Moral Outrage in Political Debates

[sun rise]

Is moral outrage manufactured? Or is it genuine?

It can be either depending.

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?

Emotion is not logical.

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.

There's the Luke Skywalker Return of the Jedi temptation is allowing one's sense of outrage/rage/anger to take control. People can easily become what they abhor.

There's also the flip side where being really upset about immorality is motivation to act in a positive sense whether that be at the ballot box, via personal work or whatever depending on the situation.

 

[sun rise]

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

That is, rightists 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.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is moral outrage manufactured? Or is it genuine?

Both.

It's not hard to think of examples of each. The moral outrage over immigrants' children being separated from their parents at the border appeared to be sincere. The evidence is how widespread and distributed the outrage was across most demographics.

Moral outrage over abortion rights is manufactured. The evidence for this which is its clustering in groups of people subject to anti-abortion indoctrination, without which, most people feel no outrage in that area.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

What someone regards as "something significant" is related to their values, and we don't all share the same values. I wouldn't expect everyone to get upset about the same things. I suppose what patterns you notice depends on what social circles you travel in and what stories you listen to.

I will agree that I've noticed more abuse of the English language as of late. I don't perceive that as "outrage," I perceive it as a failure to honor and respect the power of words and use them appropriately. When this country has a "president" who themselves utterly fails to respect the power of words and use them correctly, well... I suppose that gave more people permission to speak and write like incompetents.

As a society, we're more inclined to look at such things objectively and take a more practical, unemotional approach (as we should).

I see where you're coming from with this, but I can't quite agree with this. I don't think discounting emotional approaches is a wise course. It really bothers me that our culture doesn't seem to give people permission to feel. We're asked to be objective and rational all the time, which is absurd since that isn't who we are as a species. As a result, many of us have poor emotional maturity and don't know what to do with our emotions when they happen. If we did, an emotional approach wouldn't really be a problem. It'd be an asset - the passion of emotion is what actually gets things done. Temper it with objective analysis, sure, but people will feel what they feel... and it should be culturally okay for people to feel.

 

[David1967]

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

Yes on all three points.
Mean people? Nope. I don't have the time nor the desire to talk with such people.
When a vigorous debate descends into personal attacks and abusive language, I do my best (though sometimes fail) to not answer in kind and just exit the discussion. The most memorable is a couple years ago where a person I was having ,(what I thought), was a polite discussion on political candidates, imply that I was "not a good person" because I didn't vote the way they did. Yes, that did kill the discussion.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

One should consider one's effect on others.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't mind it too much, as long as it's genuine and sincere.

You're OK with abuse, so long as it's sincere?

 

[PureX]

One should consider one's effect on others.

Perhaps not always.

Sometimes it's the unconsidered effect that has the greater positive impact.

And anyway, how do we really know what effect we will have on others?

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps not always.

Sometimes it's the unconsidered effect that has the greater positive impact.

And anyway, how do we really know what effect we will have on others?

Some posters apparently don't know.
They abuse others perhaps unaware that they're despised for it.
I've yet to see positive impact occur from being mean & nasty.

 

[PureX]

Some posters apparently don't know.
They abuse others perhaps unaware that they're despised for it.
I've yet to see positive impact occur from being mean & nasty.

You don't have to see it for it to exist. Also, very few of us intend to be "mean and nasty" to others. Even though regardless of what we intend, we may be perceived that way. Just as we might be perceived as a much needed and fortuitous life-lesson even when we do intend to be mean and nasty. And whatever the effect, nine times out of ten we are left unaware of it.

 

[Revoltingest]

You don't have to see it for it to exist. Also, very few of us intend to be "mean and nasty" to others. Even though regardless of what we intend, we may be perceived that way. Just as we might be perceived as a much needed and fortuitous life-lesson even when we do intend to be mean and nasty. And whatever the effect, nine times out of ten we are left unaware of it.

Some openly intend abuse.
They justify it with excuses like....
- "It's the truth!"
- "Being nice is appeasement!"
- "Those people are <insert awful trait>!"

 

[Stevicus]

You're OK with abuse, so long as it's sincere?

Not exactly what I meant. What I meant was that, in the heat of argument, I can easily overlook someone getting angry and using salty language, since it's natural to get heated during an argument. It's genuine and sincere. We're all human and sometimes people get upset.

But when I get the sense that someone is posturing just for show, just like a politician, actor, or attorney might do, then that's something completely different.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

"American" is merely a geographical designation. It means different things to different people, depending on which country in the Americas they live. In the U.S. experience, prior to 1776, it used to refer to British subjects who resided on the American continent. As to how/why U.S. citizens took on the identity of "American" exclusively for themselves, that's not entirely clear. Washington covered this briefly in his Farewell Address:

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/washingtons-farewell-address/

Citizens by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religeon, Manners, Habits & political Principles. You have in a common cause fought & triumphed together--The independence & liberty you possess are the work of joint councils, and joint efforts--of common dangers, sufferings and successes.

It is apparent that Washington saw the identity of "American" as a common unifying principle, even despite whatever divisions existed in the country at the time.

The idea was pushed even further after the Civil War, as there was an emphasis on patriotism and national unity. Prior to the Civil War, it was commonly said "The United States are," whereas after the Civil War, it became "The United States is..."

