12

Moral Outrage: A Theory on Why We’re Seeing So Much of It

Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 5 months, 2 weeks ago to Culture
65 comments | Share | Flag

I've been saying this for quite a while now...so I'm not crazy or morally outraged. What we've been seeing with the left, the academics, the protesters, is an attempt to draw attention to others when they themselves are guilty. The difference is, these groups are not aware of their own behavior but somewhere deep deep inside, (you've got to go really really deep), they act out instinctively.

What's really disturbing about these groups is we're paying them to do so, money right out of your back pocket through taxes, donations and investments.

There is something to be said about Conscious Self inspection; but for the acts of government, politics, and destruction of your property, at our expense, we are justified to be outraged because we expected better of them.

So much for the separation of morality, ethics, accountability and state.
SOURCE URL: http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/moral-outrage-theory-why-were-seeing-so-much-it


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    Deflect, lie, deflect. Straight out the Democrat playbook. See Dinesh D'Souza's movie "Hillary's America".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  5 months, 2 weeks ago
      I did, and even though I had been studying the subject for a while...I still learned a few new things.

      Case in point, Dinesh came to America to be an American and he learned not just our constitution but our history as well...There is no better American that the ones that Want to be and can appreciate and live the dream.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -4
        Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        Dinesh d'Souza probably experiences moral outrage the same as everyone else. (Fear of spiders... love of friends... a good night's sleep... watching for pedestrians... People are people.) As a point of fact, d'Souza is a convicted criminal who willfully broke political campaign contribution laws. He knew the law. He knew that his actions were wrong - if not under law, then factually; we can argue that - and his moral outrage at "Hillary's America" allows him to re-establish his view of himself.... yourself... myself...

        This is not special to one group or to any individual. It is how people work internally. The authors were only attracted by a recent mass mediated expression of it. So, as psychologists, they studied it.

        And it is not new with them. They began this work at least five years ago with other colleagues.
        Zachary Rothschild here:
        https://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/z/zro...
        Lucas Keefer here:
        https://www.usm.edu/psychology/facult...

        (I am morally outraged because you do not do your homework.)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  5 months, 2 weeks ago
          There is a big difference between those that can admit wrong doing, pay the price and be better for it and those that don't even realize their own wrong doing..
          Thanks for the links.

          As far as hiltery or any of these creatures is that number 1...she was on our payroll and we have every right to bitch. Number 2, she truly is an unconscious idiot that clearly has no mutuality with us, never mind existence itself.
          She and her ilk are some kind of universal retards...I'd sooner trust a snake...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      It applies to all political persuasions, to all religious or philosophical systems, and it applies to individuals with no special self-identifications, who condemn their neighbors for not mowing the lawn.

      You are engaging in right now when you condemn Democrats and Hillary Clinton. You re-establish your own moral superiority.

      Also, see their fifth test; " Study 5 showed that guilt-driven outrage was attenuated by an affirmation of moral identity in an unrelated context." When you socialize here with friends over music, for instance, you diminish your moral outrage against the Democrats and the former First Lady. You do socialize here about music, don't you?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        There is selective/hypocritical outrage and then there is justified condemnation. If I adhere to the laws of ethics and morality which are the expectation of society, I have a right to call out those who have similarly agreed to adhere to those laws and instead refuse to and to such a degree that they openly flaunt their rebellion. It only becomes hypocrisy when one is doing one thing and saying another. That would be one thing if it were an individual choice, but this is the policy and actions of an entire political party and it is consistent and brazen. Do I assert that it is morally reprehensible and that there is a superior way? Absolutely. So should you.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    The guilty often accuse the innocent of the acts the guilty have committed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      Again, as I referenced earlier, one of the salient studies was "Techniques of Neutralization" by Gresham Sykes and David Matza (1964). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techniq...

      Denial of responsibility. (They made me do it. This was retaliation, not aggression.)
      Denial of injury. (Nothing much was harmed, no one was much hurt.)
      Denial of the victim. (They deserved it.)
      Condemnation of the condemners. (You are worse than us.)
      Appeal to higher loyalties. (Greater good, higher purpose, higher moral law, deeper commitments.)

