Moral Outrage in Political Debates

[Stevicus]

As I was replying to a post in the thread on Roseanne (https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/roseanne.210839/), the subject of moral outrage came up, particularly as it manifests itself on social media and elsewhere in political discourse.

Sometimes, it seems so predictable and obligatory that it comes off as fabricated and disingenuous.

Is moral outrage manufactured? Or is it genuine?

Should it be considered a valid tactic in a political debate? Wouldn't moral outrage be an appeal to emotion, which is considered a logical fallacy?

If someone says or does something which is morally outrageous, does it help if they apologize? Does it make it worse? Is there any redemption or forgiveness for someone deemed a "deplorable"?

I see moral outrage as a tactic calculated to elevate oneself to a position of moral superiority, which would give one license to judge and condemn others. Some might even see it as a political obligation to be morally outraged over something someone did/said which was considered "deplorable." Those who don't express the same level of moral outrage might even become suspect themselves.

This isn't necessarily a right-wing or left-wing thing. I see it coming from both sides, depending on what moral paradigm they might subscribe to.

 

[Orbit]

I can't imagine silencing people because they are outraged at an atrocity. It doesn't make you superior to be outraged at an atrocity, it makes you human.

 

[Revoltingest]

Moral outrage isn't inherently wrong.
But how does one handle it....
Become abusive?
Paroxysm of passion?
Fervent response with civility & reason?

Consider how others view you based upon which you choose.

 

[bobhikes]

Is moral outrage manufactured? Or is it genuine?

Moral outrage is always manufactured as morals are manufactured. But words said such as Deplorable's when referring to mix groups of human beings. Those defending it are wrong(not morally but just wrong). If some one murder's some one they can be found deplorable. You can not find the whole family deplorable or their whole political party deplorable. It is not morally wrong to do that it is just wrong to label a group based off your opinion of one or few individuals.

 

[Quintessence]

I have to wonder: if we live in a time where moral outrage is described as "so predictable and obligatory that it comes off as fabricated and disingenuous" that says something. That statement in of itself says something, and it's not a good something. It speaks to a cultural climate where there are so many outrageous things going on that outrage (whether you want to cast is as "moral" or otherwise) has become routine.

Huston, we have a problem.

 

[Stevicus]

I can't imagine silencing people because they are outraged at an atrocity. It doesn't make you superior to be outraged at an atrocity, it makes you human.

Well, sure if it's genuine rage over an atrocity. But even then, for most people, the rage eventually subsides and life goes on. Sometimes, there is even forgiveness and reconciliation.

But it really depends on the circumstances. A lot of things that people show moral outrage over are not necessarily atrocities, yet the level and volume of the moral outrage would imply that they are considered such.

 

[Kenny]

As I was replying to a post in the thread on Roseanne (https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/roseanne.210839/), the subject of moral outrage came up, particularly as it manifests itself on social media and elsewhere in political discourse.

Sometimes, it seems so predictable and obligatory that it comes off as fabricated and disingenuous.

Is moral outrage manufactured? Or is it genuine?

Should it be considered a valid tactic in a political debate? Wouldn't moral outrage be an appeal to emotion, which is considered a logical fallacy?

If someone says or does something which is morally outrageous, does it help if they apologize? Does it make it worse? Is there any redemption or forgiveness for someone deemed a "deplorable"?

I see moral outrage as a tactic calculated to elevate oneself to a position of moral superiority, which would give one license to judge and condemn others. Some might even see it as a political obligation to be morally outraged over something someone did/said which was considered "deplorable." Those who don't express the same level of moral outrage might even become suspect themselves.

This isn't necessarily a right-wing or left-wing thing. I see it coming from both sides, depending on what moral paradigm they might subscribe to.

That is quite a good viewpoint.

I believe there are "moral outrages" that are valid and not a position of "moral superiority". The news is filled of babies and children being raped. There would be very few people who wouldn't have a moral outrage over things like these.

But, by and large, in politics it is more of a tactic that heart felt IMO.

 

[Stevicus]

Moral outrage isn't inherently wrong.
But how does one handle it....
Become abusive?
Paroxysm of passion?
Fervent response with civility & reason?

Consider how others view you based upon which you choose.

I think as long as one's head rules over one's heart, at least it can keep moral outrage somewhat under control. If someone becomes so enraged that they lose all sense of coherency, then it becomes more of an impediment to communication.

Sometimes, it might be a matter of having a clear idea of what, exactly, one is morally outraged about.

If it's outrage over an atrocity (as Orbit mentioned), then it would be pretty obvious and most people would understand it without much explanation.

But if one has to explain their outrage by citing long passages from a gender studies textbook, then something gets lost in translation. It's hard to tell if they're truly, genuinely outraged about something or if they're just being pedantic.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think as long as one's head rules over one's heart, at least it can keep moral outrage somewhat under control. If someone becomes so enraged that they lose all sense of coherency, then it becomes more of an impediment to communication.

Sometimes, it might be a matter of having a clear idea of what, exactly, one is morally outraged about.

If it's outrage over an atrocity (as Orbit mentioned), then it would be pretty obvious and most people would understand it without much explanation.

But if one has to explain their outrage by citing long passages from a gender studies textbook, then something gets lost in translation. It's hard to tell if they're truly, genuinely outraged about something or if they're just being pedantic.

I can tolerate incoherence.
But I detest mean people.
So when moral outrage descends into abuse, that's a real discussion killer.

 

[LuisDantas]

The problem with outrage-as-part-of-everyday-routine is that is twofold.

On the one hand, it is wasteful for those who are not yet used to it as routine and treat is as significant.

