4 ms·

The problem with public displays of virtue is that it comes off as seeking return value for the action. Virtuous acts should be done in quiet/secret and for the

by vinyl7 4y ago

The problem with public displays of virtue is that it comes off as seeking return value for the action. Virtuous acts should be done in quiet/secret and for the simple reason for it being virtuous. Seeking some other sort of value out of it (like social recognition, social credit, youtube views which end up with ad revenue) makes the act look dishonest. The act wasn't done because they were a nice person, the act was done because they were seeking to increase their own value. The way to go about this is to do the thing without anyone knowing and without displaying it. To do it without expecting any personal gain at all. If a friend tells their friend "afavour brought me soup when I was sick, it was so sweet of them" or if someone asks you what you do in your spare time and you say "sometimes I serve at a soup kitchen." then that's fine because that kind of display, which was prompted by other people, can't really be seen as you seeking to cash out the value of the virtuous act.

afavour 4y ago
> it comes off as seeking return value for the action Surely that’s in the eye of the beholder? It is possible to interpret it that way, certainly. But applying the observers value judgement (i.e. how it comes off) onto the original actor seems unfair to me. Sometimes I feel like (and I don’t mean anything personal by this) we’re all cynical bastards these days so when we see someone do something genuinely altruistic we simply cannot process it as such and immediately seek a way to dismiss it as self-serving.
- vinyl7 4y ago
  > But the people in the soup kitchen see me serving the food. Anyone walking by might see me in the window. The nuance here is that there's a difference being observed doing a kind act versus purposefully making it a public spectacle. I don't view people I observe doing something altruistic as self-seeking unless they try to "cash in" on it. I would see someone helping a person in need and think "how kind of them!" But then later, if I see an Instagram post from that person saying "There was this person in need of help and I went over there and did something about it", then it can be seen as self-seeking.
  - afavour 4y ago
    I actually erased the part you replied to, sorry. Primarily because I figured out the response to it myself! > it can be seen I still maintain that it’s unfair to project the value judgement of the observer onto the observed, as if the observer is impartial in all of this. It can be seen that way, yes, but it doesn’t have to be. That is the observer’s choice.
- haswell 4y ago
  > we’re all cynical bastards these days so when we see someone do something genuinely altruistic we simply cannot process it as such and immediately seek a way to dismiss it as self-serving The question to ask is where this cynicism came from. I would argue that it is the performative variety of virtue that has made us mistrust such acts. We wouldn’t have a reason to doubt one’s intentions if those intentions are indistinguishable on the surface from a popular meme, which is what many of these recorded acts of kindness seem to be. Only the person carrying out the act knows the truth of what is in their heart, but I would argue that the very act of recording, bolstered by the act of publishing that recording reveals there are other motives involved. After all, why does one post such a video? To participate in the incentive structure afforded by the social media platform of choice. Those incentive structures are inherently about self promotion, which feels incompatible with virtue. Now you could argue that I’m just being cynical about why people post on social media. Maybe that person has a genuine desire to brighten someone else’s day through their own act of kindness. Maybe the guy with the flowers was similarly genuine. I think the video that is the focal point of this thread provides a good counterpoint to this. It made me uncomfortable when I first saw it (before this article emerged), and now I have a confirmation as to why. Even if the guy had every right intention, the incentive structure of social media overrode his better judgement and blinded him to the impact he was actually having. I don’t think it is impossible to highlight one’s good work in an appropriate way, and I do think there’s an opportunity to inspire people to do good things, but I’m not convinced that this trend of social media posts has anything to do with that.
watwut 4y ago
> Virtuous acts should be done in quiet/secret and for the simple reason for it being virtuous. Genuinely, why? As in, why is it better to do nothing then to do virtuous action that you also get some benefit from?
- Domenic_S 4y ago
  Might be better stated as "altruistic acts", but the primary reason is that the benefactor's anonymity preserves the dignity of the recipient. When done privately: 1. The recipient doesn't have to cop to/explain their situation that prompted the generosity, 2. The recipient doesn't feel the need to publicly acknowledge the help (which in turn implies publicly explaining that you needed help), 3. The recipient doesn't become a revenue-generator without giving their permission, as happens in this case and others like it When done in public, these acts cease to be altruism - they're now a business exchange ("content creator" gives you something of value (flowers) in exchange for something else of value (clicks/views/clout)). Except you didn't know you were making this business deal, which is beyond slimy. IIRC most religious texts teach to do altruism privately, for reasons such as this. Attention-seeking didn't just come about in the internet age, it just got easier.
- ckw 4y ago
  I would alter that slightly: virtuous acts should be done whenever an opportunity arises. When we see particularly conspicuous acts of virtue, by which the practitioner benefits greatly, especially when the opportunity to avoid conspicuousness existed but was eschewed, we are right to suspect that the act would not have taken place in the absence of an audience, and thus actually signals a lack of virtue. (Because the virtuous act so regardless of audience, and personal benefit, and even at great personal risk or hardship).

