Motivation and emotion/Book/2023/Moral outrage

Overview

 * Case study



The COVID-19 pandemic, a global health crisis, brought with it not only fear of contagion but also a surge of moral outrage over perceived violations of social responsibility. Consider the outrage triggered by images of unmasked individuals in crowded spaces or the vitriolic debates surrounding parents' refusal to vaccinate their children. These behaviors, though varied, struck a common chord of anger and indignation, igniting discussions about ethics, social norms, and individual responsibility. Why do such actions provoke such intense reactions? Is moral outrage merely an emotional response, or does it carry deeper sociocultural implications?

Imagine a community deeply divided over public health guidelines during the pandemic, with some advocating for strict compliance and others championing personal freedom. The tension escalates into public confrontations, social media wars, and even legal battles. Friends become foes, and neighbors turn into strangers. But is moral outrage merely about right and wrong, or does it reveal complex dynamics about human psychology, social values, and cultural contexts? Why do we react so strongly to perceived moral violations, and what does this tell us about ourselves and our society?

This chapter delves into the multifaceted concept of moral outrage, exploring its roots, its impact, and the ways it can be understood and managed.

Key Concepts and Importance of Moral Outrage:


 * Perception of ethical violation: Moral outrage often arises from perceived breaches of social or ethical norms, not limited to public health, but extending to various aspects of human interaction.
 * Emotional response and social impact: Moral outrage is characterized by intense emotional responses that can fuel societal change or lead to negative outcomes like division and aggression.
 * Management and mediation: Understanding and managing moral outrage requires careful study of its underlying causes and potential effects, along with strategies for individual and collective management.

Focus questions:
 * What is moral outrage and how does it differ from other instances of anger?
 * What internal and external factors contribute to the development of moral outrage in an individual and as a society?
 * What consequences arise from moral outrage, both positive and negative?
 * What strategies can be used to manage this emotion, both individually and as a society?

Morality as a concept / moral emotions
To understand the concept of moral outrage, we must first discuss the concepts of morality and the “moral” emotions. Morality, often defined as the differentiation of intent, decisions and actions between “right” and “wrong”. It is a concept that has fascinated humanity practically since our inception and our understanding of this concept has evolved alongside us and our understanding of the universe. Morality in ancient times often went hand in hand with religiosity with societal values around right and wrong, common practice/culture and societal stratification often based on religious teachings, mythological stories and advice from religious leaders. Later study done by philosophers such as Plato, Socrates and Aristotle divorced morality from its religious underpinnings; however morality at this time was still narrowly focused on the concepts of happiness, virtue and the soul.

More modern philosophy saw morality shift away from those more ephemeral concepts such as the soul and to a concept more rooted in rationality. This included philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, whose deontological ethics posited that for an action to be morally right it must be guided by a principle that is universally binding – a principle that holds without exception, his so-called “Categorical imperative”. Conversely, John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham argued for a more utilitarian perspective, positing the highest moral good as the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

Recently and important to this subject, the concept of morality has moved away from the realm of philosophy and towards the field of psychology. Research and understanding of morality through this psychological lens really started to take off in the 20th century. Jean Piaget and later Lawrence Kohlberg pioneered the study of moral development in children, notably Kohlberg’s 3 level, 6 stage theory “stages of moral development”. Later, Jonathan Haidt's "Social Intuitionist Model" suggests that moral judgments are often driven by intuitive processes rather than deliberate reasoning. In this view, emotions and gut feelings play a significant role in moral decisions, with post-hoc reasoning serving to justify these intuitions. He also posited that there are several innate, universal "moral foundations" upon which cultures construct their moral values.

Since the 1980s, research has been focused on building on the effect emotions have on moral behavior, with the focus on emotions such as empathy, guilt, anger, shame and disgust and how our experiences with these emotions and what triggers them influences our interpretation of events and our beliefs (Tangney et al., 2007).

Moral outrage
Moral outrage is feelings of anger and disgust from a perceived moral violation (Salerno & Peter-Hagene, 2013). This is in contrast to feelings of personal anger (having one’s own interests thwarted), and empathic anger (having the interests of a cared-for other thwarted).

An example of moral outrage and the clash between conflicting viewpoints is the subject of abortion, specifically in the United States. Recently, the US supreme court overturned a legal ruling known as Roe v. Wade which enshrined the right to an abortion in the US constitution. This was following a long campaign by mostly conservative and religious groups who saw the act of abortion as a heinous moral violation and tantamount to murder. In contrast, more liberal groups saw this revocation as a grave regression for women’s rights and bodily autonomy. These groups held views that are mutually exclusive to each other often escalated to violence and usually fostering deep hatred of the opposing groups, viewing them as highly immoral individuals.

