "virtue" is "that which is necessary to facilitate a flourishing human life" (Aristotle) or something along those lines (for example morality) Then, I would then argue that many Christians (not all) say that "faith in Christianity is necessary to facilitate a flourishing human life". Most seem to argue this because they sincerely believe that we can't have objective morality without God and you can't believe in God without faith, ergo (religious) faith is a virtue. I would argue that this isn't true as it's quite easy to evidence moral behaviour in people who aren't Christians and also show immoral behaviour in people who are Christians. It's therefore demonstrably unnecessary to have "faith" in anything in particular in order to facilitate a flourishing of Human life etc. ergo (religious) faith is not a virtue.
Hopefully clearer?
Post a Comment