On the other hand, it is utterly destructive when people are used to it and come to expect it, because it effectively stymies or even neuters the much-needed ability to actually express outrage and react to it. The quick result is bankrupcy of moral discernment (as evidenced by the latest POTUS elections, natch). Oh, and a deep curse of silly false equivalences based on visceral mistrust and reflexive insults.

 

[PureX]

Moral outrage isn't inherently wrong.
But how does one handle it....
Become abusive?
Paroxysm of passion?
Fervent response with civility & reason?

Consider how others view you based upon which you choose.

Maybe it's not about the effect, but the need for expression.

 

[Stevicus]

I have to wonder: if we live in a time where moral outrage is described as "so predictable and obligatory that it comes off as fabricated and disingenuous" that says something. That statement in of itself says something, and it's not a good something. It speaks to a cultural climate where there are so many outrageous things going on that outrage (whether you want to cast is as "moral" or otherwise) has become routine.

Huston, we have a problem.

It's not just that, but it also has shades of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. If everyone shows such intense outrage over things which are relatively minor and innocuous, then people may become so numb to it that they might miss something if there truly is something significant to get outraged about.

I could see it if people got morally outraged over mass murderers and other criminals who do heinous acts, but sometimes it seems as if there's far less outrage over that than there is about somebody's off-color Tweet.

In fact, it's kind of interesting how, in the culture today, there's far more fascination with mass murderers and serial killers where there's less outrage and more forensic, psychological investigation. As a society, we're more inclined to look at such things objectively and take a more practical, unemotional approach (as we should). (Of course, there are also those who won't be outraged at actual murderers, as they'll save all their wrath for the NRA.)

But if someone tweets something or wears a sexist t-shirt or something else equally inane, there's far more outrage than objectivity.

 

[Father Heathen]

But, by and large, in politics it is more of a tactic that heart felt IMO.

This appears it be true because people's reactions tend to differ depending on whether or not the offending party is from the same corner of the political spectrum as they are. For example, things that would normally outrage evangelicals are met with an unusual silence when done by political allies.

 

[Stevicus]

I can tolerate incoherence.
But I detest mean people.
So when moral outrage descends into abuse, that's a real discussion killer.

I don't mind it too much, as long as it's genuine and sincere. People are bound to get angry in political discussions, so it's a natural thing.

But when I get the sense that someone is putting me on and giving me faux outrage, then that's where I tend to roll my eyes.

 

[Kenny]

This appears it be true because people's reactions tend to differ depending on whether or not the offending party is from the same corner of the political spectrum as they are. For example, things that would normally outrage evangelicals are met with an unusual silence when done by political allies.

yes... that can happen for sure on any part of the political spectrum.

 

[Audie]

I've been reading history of England in the
early 1700s.

The political divide, mutual loathing was far
more intense then than in the USA now.

They pulled through, so maybe we can too.

 

[Stevicus]

That is quite a good viewpoint.

I believe there are "moral outrages" that are valid and not a position of "moral superiority". The news is filled of babies and children being raped. There would be very few people who wouldn't have a moral outrage over things like these.

But, by and large, in politics it is more of a tactic that heart felt IMO.

I agree that people would be moral outraged over such atrocities as babies and children being raped. I think it would outrage most people, including myself.

But on the other hand, things like that tend to be treated differently because nobody has to be told to be morally outraged over such a thing - it's just a natural and genuine reaction. A lot of people don't even want to hear about such things because they're so horrible to even think about.

Another thing that seems evident is that, in the case of child rapers or mass murderers or other kinds of heinous criminals, they might be seen as so incredibly sick or demented that moral outrage is wasted on them.

That kind of moral outrage is different from the kind which seems to target those in the public or semi-public eye, with the intention of bringing them down from their position, which does appear to be politically motivated.

 

[Stevicus]

I've been reading history of England in the
early 1700s.

The political divide, mutual loathing was far
more intense then than in the USA now.

They pulled through, so maybe we can too.

We've also had political divides in US history, too - the most famous one culminating in the Civil War. But we still managed to survive, as a nation. We survived whiskey rebellions, labor unrest, urban riots, range wars, red scares. We even survived the 60s.

So I also think we can pull through whatever it is we're pulling through right now. The only reservation I might have is that, in all of our past divisions and political divides, there were still those willing to compromise and make a deal for practical and pragmatic reasons.

That hasn't always been a good thing, but I think that people generally want to have good relations with their neighbors, forgive past misdeeds, kiss and make up - that sort of thing. Despite whatever happened in the past, there was still work to be done, money to be made, opportunities to be had - why continue arguing over spilled milk?

I'm not really sure if that same practical sentiment still exists anymore. A lot of people seem so ideologically motivated and programmed.

 

[Audie]

We've also had political divides in US history, too - the most famous one culminating in the Civil War. But we still managed to survive, as a nation. We survived whiskey rebellions, labor unrest, urban riots, range wars, red scares. We even survived the 60s.

So I also think we can pull through whatever it is we're pulling through right now. The only reservation I might have is that, in all of our past divisions and political divides, there were still those willing to compromise and make a deal for practical and pragmatic reasons.

That hasn't always been a good thing, but I think that people generally want to have good relations with their neighbors, forgive past misdeeds, kiss and make up - that sort of thing. Despite whatever happened in the past, there was still work to be done, money to be made, opportunities to be had - why continue arguing over spilled milk?

I'm not really sure if that same practical sentiment still exists anymore. A lot of people seem so ideologically motivated and programmed.

What is there anymore, to being an American?

I really really really dont like identity politics.

We are doing smaller and smaller subdivisions
each of which is being oppressed.

 

[Estro Felino]

Beautiful point: moral outrage is ludicrous because it is based upon double standards...in politics

That is, leftists especially, don't judge their politicians, or biblically speaking, they tend to see the speck of dust in the opponent's eye, while ignoring the plank in their candidate's eye.

Double standards