When people publicly rage about perceived injustices that don't affect them personally, we tend to assume this expression is rooted in altruism—a "disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others." But new research suggests that professing such third-party concern—what social scientists refer to as "moral outrage"—is often a function of self-interest, wielded to assuage feelings of personal culpability for societal harms or reinforce (to the self and others) one's own status as a Very Good Person.
Outrage expressed "on behalf of the victim of [a perceived] moral violation" is often thought of as "a prosocial emotion" rooted in "a desire to restore justice by fighting on behalf of the victimized," explain Bowdoin psychology professor Zachary Rothschild and University of Southern Mississippi psychology professor Lucas A. Keefer in the latest edition of Motivation and Emotion. Yet this conventional construction—moral outrage as the purview of the especially righteous—is "called into question" by research on guilt, they say..
More here
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Can you say 'Magic Molly'?
ReplyDelete"Charitable Giving" is also self-serving.
ReplyDeleteThis is a long suspected affliction of some so-called do-gooders. In recent years it's taken on epidemic proportions among Liberals. It is tragic that most who are afflicted don't actually take an active part in actual change for good; instead they just bark at it and expect others to give them a treat.
ReplyDeleteGood way to put it 3:07. Woof, woof! Good dogs!
ReplyDeletePsychologists are not to be trusted. Even when they tell the truth. I think what they're describing here is called "virtue-signalling". Like the "Save Tibet" bumperstickers...accomplishes precisely nothing but it makes the driver feel superior.
ReplyDelete