      As you can see, it applies to the Civil Rights movement as well as to Galt's Strike. The techniques are morally neutral. It is just how people think (maybe just WEIRD people - see above https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... ).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  5 months, 2 weeks ago
        If you noticed, all those actions and examples are the behaviors of children.

        Maybe they need a good spanking but I am afraid that they'd probably enjoy it...so it would only reinforce that behavior.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Lucky 5 months, 2 weeks ago
          Old Ugly gets jackpot.

          I should have read this more carefully before my other ramblings.
          Yes, they deserve the restrictions as well as protections that are correctly imposed on the immature.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    The morally outraged. Screaming, violence, thuggery.

    Look at the screamers.
    Permissible as, according to academics, they are alleviating past guilt?
    Are they expressing anguish over past guilt, or are they showing childish solidarity with fellow empty heads?

    Libertarian conservative political scientist forced by a baying mob of students to abandon the stage in mid-lecture.
    Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, which examined possible links between race and intelligence, had to flee Middlebury College in Vermont with the assistance of security guards.
    The prof who invited had her arm broken.


    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/and...

    http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/03...

    etc.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  5 months, 2 weeks ago
      I think his work might be better excepted by rational people if he addressed the culture of particular societies. Take Africa for example...most are pre-literate, non civilized and disempowered by those that hold power over them and usurp the money the UN bigots throws at them while instead of empowering, teaching and investing they decide to bring the rest of the world down to that level...to them, that makes everything equal.

      Truthfully, I have nothing but an extended Bow finger to show them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by EdGoldstein 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        The Left operates without a moral or ethical code that we recognize, because they reject the concept of the responsible individual capable of exercising free will. All leftist ideas come from German philosophy and since Hegel, German philosophy has been founded upon predestination in some form of social forces or even instincts, but never the responsible individual. All ideas of the Left are founded upon the supremacy of the gang in some form be it race, class, sex practice or any other dividing point. Since the whole basis of their belief structure is gang based, it is a short step to looking at life as part of a mob. To a leftist all the individual can be is part of a gang with the attitudes and actions as defined for that gang by other leftists. For a leftist being black makes you a victim and being white makes you an oppressor. This gang attitude is why all leftists are little Hitlers in waiting. They really believe the good resides in enforcing their gang values upon all.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  5 months, 2 weeks ago
          Thank you Ed.
          I heard it said that Mankind, being Mammals and having natures instincts are and should be better than mere animals. What you have demonstrated is that the Left are no better than animals and surely relates to my observation that they are not conscious beings in the same sense as we are. I can see in my work that many that have been victimized do have the ability, once aware, to gain introspection and create value. I have witnessed some stunning awakenings in the Neothink Society as did our Forefathers; But, as for some of the most vial on the left...there is no hope.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Ed75 5 months, 2 weeks ago
          One might also consider that folks on the left actually fear those who are willing to stand alone as individuals. They only feel safe in "group think" situations and conditions.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  5 months, 2 weeks ago
            Group think, think tanks, are groups that think alike...no new information and highly compartmentalized...if the integrated right understood that, they'd hold what Neothink calls: Master Mind Sessions...each one brings a different piece of the puzzle.

            But, I digress...what's in a name?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  skidance 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      I read the book several times and was unable to understand how it was racist. Approximately the first third of the book described how low-IQ whites contribute to societal problems. Some subsequent chapters addressed possible solutions to racial aspects of the issue. Murray and Hernstein also stated that there are hundreds of thousands of black people in the U.S. with IQs over 130.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    The proposition is:
    1) that there are people who express moral outrage,
    2) that these same people have committed actions, or have held thoughts, which they now regret, and now want to expunge by the public expression of moral outrage.

    To make the case, it would be necessary to define 'moral' and identify those who belong to groups 1) and 2) and show that these groups are the same people. In such studies, confirmation bias is the rule. 'Seek and you shall find'.

    Perhaps the source paper reports on this effort.
    In the intellectualtakeout link no evidence of this is given.

    Example questions were probably- did you ever do anything that you now consider as immoral?
    Have you ever had an immoral thought?
    Two people answer yes to at least one point.
    Next question- More recently, have you ever expressed outrage at immorality?
    A few people answer yes. So case proven. !

    The summary concludes with:
    'hopefully the research .. gets us closer to understanding why people are demonstrating so much outrage'.
    I have given a simpler explanation - People like to join groups.

