From politicians taking moral stances to increase popularity, to companies like BP accused of 'greenwashing' to boost revenue, we tend to see the flaunting of virtue as a fundamental perversion of morality. This is mistaken argues Holly Elmore. Virtue signalling is a vital component of ethical behaviour and we should seek to adopt better and more meaningful signals to navigate through the moral landscape.
We all hate virtue signalling, right? Talk is cheap, and performances of virtue can be utterly bankrupt. Sam Bankman-Fried brazenly described his “talking about ethics” before the FTX crash as “this dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right shibboleths and so everyone likes us”, confirming the internet’s worst suspicions about conspicuous displays of “virtue”.
But, despite all this, I believe the pendulum has swung too far against virtue signalling. Virtue signalling is bad when signalling virtue is confused for possessing the virtue and when possessing a virtue is confused for having a good effect upon the world. It is at its worst when all your energy goes to signalling virtue at the expense of actually doing anything good. But sometimes we do have something to prove, whether to others or just ourselves, and we aren’t off the hook just because it’s possible to lie. Quality signals of virtue, especially costly signals that are difficult to fake, are very useful tools– sometimes the only tools we have for assessing character.
Join the conversation