Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And we see this daily. It makes the Hollywood Hypocrites so entertaining.
--------------------
When people publicly rage about perceived injustices that don't affect them personally, we tend to assume this expression is rooted in altruism—a "disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others." But new research suggests that professing such third-party concern—what social scientists refer to as "moral outrage"—is often a function of self-interest, wielded to assuage feelings of personal culpability for societal harms or reinforce (to the self and others) one's own status as a Very Good Person.
Outrage expressed "on behalf of the victim of [a perceived] moral violation" is often thought of as "a prosocial emotion" rooted in "a desire to restore justice by fighting on behalf of the victimized," explain Bowdoin psychology professor Zachary Rothschild and University of Southern Mississippi psychology professor Lucas A. Keefer in the latest edition of Motivation and Emotion. Yet this conventional construction—moral outrage as the purview of the especially righteous—is "called into question" by research on guilt, they say.
Almost all human behavior has some self-serving dimensions. Even a solder risking her life for her country is not motivated by 100% altruism or patriotism. But the self-serving dimensions of moral outrage should not detract from the overall value or legitimacy of self-reflective, rational moral outrage. Moral values are essential to healthy social dynamics. (Unreflective parroting of traditional values, e.g., "Just because that's just how it is. Period." or irrational "Because the Bible says so", etc. can be socially destructive, even though well-intentioned, and they are still self-serving to some extent.)
In other words, we should be outraged by environmental damage, child sweatshops, injustice, etc. because they are manifestations of both compassion for others and the rational belief that such things are socially destructive. Given that it is in our best interest to live in a healthy society, there is a self-serving dimension to preventing socially destructive behavior, but this self-serving dimension does not detract from the rational dimensions of the outrage.
Is it really fake outrage or are they truly passionate about what makes them angry?
Maybe it is even 'alternative outrage'!
Seriously though, most celebrities truly do care only for their own image, social status, job prospects and income levels - and they are often consummate actors/actresses .. so it is pretty difficult not to suspect that much of their 'moral outrage' has more to do with 'free publicity' for themselves and less to do with really 'caring' about the issue, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
