I am not aware of a context where virtue signaling would be a good practice or behavior.

Virtue can be practiced and even observed without being signalled.

Practicing virtue in public, even if you don't intend it that way, is signaling virtue. What is strange is how in our society virtue has to be justified. Is it virtue signaling that people dislike, or being fake?

Virtue signaling has similar effect as vice signaling: it signals to others what you think is good thing to do. It is statement toward rest of word.

The signal it sends is that appearances and whatnot matter more than actual substances, that appearing to do something is more important than doing something.

Bragging about how your food is cruelty free when you don't really care about the food, you care about being able to say that it's cruelty free doesn't make you against animal cruelty except by some absurdly expansive definition of "against".

And there's also 800lb gorilla that is political discourse where people routinely say one thing and then not only do nothing to advance that, they live their lives by something that's close to the opposite.

Rewarding virtue signaling absolves people of much of the requirement to put their money where their mouth is and relaxing that requirement is a bad thing.

First paragraph care more about what whoever does that action feels then about what impact it has.

All in all, it rewards primary doing and saying nothing. Everyone else can be accused of virtue signaling.

Perhaps we're working to different definitions of the term. To me, virtue signaling is signaling (i.e. making publicly known) a virtuous act. To me that seems like an unambiguously good thing: it is likely to inspire others to similar virtuous acts, creating a feedback loop of people encouraging others to engage in good behaviour. "I voted! You should get out and vote too" feels like an example of positive virtual signaling.

Broadly speaking, I think there is nothing wrong with, say, videoing yourself serving food at a soup kitchen. It's when you use that video to boost your own profile rather than the virtuous act that it becomes problematic. There are plenty of people that do that. However there are also plenty of people who interpret any public record of virtue as being inherently narcissistic and I think that's just as bad.

The problem with public displays of virtue is that it comes off as seeking return value for the action. Virtuous acts should be done in quiet/secret and for the simple reason for it being virtuous. Seeking some other sort of value out of it (like social recognition, social credit, youtube views which end up with ad revenue) makes the act look dishonest. The act wasn't done because they were a nice person, the act was done because they were seeking to increase their own value.

The way to go about this is to do the thing without anyone knowing and without displaying it. To do it without expecting any personal gain at all. If a friend tells their friend "afavour brought me soup when I was sick, it was so sweet of them" or if someone asks you what you do in your spare time and you say "sometimes I serve at a soup kitchen." then that's fine because that kind of display, which was prompted by other people, can't really be seen as you seeking to cash out the value of the virtuous act.

> it comes off as seeking return value for the action

Surely that’s in the eye of the beholder? It is possible to interpret it that way, certainly. But applying the observers value judgement (i.e. how it comes off) onto the original actor seems unfair to me.

Sometimes I feel like (and I don’t mean anything personal by this) we’re all cynical bastards these days so when we see someone do something genuinely altruistic we simply cannot process it as such and immediately seek a way to dismiss it as self-serving.

> we’re all cynical bastards these days so when we see someone do something genuinely altruistic we simply cannot process it as such and immediately seek a way to dismiss it as self-serving

The question to ask is where this cynicism came from.

I would argue that it is the performative variety of virtue that has made us mistrust such acts.

We wouldn’t have a reason to doubt one’s intentions if those intentions are indistinguishable on the surface from a popular meme, which is what many of these recorded acts of kindness seem to be.

Only the person carrying out the act knows the truth of what is in their heart, but I would argue that the very act of recording, bolstered by the act of publishing that recording reveals there are other motives involved.

After all, why does one post such a video? To participate in the incentive structure afforded by the social media platform of choice.

Those incentive structures are inherently about self promotion, which feels incompatible with virtue.

Now you could argue that I’m just being cynical about why people post on social media. Maybe that person has a genuine desire to brighten someone else’s day through their own act of kindness. Maybe the guy with the flowers was similarly genuine.

I think the video that is the focal point of this thread provides a good counterpoint to this. It made me uncomfortable when I first saw it (before this article emerged), and now I have a confirmation as to why. Even if the guy had every right intention, the incentive structure of social media overrode his better judgement and blinded him to the impact he was actually having.

I don’t think it is impossible to highlight one’s good work in an appropriate way, and I do think there’s an opportunity to inspire people to do good things, but I’m not convinced that this trend of social media posts has anything to do with that.

