Opinion
Why I See a Serious Problem with the Use of the Term “Virtue Signaling”
People often invoke it to take the moral high ground, dismantle the opponent, and divert the argument.
Ever since the Ukraine war broke out, the Internet and social media have begun rapidly filling up with all kinds of analyses, commentary, and stories about the war.
Even I was surprised at the speed and ferocity with which Western countries imposed all kinds of economic sanctions on Russia.
Within a short matter of weeks, the Russian economy was dusted; the clock turned back thirty years to before the end of the Soviet Union.
Global companies started to pull out of Russia — left, right, and center.
Even MacDonald’s — said to be one of the few Western businesses that opened in post-Soviet Russia and one of the symbols of modernity in Russia, ceased its operations in Russia.
Some companies resisted the wave of sanctions. For example, Tadashi Yanai, CEO of Japanese fashion retailer Fast Retailing (owner of brands like Uniqlo) at first said that the Russians have the right to necessities like clothing.
It seemed that Uniqlo would continue to operate in Russia.
Unsurprisingly, social media sentiment turned against Uniqlo, and Uniqlo was forced to change course and also cease its Russian operations.
Some argue that the supporters of economic sanctions are just virtue signaling.
If you disagree with them, you are also guilty of virtue signaling.
“Virtue signaling” — a type of ad hominem argument
My problem with this term?
It has become a meaningless catch-all phrase. By characterizing all other views as “signaling virtue,” by implication — the person who calls someone out for it inverts the moral equation.
“You are just virtue signaling. Everyone else is virtue signaling.”
Except the person calling it — of course.
More seriously, I have seen some on social media use the term “virtue signaling” as a type of logical fallacy.
I have seen many people invoke it to take the moral high ground, dismantle the opponent, and divert the argument.
More specifically, it is a form of tu quoque. The term comes from Latin, meaning “you too.”
That’s a type of ad hominem argument. This is a type of argument that attacks the person — rather than addressing the idea itself.
What is a tu quoque fallacy, or an appeal to hypocrisy?
Tu quoque fallacies follow the following format, according to Wikipedia:
- A claims that statement X is true.
- B asserts that A’s actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
- Therefore, X is false.
As a specific example, consider the following scenario where Person A and Person B just left a store.
A: You stole that item without paying. That’s morally wrong.
B: So what, you also did that before.
B: Therefore, you should just shut up about that.
By the way, “whatabout-isms” also follow a similar template.
- A: You stole that item without paying. That’s morally wrong.
- B: But what about that time person C stole a similar item and got away with it?
- B: You are a hypocrite if that is ok.
The goal is to divert the attention to another topic.
Calling someone out for “virtue signaling” is an attempt to discredit someone’s moral position
Ironically, by attempting to discredit an opponent’s views by dismissing it as “virtue signaling,” the caller signals his or her own virtue.
It is first and foremost, an appeal to hypocrisy.
Once the “virtue signaling” name-calling is invoked, there is nothing left to discuss; it is not a term that can be supported by evidence, since it is not based on logic, but on morality.
It is an argument that aims to discredit the argument by first discrediting the moral standing of the person making the original claim.
And that is my problem with calling someone out for “virtue signaling.”
Very sophisticated applications of this method in discourse readily seep into political discourse and rhetoric, especially as a disinformation tactic.
This plays out very often in social media, and the Ukraine-Russian war is a perfect hotspot for the liberal use of this technique.
Less critical third parties may quickly agree with the conclusions and implications and agree, yes, this guy is just virtue signaling.
And so, by attacking the moral character of an opponent, the claimant makes a complete character assassination.
The claimant fully dismantles the legitimacy of any argument the opponent has made.
©Alvin T. 2022
[Related Stories by the Same Author]
The author writes on a variety of topics. His key topics are society, culture, modern work, and cryptocurrency, with the occasional fictional story, creative piece, or reflective essay. Discover his most-read stories here.
If these topics interest you, consider subscribing to receive new stories from the author via e-mail.