Moral exhibitionism: what is it and what are its objectives

There are many people who sometimes have behaviors aimed at trying to show others their high moral stature.

The problem comes when these behaviors are performed very regularly and with little or no subtlety. It is what is known as moral exhibitionism, and with this article we will be able to understand the implications of this phenomenon, the characteristics it has and the situations in which it occurs most often.

• Related article: "Lawrence Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development"

What is moral exhibitionism?

Moral exhibitionism, also called moral showmanship, is a type of conduct by which an individual tries to exaggerately display his high qualities in morality, seeking the approval and recognition of others. Therefore, this behavior would be destined to show their respectability on a moral level. However, this type of action sometimes achieves the opposite effect on the audience for which it is intended. We will see later.

This search for recognition that moral exhibitionism supposes is generally associated with two characteristics. In the first place, the person tries to make it clear that, with respect to a certain subject that implies morality in some way, he meets the criteria demanded by society, for what his behavior is correct, or he can even go further and show that his behavior is far above most people, reproaching the rest for not following his example.

The other main characteristic that we would find would be around the objective with which the individual would participate in a moral discourse, whether spoken or written. And it is that the person would do it with the intention, not simply of countering the position of the interlocutor, but of show how respectable he is morally, so the focus would always be on himself.

By extension, he would point out the other's position as morally inferior, but he does. would always do in relation to his, which would be the center of the question and what would be moving his conduct.

Paradoxically, the morality or ethics of moral exhibitionism would be highly questionable, since In reality, the effect that he would be generating would be to promote very extreme positions, generate disputes and significantly increase the degree of cynicism.. We will see these effects later in the demonstration examples.

Recognition search

The next question we could ask ourselves is who does a person who practices moral exhibitionism seek recognition from? The first answer we find is to people who belong to their own thought group, that is, those who share their beliefs and values. In that case, the moral exhibitionist would use his acts as a mechanism to establish his identity in front of the group. By presenting himself to his colleagues as they expect them to, he would be achieving that recognition and approval, in this case of a moral nature.

But it can also happen that the individual carries out these behaviors not before his moral allies, but in front of those who have a different moral cut and therefore represent a potential focus of confrontation.

In that case, the person would have behaviors of moral exhibitionism designed to demonstrate his superiority, in order to automatically win the dispute that is at stake regarding morality, trying to make it clear that the position of the opposite is contrary to the desirable one and therefore must abandon it accordingly. righ now.

But those are not the only situations in which this mechanism can be put into practice. There is a third option, which is that of feigned moral exhibitionism, something very recurrent for example in politicians. In this case, the candidates would purposely present a behavior that would denote a high moral height in a certain aspect related to the group to which they are referring, but obviously those underlying beliefs do not have to be real, nor a lot less.

• You may be interested in: "Social ethics: components, characteristics and examples"

Different manifestations of moral exhibitionism

Moral exhibitionism can manifest itself in different ways. Let's look at the five most common assumptions.

1. The adhesion

The first of the situations that we can easily find would be that of adhering to an idea already formulated. In this case, a person would present a moral approach that would receive the acceptance of the group. Then, a second person, who would be the one who would be developing this assumption of moral exhibitionism, would express his ideas, in in line with the above, with the aim of leaving evidence of belonging "to the same moral side" and thus participate in the acceptance group.

An example would be a person who criticizes politicians, claiming that no one can be trusted. Given the positive effect on the group, a second interlocutor may join in on the idea, saying that it is indeed the case and that he he knows it well because he likes to keep up to date with current affairs and he knows that all political leaders lie, regardless of their sign.

• You may be interested in: "Group identity: the need to feel part of something"

2. The escalation of morality

A second situation that occurs regularly is that of escalating morality. Faced with an event, a group of people can begin to express their moral ideas about it, so that each one will always try to propose something that leaves him in a moral position superior to the previous one, starting a kind of feedback climb.

To visualize it with an example, we can imagine a group of friends watching a news story about a person who has committed a crime. The first of them could say that he deserves a good reprimand. The second would say that it is not enough, that he has to go to prison. The third, continuing to climb, would say that the others are too soft and that because of what he has done to the person in question, he deserves to spend the rest of his life in jail.

3. Moral invention

The third way of manifestation of the one who performs moral exhibitionism is simply that of make up moral issues that seem to have gone unnoticed by the rest of the group, and that leaves you in a great position to make clear his superiority in this regard. If the play goes well, he will be able to receive the long-awaited approval that he seeks.

Any situation is likely to be considered moral by those who like to show themselves superior in this regard. An example could be someone who criticizes that other passersby are talking too loudly on the street because they could be disturbing neighbors, when in fact his tone of voice should not be exaggerated and no one may have been annoyed until he has saying.

4. The grievance

There is a fourth manifestation of moral exhibitionism. In this case it would be that used as a response in a discussion in which the person chooses to be genuinely offended, angry or aggrieved, shaking her moral convictions in the meantime so that it is clear that hers and not another is the authentic truth in the matter in which it is discussed. In this way, he uses the intensity of his emotion to strengthen the ideas presented.

This mechanism runs the risk of getting mixed up with the escalation we talked about before and becoming a kind of competition to see which one. Of all the interlocutors, he is the one who is most offended or has been most affected by the question discussed, fighting together to demonstrate that each one is the one who is feeling the most intense emotions about it and therefore losing focus of the idea that was initially debated.

An example would be worth any political discussion in which a person would show a position on a specific issue and the another, in opposition, would be tremendously upset to see how she is able to express her opinion in such a moral way reprehensible. The former could choose to settle the discussion, to debate rationally, or to choose to escalate and show himself therefore equally aggrieved by the position of the opponent, creating a loop of difficult solution.

5. The evidence

The fifth type of manifestation would rather be a kind of wild card that the one who practices exhibitionism can use if he feels cornered in defending his position. It would be about make see the obvious of his position, arguing that it is so obvious that his position is the correct one that he does not need to give more arguments about it, because the problem is having the other person, who is blinded and is not able to see reality. This is obviously a fallacy.

It is a very recurring mechanism and it is easy for it to be linked to the grievance and intense emotion that we saw in the previous point. Faced with a debate, one person may try to go the rational way while the other may be very offended by low moral standards. of his opposite and simply affirm that it is evident that the position that he defends is the correct one, so he does not need to follow arguing.

Bibliographic references:

• Grubbs, J.B., Warmke, B., Tosi, J., James, A.S., Campbell, W.K. (2019). Moral grandstanding in public discourse: Status-seeking motives as a potential explanatory mechanism in predicting conflict. PloS one.
• Grubbs, J.B., Warmke, B., Tosi, J., James, A.S. (2020). Moral grandstanding and political polarization: A multi-study consideration. Journal of Research in Personality. Elsevier.
• Tosi, J., Warmke, B. (2016). Morale grandstanding. Philosophy & Public Affairs. Wiley Online Library.