> But the people in the soup kitchen see me serving the food. Anyone walking by might see me in the window.

The nuance here is that there's a difference being observed doing a kind act versus purposefully making it a public spectacle. I don't view people I observe doing something altruistic as self-seeking unless they try to "cash in" on it.

I would see someone helping a person in need and think "how kind of them!" But then later, if I see an Instagram post from that person saying "There was this person in need of help and I went over there and did something about it", then it can be seen as self-seeking.

I actually erased the part you replied to, sorry. Primarily because I figured out the response to it myself!

> it can be seen

I still maintain that it’s unfair to project the value judgement of the observer onto the observed, as if the observer is impartial in all of this. It can be seen that way, yes, but it doesn’t have to be. That is the observer’s choice.

> Virtuous acts should be done in quiet/secret and for the simple reason for it being virtuous.

Genuinely, why? As in, why is it better to do nothing then to do virtuous action that you also get some benefit from?

Might be better stated as "altruistic acts", but the primary reason is that the benefactor's anonymity preserves the dignity of the recipient. When done privately:

1. The recipient doesn't have to cop to/explain their situation that prompted the generosity,

2. The recipient doesn't feel the need to publicly acknowledge the help (which in turn implies publicly explaining that you needed help),

3. The recipient doesn't become a revenue-generator without giving their permission, as happens in this case and others like it

When done in public, these acts cease to be altruism - they're now a business exchange ("content creator" gives you something of value (flowers) in exchange for something else of value (clicks/views/clout)). Except you didn't know you were making this business deal, which is beyond slimy.

IIRC most religious texts teach to do altruism privately, for reasons such as this. Attention-seeking didn't just come about in the internet age, it just got easier.

I would alter that slightly: virtuous acts should be done whenever an opportunity arises. When we see particularly conspicuous acts of virtue, by which the practitioner benefits greatly, especially when the opportunity to avoid conspicuousness existed but was eschewed, we are right to suspect that the act would not have taken place in the absence of an audience, and thus actually signals a lack of virtue. (Because the virtuous act so regardless of audience, and personal benefit, and even at great personal risk or hardship).

I agree that folks need to have a discerning eye on this. There are several channels on YouTube where lawn care guys will mow an overgrown yard for free. Yes, they are filming it and hoping to drum up interest in their channel, but providing free lawn care is objectively a kind and expensive thing to do. In these cases, the amount of effort expended being actually kind makes it obvious it's not just some stage with props.

Absolutely, and I’d say your example prompts a further question: even if it is partially self serving, maybe it’s worth the price? If these YouTubers are are looking for subscribers but also do free lawn care and inspire others to do other free things for those who can’t do it themselves… do we really need to be so down on it?

> "I voted! You should get out and vote too" feels like an example of positive virtual signalling.

Good point. This is a clear example of where "virtue signalling" (leading by example in this case) can be considered a good. rather than an ostentatious, pretentious, or pridefull showing-off of empty virtue.

I think there's basically two different sorts of behaviour that could fit the description. One is doing something good while setting an example for others, and the other is being seen to do something good or virtuous in order to receive appreciation for it.

Virtue signaling in the common parlance specifically refers to exposition for personal benefit. Ie, they don't act virtuously when the cameras are off

I think demonstration of virtue would be a better term without this connotation. EG being a role model.

The large amount of virtue signaling has poisoned the Well for people that simply want to promote good deeds and behavior.

I like too think a virtuous person signals virtue without being narcissistic

Most people now use "virtue signaling" as as insult to quickly dismiss any person expressing ethical concerns.

The silent downvotes only prove my point.

I meant it's a useful and descriptive term. I abhor the behavior.

Virtue signalling is a term made up by a hard right libertarian propagandist writing for the spectator as a means of silencing progressive voices online. It’s a bullshit term for which we already had a perfectly good word: hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is insufficiently precise. It is possible to disingenuously engage in any particular activity. If you wish to describe a specific behavior, then a better descriptor is necessary. On top of that, not all virtue signaling is necessarily disingenuous.

And all terms are made up, and the political leanings of the person who supposedly coined the phrase is irrelevant to its applicability.

You’re using the term disingenuous incorrectly so excuse me while I disregard your opinion on language entirely.