    Perhaps this could be tested by identifying sociable people and seeing how many of them express moral outrage, and v.v.
    As the same definitional and confirmation bias problems exists I predict the conclusion would be the same -
    yes the proposition is correct.
    Try, sociability -> entertainment industry-> much moral posturing.

    A better policy- go for Occum's Razor, the simplest explanation,
    better still- form no conclusion without evidence.

    Another thought, most of the public moral outragers are young adults and teens.
    So is that the age cohort more likely to have guilt over their past than older people?
    Instead I postulate, that that is the age when attention seeking with peers is most prevalent.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  5 months, 2 weeks ago
      Last point, spot on.
      We don't know the peramiters of the study and it cost's 40 bucks to find out...however, we can observe that the loudest of the loud, the least moral of the average and the most vial of the violent are in fact not aware of their own immorality.
      And yes, not expressed in the brief, those that follow, just for jollies or those that are being paid to agitate with no conscience in doing so.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    I have noticed this during the last election. The charges leveled by the democrats against the republicans seemed to make more sense leveled against themselves. Same now. When I hear them now, I just turn them around on the accuser.
    All this Trump and Russia stuff- it was Obama who told the ambassador he would have more leeway on negotiations after the election. the dems met with the russians a lot. Its a witch hunt for sure to get rid of Trump. What a waste.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by scojohnson 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      I keep thinking "when did the Democrats become anti-Russia hawks?" Remember the 'Reset Button'? Obama did nothing about Crimea. He did nothing about Ukraine, and he basically did nothing about Russian jets leveling Syria... but now we're suddenly supposed to be "outraged" when a Russian Ambassador talks to people legitimately doing their job? Such as AG Sessions, or I'll even argue General Flynn. With Obama on some stupid witch hunt to 'expel' 35 diplomats for whatever he thought the Russians hacked, then wouldn't it be kind of natural for the Russian Ambassador to reach out to General Flynn and say "Hey, before we do anything to escalate this, is this something you are going to sustain or should we just sit on our hands for 2 weeks until Dumbo with the big ears is out of the Oval Office?" And magically, Putin blew it off rather than turn it into an international incident.

      Newsflash... Maybe Podesta should have had stronger password than the word "P@ssword".

      Maybe some Bernie people were pretty pissed off at Hillary fixing the election and they just handed out the documents and the account login credentials. I find that dramatically more plausible than the Russians being afraid of a woman that is basically a walking policy vending machine. Put your half-million in and get what you want.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        This whole contact with russia thing is bogus. I think Trump should blow it off and get on with what he was hired to do
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by scojohnson 5 months, 2 weeks ago
          I think his reactions are basically in their opposition analysis. They don't need to be right, or really even sound like being sane to most Americans, they do this and have a high confidence that it will rattle his cage and provoke a response.

          That seems to be Trump's weakness, and it could easily bring down his presidency if he doesn't let the professionals start managing his daily message. He could easily go into the midterms looking like as much of a nut-job as they are.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 5 months, 2 weeks ago
            they are trying to use up his time so he gets nowhere and then they can say he failed. No one wants to be attacked all the time and let political correctness bring you down. He has to realize that the people who elected him dont care about this nonsense. He needs to do what we hired him to do.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    Moral outrage. Moral posturing. Virtue signalling. etc.

    This explanation is unconvincing.
    Rather, it is simply a wish (instinct?) to belong to a group.

    Those who are loud in public will not join the calm reasoners, or the indifferent.
    They are joining a bandwagon.
    There is no need to investigate their past for moral failings, they are just weak minded.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  5 months, 2 weeks ago
      Actually weak brained, they have no mind inwhich to control their brain....laughing but it's really sad...we as a species have only had 3000 years to work on conscious behavior.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        That is important to understand. The mind was an invention, an outgrowth of writing which was developed to facilitate counting. We think that base-10 is "natural" but that and the alphabet are at once the children and parents of the mind.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  5 months, 2 weeks ago
          Yes, even though Jaynes credits metaphors and rightfully so, writing was a key factor also...maybe even more once your realize the movements you make and the connections created in the brain.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      You are morally outraged at the weak-minded. You join us here in your moral outrage to re-establish your moral standing in your own view.

