Grandstanding: The Use and Abuse of Moral Talk
We are all guilty of it. We call people terrible names in conversation or online. We vilify those with whom we disagree, and make bolder claims than we could defend. We want to be seen as taking the moral high ground not just to make a point, or move a debate forward, but to look a certain way--incensed, or compassionate, or committed to a cause. We exaggerate. In other words, we grandstand.
Nowhere is this more evident than in public discourse today, and especially as it plays out across the internet. To philosophers Justin Tosi and Brandon Warmke, who have written extensively about moral grandstanding, such one-upmanship is not just annoying, but dangerous. As politics gets more and more polarized, people on both sides of the spectrum move further and further apart when they let grandstanding get in the way of engaging one another. The pollution of our most urgent conversations with self-interest damages the very causes they are meant to forward.
Drawing from work in psychology, economics, and political science, and along with contemporary examples spanning the political spectrum, the authors dive deeply into why and how we grandstand. Using the analytic tools of psychology and moral philosophy, they explain what drives us to behave in this way, and what we stand to lose by taking it too far. Most importantly, they show how, by avoiding grandstanding, we can re-build a public square worth participating in.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
accessed accusations actually anger argue arguments avoid become behavior beliefs better cause chapter character claim common compromise concerns consequences Consider contribute costs course criticism culture cynicism desire difficult discussion display effective emotions engage example explain express extreme fact fail false feel follow friends give goal grandstanding human idea important impress incentive instance interests involves issue justice kind lead least less look lying matter mean moral talk motivations move norms ourselves outrage participants party percent Perhaps person polarization policies political politicians positive probably problem Psychologists public discourse qualities question reason Recognition respect result seek seen sense shame showcasing side signaling simply social social media someone sometimes speech status stop suggest Suppose tend term things treat true trumping trying values views virtue virtuous voters wrong