While moral outrage is believed to be different from personal and empathetic forms of anger, various studies call into question the very existence of moral outrage as a concept. Batson & colleagues (2007) conducted a series of experiments to separate these forms of anger based on perceptions of unfair treatment, and found that notable anger was only reported when the unfair treatment thwarted one’s own interests or the interests of a person for whom they cared about (Batson et al., 2007). Further discussion by Jiménez-Leal and Cortissoz-Mora (2021) collated many other studies and found a lack of clear definition on outrage and questioned if it should be defined as a moral emotion at all (Jiménez-Leal & Cortissoz-Mora, 2021). Another example that moral outrage could be interpreted as less of a moral emotion and more self-serving is a study which shows that humans find others who express moral outrage at similar topics to be more trustworthy (Brown et al., 2022).

It is also important to discuss the effect of culture and socioeconomic factors on the expression of moral outrage. Different cultures tend to have different values when it comes to what will cause moral outrage and how it is expressed. Individualist cultures (this includes many western countries) often place greater emphasis on personal autonomy and rights, leading to moral outrage directed at violations of individual freedoms or personal ethics. Individualist countries also tend to be quite liberal when it comes to the expression of this outrage, with many individuals feeling safe to express their opinions both in person and online. Comparatively, collectivist countries tend to emphasize group harmony and interdependence, moral outrage is often more likely to be directed at actions that harm the group or community. These societies also do not tend to experience much of the same expression of outrage and opinions, either due to a “passive” cultural reason or due to more active suppression.

What causes moral outrage?
Moral outrage is a multifaceted and complex emotional response triggered by perceived violations of ethical norms and values. It can emerge from an intricate interplay of individual characteristics, social dynamics, and contextual influences. Understanding the diverse factors that contribute to moral outrage requires an examination of personal values and beliefs, emotional sensitivities, cultural backgrounds, social norms, media exposure, leadership, political climate, and economic conditions, among others.

Individual factors

 * Personal Values and Beliefs: Individuals with strong moral convictions or values may be more prone to experiencing moral outrage when they encounter actions or attitudes that contradict those principles.
 * Emotional Sensitivity: Some people have heightened emotional sensitivity or empathy, making them more susceptible to feelings of anger or indignation when they perceive moral violations.
 * Personal meaning and self-enhancement: Moral outrage may serve as an outlet for one's emotions and serve to improve one's self esteem. (Rothschild & Keefer, 2021; Green et al., 2017).
 * Psychological Needs: Unmet psychological needs, such as the need for recognition or belonging, may lead individuals to express moral outrage as a way to assert their moral identity or connect with others who share similar views.
 * Cultural Background: An individual's cultural upbringing can also shape their moral framework, influencing what is perceived as right or wrong and consequently what triggers moral outrage.
 * One of the more unique individual factors would be the expression of outrage towards a perceived slight in order to alleviate one's own guilt or perceived failing (Rothschild & Keefer, 2017).

Social factors

 * Social Norms and Expectations: Community standards for acceptable behavior can strongly influence what is perceived as a moral violation. Social norms help define the boundaries of appropriate conduct, and deviations from these norms can trigger moral outrage.
 * Group Dynamics and Peer Influence: Belonging to a group or community that shares specific values or beliefs can heighten sensitivity to moral violations that contradict those shared principles. Peer pressure and groupthink can amplify moral outrage within a community.
 * Media and Information Exposure: How moral issues are framed and presented in media can influence public perception and response. Sensationalism, biased reporting, or misinformation can amplify feelings of outrage.
 * Leadership and Authority Figures: The attitudes and behaviors of leaders or influential figures can shape collective moral sensibilities. Their endorsement or condemnation of certain actions can sway public opinion and feelings of outrage.
 * Social Movements and Activism: Engagement with social movements can heighten awareness of particular moral issues and contribute to feelings of moral outrage, especially if individuals are actively working towards change in those areas.

Contextual factors

 * Political Climate: The prevailing political atmosphere, including polarization, political ideologies, and government policies, can shape what issues trigger moral outrage and how intensely such outrage is felt.
 * Economic Conditions: Economic stability or instability, job market conditions, income inequality, and related factors can influence societal tensions and the degree to which certain moral issues resonate with the public.
 * Geographical and Environmental Factors: The physical environment, including urban vs. rural settings, proximity to certain industries or cultural landmarks, and environmental conditions, can influence the local moral landscape.

These are only some of the factors that contribute to moral outrage, this is a multifaceted topic that is as complex as any other subject on morality and moral outrage.

Consequences of moral outrage
When it comes to the impacts of moral outrage, consequences tend to fall into two categories. Psychological and societal impacts

Psychological impacts
Psychologically, one of the greatest impacts is a psychological condition known as moral injury. “Moral injury” refers to the lasting emotional, psychological, social, behavioural, and spiritual impacts of actions that violate a service member’s core moral values and behavioural expectations of themselves or others (Litz et al., 2009).