by vinyl7 4y ago

afavour 4y ago

> it comes off as seeking return value for the action Surely that’s in the eye of the beholder? It is possible to interpret it that way, certainly. But applying the observers value judgement (i.e. how it comes off) onto the original actor seems unfair to me. Sometimes I feel like (and I don’t mean anything personal by this) we’re all cynical bastards these days so when we see someone do something genuinely altruistic we simply cannot process it as such and immediately seek a way to dismiss it as self-serving.

vinyl7 4y ago
> But the people in the soup kitchen see me serving the food. Anyone walking by might see me in the window. The nuance here is that there's a difference being observed doing a kind act versus purposefully making it a public spectacle. I don't view people I observe doing something altruistic as self-seeking unless they try to "cash in" on it. I would see someone helping a person in need and think "how kind of them!" But then later, if I see an Instagram post from that person saying "There was this person in need of help and I went over there and did something about it", then it can be seen as self-seeking.
- afavour 4y ago
  I actually erased the part you replied to, sorry. Primarily because I figured out the response to it myself! > it can be seen I still maintain that it’s unfair to project the value judgement of the observer onto the observed, as if the observer is impartial in all of this. It can be seen that way, yes, but it doesn’t have to be. That is the observer’s choice.
haswell 4y ago
> we’re all cynical bastards these days so when we see someone do something genuinely altruistic we simply cannot process it as such and immediately seek a way to dismiss it as self-serving The question to ask is where this cynicism came from. I would argue that it is the performative variety of virtue that has made us mistrust such acts. We wouldn’t have a reason to doubt one’s intentions if those intentions are indistinguishable on the surface from a popular meme, which is what many of these recorded acts of kindness seem to be. Only the person carrying out the act knows the truth of what is in their heart, but I would argue that the very act of recording, bolstered by the act of publishing that recording reveals there are other motives involved. After all, why does one post such a video? To participate in the incentive structure afforded by the social media platform of choice. Those incentive structures are inherently about self promotion, which feels incompatible with virtue. Now you could argue that I’m just being cynical about why people post on social media. Maybe that person has a genuine desire to brighten someone else’s day through their own act of kindness. Maybe the guy with the flowers was similarly genuine. I think the video that is the focal point of this thread provides a good counterpoint to this. It made me uncomfortable when I first saw it (before this article emerged), and now I have a confirmation as to why. Even if the guy had every right intention, the incentive structure of social media overrode his better judgement and blinded him to the impact he was actually having. I don’t think it is impossible to highlight one’s good work in an appropriate way, and I do think there’s an opportunity to inspire people to do good things, but I’m not convinced that this trend of social media posts has anything to do with that.

watwut 4y ago

> Virtuous acts should be done in quiet/secret and for the simple reason for it being virtuous. Genuinely, why? As in, why is it better to do nothing then to do virtuous action that you also get some benefit from?

Domenic_S 4y ago
Might be better stated as "altruistic acts", but the primary reason is that the benefactor's anonymity preserves the dignity of the recipient. When done privately: 1. The recipient doesn't have to cop to/explain their situation that prompted the generosity, 2. The recipient doesn't feel the need to publicly acknowledge the help (which in turn implies publicly explaining that you needed help), 3. The recipient doesn't become a revenue-generator without giving their permission, as happens in this case and others like it When done in public, these acts cease to be altruism - they're now a business exchange ("content creator" gives you something of value (flowers) in exchange for something else of value (clicks/views/clout)). Except you didn't know you were making this business deal, which is beyond slimy. IIRC most religious texts teach to do altruism privately, for reasons such as this. Attention-seeking didn't just come about in the internet age, it just got easier.
ckw 4y ago
I would alter that slightly: virtuous acts should be done whenever an opportunity arises. When we see particularly conspicuous acts of virtue, by which the practitioner benefits greatly, especially when the opportunity to avoid conspicuousness existed but was eschewed, we are right to suspect that the act would not have taken place in the absence of an audience, and thus actually signals a lack of virtue. (Because the virtuous act so regardless of audience, and personal benefit, and even at great personal risk or hardship).