Is virtue signalling a genuine moral expression or just a performative social weapon?

Ideas & Philosophy · Published 3 October 2026 Swipe more like this →

In short: The term virtue signalling has become a ubiquitous accusation, used to dismiss moral stances as empty performance. Yet, the concept is deeply contested. Is it a cynical shortcut to social approval, or are we simply witnessing a new, digital-age form of an ancient human impulse to broadcast our values?

Virtue signalling is a pejorative label for expressing moral views to broadcast one's good character, often implying that the speaker is insincere or lacks substance. While the term gained prominence around 2015 via British journalist James Bartholomew, its roots run deep. Nassim Nicholas Taleb points to biblical warnings in Matthew 6:1 against practicing piety solely to be seen by others as an ancient precursor to this critique. Today, the term is frequently deployed by the political right to denigrate the left, likening the behavior to grandstanding or humblebragging.

The digital age has accelerated these dynamics. Online, where spontaneity is often absent, users curate their identities through lists, slogans, and viral movements. Campaigns like the 2020 Blackout Tuesday or the 2024 'All Eyes on Rafah' image were criticized for prioritizing performative clicks over meaningful action. However, psychologists Jillian Jordan and David Rand suggest that signalling and genuine outrage are not mutually exclusive; one can feel real anger while also performing that anger for an audience. Critics argue that accusing someone of virtue signalling is often just another form of signalling itself—a way to signal one's own perceived pragmatism.

This has led to the emergence of 'vice signalling,' a counter-concept describing the public promotion of controversial or negative views to appear rebellious or tough. Whether through political pledges like border walls or by mocking social norms, vice signallers aim to secure status within their own in-group by deliberately violating the standards of an out-group. As Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò notes, the goal is not necessarily to be 'bad,' but to signal loyalty to an in-group by 'owning the enemy.' Ultimately, both concepts highlight how modern discourse has shifted from debating substance to competing for social capital in an increasingly polarized outrage economy.

General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.

Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?

Related

• Is moral judgment a fact or just an emotional exclamation mark?
• Forget following rules: what if morality is about who you are?
• Is online public shaming a tool for moral progress or digital mob rule?
• Does doing a good deed give you a subconscious license to act badly?
• Is the modern 'offence culture' a crisis or a social necessity?
• The radical act of caring in an indifferent world
• Can science and logic finally solve the deepest mysteries of human philosophy?
• Are humans naturally hard-wired for war or is violence a cultural construct?
• Is value an objective feature of reality or merely a human invention?
• The statistical impossibility of being alone in a vast cosmos
• Some values people refuse to trade away at any price, and that changes negotiations
• The Web Ontology Language turns the chaotic internet into a structured, machine-readable knowledge network.

More in Philosophy · More in Ideas & Philosophy · Latest · A–Z · All topics