      What you said above is true, but it denies the importance of the study. Barbara Branden taught a class called "Efficient Thinking." I only know out-takes from it; I attended one lecture as a guest many decades ago. But identifying errors is part of the process of establishing good habits.

      Another example in the same vein is "Cognitive Dissonance." Conservative bloggers have correctly identified it as a modality of left-wing thinking (or ahem "thinking"). It explains why protests against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan did not continue into the Obama administration. But the theory was developed, in part, on the basis of how people live with buying the wrong car.

      For an example of applied good thinking, read "The WEIRDest People in the World" "

      It is about a truly unusual group: people from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic
      (WEIRD)1 societies. In particular, it is about the Western, and more specifically American, undergraduates who form the bulk of the database in the experimental branches of psychology, cognitive science, and economics, as well as allied fields (hereafter collectively labeled the “behavioral sciences”).

      http://hci.ucsd.edu/102b/readings/Wei...

      The authors of that study did not intend it, but in toto it does outline why we are materially successful relative to the great population of "everyone else." We have a peculiar way of looking at the world. Even our "natural" optical illusions are not common to other peoples.

      One example from that relevant to Objectivism is that some other peoples, such as Russians and Saudi Arabians are willing to engage in "altruistic punishment" giving up a reward in order to make someone else suffer. That's not us... Is it?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  5 months, 2 weeks ago
        Good stuff...however, I need not, nor most of us here, Re-establish our moral standing, because we are willing and able to self inspect and adjust and admit. The observations in these studies show us that those morally outraged do not have that self introspection other wise we could have a conversation with them without all the destruction and violence.
        That's my take anyway.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ed75 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    I believe that a clear definition of the term "moral' (and it's derivatives) would be useful in a discussion such as this.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  5 months, 2 weeks ago
      I know the Gulch cringes at the thought of it and it's possible a misunderstanding of what was expressed in bicameral speak, but what comes to mind is. . .10 simple rules? and specifically...do not falsely accuse?!?!? or Do not throw stones if you live in a glass house?
      It's so basic, it's funny...

      The Golden Rule is difficult to promote here when you have a group blaming others for the deeds and thoughts they themselves are guilty of...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    Until we weed out the underlying instigators, the one's paying for the others to blindly follow, nothing will change. Only the intensity changes, very similar to the changes we see over the four seasons.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Kilroy 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    My theory is that they are simply self righteous. For instance: When confronted with the concept of each person keeping the money that they work for rather than having it taxed away, they are against it. When asked why they reply; 'Because you wouldn't spend it correctly.' Meaning that you might spend it on causes they wouldn't approve of. There are many other examples of this.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    The article appeared in Motivation and Emotion February 2017 (Springer Verlag here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.... ). It is $40 from the publisher. You can try JSTOR for access. While I trust the Reason summary, it is best to have the original paper, if you care. Also, as is common, we might find it posted on the author's own pages later (just not yet, however).

    As for the theory... This can also explain why anti-government conservatives, especially Christians, are morally outraged over Islamic terrorism.

    Similarly, I find that Sykes and Matza's theory of "Techniques of Neutralization," which was developed from work with juvenile delinquents applies, to the civil rights movement, in particular, but to just about all anti-social behavior, including conservative extremism, "ethnic cleansing," and warfare between nations.

    Pot... kettle... black...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  5 months, 2 weeks ago
      Christians/hebrews were never as brutal, heartless or stupid like islam is...understanding of course, that the most heads or leaders of anything in the past and even in the present have always lacked conscience and perpetuated their own prospects and kept the masses in the dark.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        Islam is one very intolerant and violent religion. Thats why there isnt muslim outrage at the terrorists who praise allah. There are the islamic terrorists, and then there are the islamic sheep that dont like the terrorists, but cant say much against them because its in their own bible !! Kill the infidels.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  5 months, 2 weeks ago
          islam is a pre-conscious, Old Testament, Bicameral Barbarian Culture...don't know why they never grew up...got to be genetic and I wonder sometimes if the same might be true for the Left!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        Well, I agree broadly, just as the Bolsheviks were much worse than the Amana Cooperative. But not being worse than someone else is not a standard for virtue. Personally, I believe that there are more differences within groups than across groups. Get a big enough group and you find all kinds of people. Nonetheless some differences are salient, otherwise groups would not exist.

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo