Guilt-tripping isn't morally neutral. It's manipulation, exploitation, getting people to do what you want without giving them what they want. Doing it is evil and makes you evil.
In my late teens and early twenties I constantly guilt-tripped people close to me. It was my "thing". It hurt everyone a lot. Then one day I realized how sick it was, and stopped completely. Now I never do it to anyone for any reason, and push back whenever someone does it to me for any reason. I recommend this approach to everyone.
Whoa: hold on just a second there. I don't necessarily disagree with your wider point but we need to step away from this inflammatory and accusatory language.
You said that you used to guilt-trip people constantly when you were younger, and then you stopped when you realised how sick it was. Doing it didn't make you evil: it made you immature, and then you grew out of it.
Except that - and I sort of hate that I'm pointing this out - you haven't entirely grown out of it because you recommend people not do it but then brand them evil if they do. That's guilt-tripping, and it's manipulative and inflammatory. (Still, we all have our off days and revert to type from time to time, so please don't see this as a personal attack.)
Anyway, my wider point is this: part of maturing is developing better and more effective social skills. Hence many people change a lot between their late teens and mid-20s.
Not everybody does though. If guilt-tripping and similar kinds of manipulative behaviour become the pattern someone follows throughout their life (i.e., they don't choose to grow out of these behaviours) that might make them evil, but let's try to avoid almost literally demonizing vast numbers of people who are probably just immature.
Branding some behavior as evil isn't guilt tripping, it's just branding the behavior as evil. I agree with the person you replied to that guilt tripping is an evil behavior. People do all sorts of evil behaviors without realizing it, their lack of awareness doesn't make it any less evil.
Is it evil as in intentionally malicious? It's possible to harm people without intending to harm them, in the way one can accidentally step on another's foot, or an eager arm hits someone's face- neither of these are assault per se. I've always taken guilt tripping as a consequence of unhealthy mindset when approaching a concern.
People's mistakes happen in the most offhanded ways. Swept along from moment to moment, they fall into evil. Without reason, consideration or dedication, the next thing they know they're on the wrong path as if it were the only one.
Yet by contrast, "I was doing the right thing without realizing it", "The next thing I knew, I was doing good deeds", "In a moment of carelessness, I helped someone". You never hear those things and you surely never will. Righteousness cannot exist without intent and righteous action requires righteous intent. You can't do the right thing unless you consciously try to.
Under this view, unintentionally malicious actions, such as abusing guilt trips without being aware or caring about their harm, are still evil because by default, to prevent them, you have to be aware and paying attention, and if you aren't that's your failure to act righteously.
> Yet by contrast, "I was doing the right thing without realizing it", "The next thing I knew, I was doing good deeds", "In a moment of carelessness, I helped someone". You never hear those things and you surely never will.
I disagree with this statement. I carelessly do things and people tend to thank me for my kindness and helpfulness, even though I was never intending to do it. People will do the right things without realizing it all the time, in a thousand little ways. I can talk to a friend just to talk, but to my friend, it may have been a sudden, unexpected, and welcome reprieve from a dark and lonely mental space. I can share an otter video because I think otter youtube is great, and in doing so adjust someone else's viewing algorithm away from so much unhealthy/addictive/extremist stuff on that site.
People's actions are rarely with real justice or malice in intention. Most of the time it is nuances of grey, thoughtlessly. Humans don't have the mental capacity that would be required of thinking otherwise.
>People's actions are rarely with real justice or malice in intention. Most of the time it is nuances of grey, thoughtlessly.
My point is that thoughtlessness is by definition evil and that working under that assumption is better than not. You disagree and that's fine. We won't really reach an agreement over this by arguing I don't think.
You haven't addressed the thing I'm confused about. I can do things thoughtlessly and people thank me for being helpful. This goes against your statement that goodness cannot happen without just intent.
Righteous action requires rightful intent because it always requires effort. Thoughtless action doesn't and is also subject to the whims of the environment. In your examples, your "good" actions are nice, small things that required nothing out of you, they just required you to act like how the environment (other people) expects you to act. The more you increase the effort necessary to carry out a "good" action, the more conscious effort will be necessary, and the more the phrases I mentioned will become true.
Additionally, as I mentioned, thoughtless action is subject to the changing environment. What is considered good now is different from what was considered good 100 years ago and what will consider good 100 years from now. If your actions are thoughtless you are simply a product of your environment, no matter how warped and disgusting it may be.
If your environment rewards small good actions, you're not actually acting righteously, because you're just reproducing what's expect by your environment. When the environment turns sour and what's considered good starts becoming more and more warped, you will not have the will to resist it because your actions are thoughtless and not righteous. You will fall into evil, like everyone else, swept moment by moment, without caring about what you're doing as long as the environment responds well.
I have had the same experience as you of thoughtlessly doing things that benefit others and had the same objection as you to his statement. For what it’s worth I think you are correct.
Calling guilt tripping manipulation is a little dramatic given that people use the expression to encompass anything that makes them feel guilty whether it's intended to or not. If you drive an efficient car, ride a bike, or walk, some people, varying numbers according to where you are, will be righteously outraged that you're guilt-tripping them.