 

[Stevicus]

What someone regards as "something significant" is related to their values, and we don't all share the same values. I wouldn't expect everyone to get upset about the same things. I suppose what patterns you notice depends on what social circles you travel in and what stories you listen to.

I wasn't saying that people should get upset about the same things, but some perspective is also necessary - even when one is upset.

I will agree that I've noticed more abuse of the English language as of late. I don't perceive that as "outrage," I perceive it as a failure to honor and respect the power of words and use them appropriately. When this country has a "president" who themselves utterly fails to respect the power of words and use them correctly, well... I suppose that gave more people permission to speak and write like incompetents.

I agree that there is a power of words, but that's something I learned later in life. When I was growing up, I was taught that "sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never harm you." I was told that if I was hurt by words, then it means there's something wrong with me, implying that it's some kind of character defect.

I see where you're coming from with this, but I can't quite agree with this. I don't think discounting emotional approaches is a wise course. It really bothers me that our culture doesn't seem to give people permission to feel. We're asked to be objective and rational all the time, which is absurd since that isn't who we are as a species. As a result, many of us have poor emotional maturity and don't know what to do with our emotions when they happen. If we did, an emotional approach wouldn't really be a problem. It'd be an asset - the passion of emotion is what actually gets things done. Temper it with objective analysis, sure, but people will feel what they feel... and it should be culturally okay for people to feel.

Well, I don't say that it's not okay to feel. Obviously, we all have feelings. That was another thing I remember while growing up; the kind of mixed messages that one gets. I grew up with the idea that "big boys don't cry" and that one should "grin and bear it" and keep a "stiff upper lip." Then at some point, they started saying "it's okay for men to cry" which launched into the whole "sensitive male" movement.

It was also related to the idea that one should "get in touch with one's feelings," "let it all out," primal screaming, and so forth. The whole group therapy and "consciousness raising" of the 70s. There is also a trend towards wanting to "confront" people with their feelings, which might be an early precursor to the kind of moral outrage we're seeing today. People would say things like "I'm sorry, but that's just the way I feel."

 

[PureX]

Some openly intend abuse.
They justify it with excuses like....
- "It's the truth!"
- "Being nice is appeasement!"
- "Those people are <insert awful trait>!"

Often, those aren't excuses. They are really why they do it. And sometimes they are right.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If someone becomes so enraged that they lose all sense of coherency, then it becomes more of an impediment to communication.

If you’re doing stuff that outrages people routinely, consider the possibility that the impediment to communication is you.

 

[Revoltingest]

Often, those aren't excuses.

This sounds like a meta-excuse.

 

[Audie]

"American" is merely a geographical designation. It means different things to different people, depending on which country in the Americas they live. In the U.S. experience, prior to 1776, it used to refer to British subjects who resided on the American continent. As to how/why U.S. citizens took on the identity of "American" exclusively for themselves, that's not entirely clear. Washington covered this briefly in his Farewell Address:

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/washingtons-farewell-address/



It is apparent that Washington saw the identity of "American" as a common unifying principle, even despite whatever divisions existed in the country at the time.

The idea was pushed even further after the Civil War, as there was an emphasis on patriotism and national unity. Prior to the Civil War, it was commonly said "The United States are," whereas after the Civil War, it became "The United States is..."

All sounds like history as I've read it.
Just saying, if we dont come up with enough
sense of national identity that overrides the
tribalism, things are not going to get better.

An attack by outer space monsters might
do the trick.

 

[Audie]

"I'm sorry, but that's just the way I feel."

Which is about as immature as you can get,
without going back to diapers.

It is nothing but the most raw kind of self-indulgence.

 

[Quintessence]

I agree that there is a power of words, but that's something I learned later in life. When I was growing up, I was taught that "sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never harm you." I was told that if I was hurt by words, then it means there's something wrong with me, implying that it's some kind of character defect.

That saying needs to die in fire, because precisely the opposite is true. Maybe I was lucky in that I recognized it for the total BS it was even as a kid. There's probably only one other common saying that I hate more than that one, and it's... well... I won't give it more power by uttering it.

Well, I don't say that it's not okay to feel. Obviously, we all have feelings. That was another thing I remember while growing up; the kind of mixed messages that one gets. I grew up with the idea that "big boys don't cry" and that one should "grin and bear it" and keep a "stiff upper lip." Then at some point, they started saying "it's okay for men to cry" which launched into the whole "sensitive male" movement.

In spite of all the stupid BS I had to put up with as a sex/gender non-conforming kid, I do feel sorry for males having to deal with this particular brand of BS. As a culture we're still just awful at teaching people how to process and use emotions, and especially if you happen to be born with a penis. Yet feelings are the fire that fuel our actions. If we didn't care about something - whether it's at the level of outrage or something a bit more mild than that - we wouldn't bother with political action, for example.

I definitely would like to see the emotions that come out of politics be channeled more successfully into something useful. There's a time and a place for throwing a proverbial adult tantrum, but once your done with that, go do something useful with that energy, yeah? Or if you don't have the will to do that, it might be better that you just let it go for your own mental health. Enough stress in our culture these days.