Moral injury originally manifested out of research on war veterans, specifically due to the fact that post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) did not seem to be able to sufficiently explain certain responses to war related trauma in veterans. Specifically anguish, anger and social isolation observed in these service members.

However, while useful in discussing the impacts of war on service members, applying the concept of moral injury to civilian members of the public was only recently attempted. Thomas and colleagues (2023) recently adapted existing military scales of moral injury to a civilian setting, focusing on workers in jobs such as nursing, paramedics and the police force (Thomas et al., 2023). They found that these scales translated well into a civilian setting and that moral injury does not appear to be a phenomenon limited to military service.

Moral injury is the most psychologically significant consequence of moral outrage, as it demonstrates a tangible (if somewhat poorly understood) detrimental psychological impact on individuals who witness or participate in events which are morally unacceptable to them. While current research concerns individuals directly at risk of moral injury, there is currently no research which evaluates the potential risk of moral injury from indirect exposure, either from family members or crucially, exposure from social media or the mainstream media.

There have been recent polarising events which many engage with indirectly through platforms such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and news coverage. Many of these services deliberately drum up outrage and anger for profiteering or propaganda purposes and potentially risk causing unknown psychological damage to large swathes of the public, beyond the obvious damage these fear mongering tactics are having on democracy and civil discourse.

Societal impacts
In terms of societal impacts, we have already described how various media sources risk exposing the public to unknown psychological damage, however this is not the only form of harm that is propagated through deliberate efforts to stoke moral outrage. The deliberate stoking of moral outrage can lead to escalation by individuals who decide to rectify perceived violations by their own means. Unfortunate examples include mass shootings at LGBTIQ+ establishments, unfair persecution of innocent individuals during the “satanic panic” and the rise of conspiracy theories and the “post-truth” era of the internet.

A particularly salient example is the deliberate manipulation of the media to direct public perception during the great steel strike of 1919. Workers attempting to unionise and receive better rights and compensation were demonised by the media and propaganda companies, leading to a negative shift in public perception of these striking workers and a culture that decries the concept of unions to this very day.

It’s not all bad however. While these conflicts do arise and can escalate to violence, moral outrage has led to positive social change. Key examples include increases in climate change activism, advocacy of LGBTIQ+ rights and the limitation of anti-consumer practices by big business.

Individual strategies

 * Self-reflection: Encouraging individuals to explore their reactions, beliefs, and values can lead to a deeper understanding of the source of their moral outrage. This self-awareness may foster more constructive expressions of outrage.
 * Mindfulness: Practices that promote mindfulness, such as meditation or focused attention, may help individuals regulate their emotions, reducing impulsive reactions and promoting thoughtful responses to perceived moral violations.
 * Critical Thinking: Encouraging individuals to critically evaluate the situation, evidence, and their own biases may foster a more nuanced understanding of moral issues. This can lead to more informed and measured responses rather than knee-jerk reactions.
 * Perspective-taking: Empathizing with others' viewpoints, even if they disagree, can reduce polarization and promote a more compassionate response. This involves imagining oneself in another's position and trying to understand their feelings, thoughts, and motivations.

Collective strategies

 * Dialogue: Facilitating open and respectful communication between conflicting parties can bridge gaps in understanding and promote collaboration. Dialogue creates space for sharing, listening, and reflecting, allowing for mutual learning and growth.
 * Mediation: Professional mediation techniques can help parties in conflict explore their underlying concerns, needs, and interests. A neutral mediator can foster constructive discussions and help find common ground or mutually satisfactory solutions.
 * Legislation: Governments can enact laws that define ethical boundaries, deter misconduct, and promote social justice. Legislation can channel moral outrage into legal avenues, reducing vigilantism or harmful expressions of outrage.
 * Institutional Interventions: Organizations can implement policies, training, and structures that promote ethical behavior and conflict resolution. This might include ethical guidelines, codes of conduct, or grievance mechanisms, fostering a culture of integrity and responsiveness.

Conclusion
Moral outrage is a broad topic that has evolved from ancient philosophical arguments into an important field of study involving the tangible effects that psychological phenomena can have on vital aspects of human society.

This topic desperately needs further research to understand its effects, especially as fear mongering information and AI generated content spreads due to the introduction of the “post truth“ information era. The unclear definition of moral outrage, compounded with a lack of large scale studies of its effects on a socioeconomic scale risk leaving psychologists without the proper tools for mitigating the potential harms on an individual scale, and governments laking the understanding necessary to implement legislation to limit deliberate exploitation of moral outrage for malicious ends.

While managing moral outrage technically has simple solutions, implementing these in an effective manner is a daunting prospect. While one can advocate for critical thinking and establishing constructive dialogues all they wish, as it becomes harder to distinguish fact from fiction, and common information sources become further entrenched in political bias and the “us versus them” mentality successfully curbing unconstructive and dangerous expressions of moral outrage in the general public will become progressively harder.