Moral Exhibitionism: What It Is 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 carried out very habitually and with little or no subtlety. This 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 most commonly occurs.
Moral exhibitionism, also called moral display, is a type of behavior by which an individual tries to exaggerately show his high qualities in terms of morality, seeking the approval and recognition of others. Therefore, this behavior would be intended to show his respectability on a moral level. However, these types of actions sometimes have the opposite effect on the intended audience. We will see it later.
This search for recognition that moral exhibitionism entails is generally associated with two characteristics. First of all, the person tries to make it clear that, with respect to a certain issue that involves morality in some way, he meets the criteria required by society, so his behavior is correct, or he can even go further and do seeing 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 the person would do it with the intention, not simply of counterarguing the position of the interlocutor, but of show how morally respectable he is so the focus would always be on himself.
By extension, he would point out the other’s position as inferior from a moral point of view, but he would always do so in relation to his own, which would be the center of the issue and what would be driving his behavior.
Paradoxically, the morality or ethics of moral exhibitionism would be very questionable, since In reality, the effect it would be generating would be to encourage very extreme positions, generate disputes and significantly increase the degree of cynicism We will see these effects later in the demonstration examples.
The next question we could ask ourselves is whose recognition that person who practices moral exhibitionism seeks recognition from. The first response 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 their actions as a mechanism to demonstrate their identity to the group By presenting himself to his colleagues as they expect him to do, 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 in front of his moral allies, but rather compared to those who have a different moral cut and therefore represent a potential focus of confrontation
In that case, the person would engage in moral exhibitionism behaviors aimed at demonstrating his superiority, in order to automatically win the dispute that is at stake regarding morality, attempting to make it clear that the opponent’s position is the opposite of what is desirable and therefore Therefore you should abandon it immediately.
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 great 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, far from it.
Different manifestations of moral exhibitionism
Moral exhibitionism can manifest itself in different ways. Let’s look at the five most common assumptions.
1. Accession
The first of the situations that we can easily find would be that of adherence to an idea already formulated In this case, a person would present a moral approach that would receive the group’s acceptance. Then, a second person, who would be the one who would be developing this assumption of moral exhibitionism, would express his ideas, in line with what was stated, with the aim of leaving evidence of belonging to “the same moral side” and thus participating in group acceptance.
An example would be a person who criticizes politicians, claiming that none of them can be trusted. Given the positive effect on the group, a second interlocutor can join the idea, saying that this is indeed the case and that he knows it well because he likes to keep up to date with current events and knows that all political leaders lie, regardless of their sign. .
A second situation that commonly occurs 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 them in a higher moral position than the previous one starting a kind of feedback escalation.
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 might 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 the escalation, would say that the others are too soft and that because of what the person in question has done, he deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison.
3. Moral invention
The third way of manifestation of the one who engages in moral exhibitionism is simply that of invent moral issues that seem to have gone unnoticed by the rest of the group, and that leaves him in a magnificent position to make clear its superiority in this aspect. If the move goes well, you will be able to receive the long-awaited approval you are looking for.
Any situation is susceptible to being considered moral by someone who likes to appear superior in this regard. An example could be someone who criticizes other passers-by talking too loudly on the street because they could be bothering the neighbors, when in reality their tone of voice should not be exaggerated and no one may have seemed bothered until he has said it.
4. The grievance
There is a fourth manifestation of moral exhibitionism. In this case it would be that used as a response in an argument in which the person chooses to appear genuinely offended, angry, or aggrieved, shaking his moral convictions in the meantime so that it is very clear that his and no other is the authentic truth in the matter under discussion. In this way, he uses the intensity of his emotion to reinforce the ideas presented.
This mechanism runs the risk of mixing with the escalation we talked about before and turning into a kind of competition to see which of all the interlocutors is the most offended or has been most affected by the issue discussed, fighting among all 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 any political discussion in which one person would show a position on a specific issue and the other, in opposition, would be extremely upset to see how he or she is capable of giving an opinion in such a morally reprehensible way. The first could choose to settle the discussion, to debate rationally or to choose escalation and therefore appear equally aggrieved by the opponent’s position, creating a loop that is difficult to resolve.
5. The evidence
The fifth type of demonstration would rather be a kind of wild card that those who practice exhibitionism can use if they feel cornered in defending their position. It would be about point out the obviousness of your position, arguing that it is so obvious that your position is correct that you do not need to give further arguments about it, because the problem is being experienced by the other person, who is blinded and is not able to see reality. This is obviously a fallacy.
It is a very recurrent mechanism and it is easy for it to be linked to the grievance and intense emotion that we saw in the previous point. In a debate, one person may try to follow the rational path while the other may be very offended by the low moral character of his opponent and simply affirm that it is evident that the position he defends is the correct one, so he does not You need to continue arguing.