Also, "manipulation" suggests unfair trickery. If you're guilt-tripped for speeding in a school zone, is that unfair trickery? There are rules that are meant to constrain people from infringing on other people's rights and security. How are we supposed to enforce them? Should every anti-social activity be enforced by a fine or prison time? That's considerably harsher than a moment of social discomfort when you realize someone is shaming you.
Finally, calling this "evil" is exhausting your evaluative vocabulary too quickly. Guilt-tripping someone for anti-social behavior can certainly be less harmful than guilt-tripping them for pro-social behavior, which is less harmful than the anti-social behavior itself, and so forth.
Indeed. The number of times I've heard that driving an electric car or a bike is "virtue signaling" is amazing.
I think, if you're so focused on the "signaling" -- the notion that someone is just doing that to provoke an emotional response -- then all that's saying to me is that it's provoking guilt in you, and that's made you feel angry.
Are you contending that virtue signalling isn't real, or that what is claimed to be virtue signaling isn't and so the phrase becomes a kind of slur?
My opinion is that virtue signalling is real, and, further, that "signalling" doesn't just have an effect on other people, it can change our own disposition.
The use of the phrase "virtue signalling" is sometimes applied in reverse, describing someone that is insufferably smug and exudes a sense of unearned moral superiority and ascribing those traits to their desire to signal their piety to others. Oddly, I find that a kindness as it means these undesirable traits have an external cause and can therefore be corrected.
I am saying that doing actions that are actually pro-social -- "virtuous," if you will -- such as reducing pollution, are not "virtue signaling," or at least not with the negative connotation the term has taken on in the past decade, which generally implies hollow statements without value.
When I hear someone look at somebody doing something good in the world, and dismiss them as mere "virtue signaling," it tells me more about the person doing the labeling that the person labeled. They can't conceive of someone doing something pro-social for its own sake, and instead ascribe cynical "signaling" to justify their own lack of morals.
It’s entirely possible that a person is riding their electric scooter to advertise their virtuous concern for the environment (ignoring how likely this is to be true for any given scooterist) AND that someone else is being a shitty person for being dismissive. Note that the dismissive person is specifically shitty for doing their own virtue signaling—hollowly criticizing someone else to signal their own virtue. Of course, it’s easy to mistake an earnest scooterist or critic for a virtue signaler (ultimately motive is hard to assess) so we should take care about these accusations as with any accusation of motivation (in the same way that no decent person would loosely sling accusations of racism, sexism, etc).
It is not used to provoke a response, it is more about signaling political affiliation.
I think virtue signaling is synonymous with dog whistling, but different jargon is used by different partisan groups.
It depends what messages and from whom. From corporations? From politicians? From advertisers? In CVs? I think it would be prudent to consider motivation in some cases, but it is a subjective assessment still, as might be the message.
I hope car/bike choice will never be a political statement. That would be a loss for everyone. Not everything should be regarded as that as it would suggest severe bitterness.
> given that people use the expression to encompass anything that makes them feel guilty whether it's intended to or not
This argument feels like splitting hairs. My understanding is that we're talking about guilt-tripping in the sense of actively engaging with someone in order to produce a desired outcome from that someone. Merely seeing someone biking to work doesn't really pass that litmus test, as the cyclist isn't immediately interested in what you do based on your opinion of his commuting choice.
In Nonviolent Communication by Marshal Rosenberg (nice summary: https://medium.com/s/please-advise/the-essential-guide-to-di...), instilling guilt (and shame) is considered to be a violent way of communicating. First, I had a problem with this definition of violence. Then I saw it fits the framework of violence: "either you do as we say, or we will intentionally make you suffer".
I say "we" because, in many cases, it is not a single individual but a community or any social group.
I find it best to claim that “yes, I’m selfish”. It tends to move the conversation to a more constructive place since then they have to provide reasons to induce my behavior.
I had exactly the same realization about the same time. And now I strongly push back against it to this day.
Unfortunately, most people don't even realize they're being manipulated. Whenever I get visibly upset at being manipulated, people question it. Almost inevitably, they don't understand the manipulation and think it's fine.
This has always been obvious to me. I have actually struggled with the opposite, where I have at times struggled to pursue what I want at cost to others, not understood how to set boundaries, or failed to hold people accountable to even their own principles.
It's funny that people can have such different backgrounds and life experiences, and that, as it turns out, end up in similar places because maturity results in finding a balance. At least in my opinion.
I feel that guilt induced by a loved one (a la guilt-tripping) and societal guilt are somewhat different. We all carry at least some emotional baggage from past episodes of guilt tripping by family members, but I don't think that should be a factor in this particular topic.
There’s a motivational difference between persuasion and coercion/manipulation. Pointing out that an act is evil isn’t inherently manipulative, but implying shame and guilt in order to coerce someone into changing their behavior is. It’s a fine line and it’s hard to litigate because the distinction is motivational.
The thing with guilt tripping is that it tries to bypass the will and judgement of the victim and coerce them to do something against these self properties through the guilt. Calling out someone to better their behavior is an open criticism, not guilt tripping.
This isn't about manipulating to have people do something for you. The article is about people feeling guilty for throwing trash on the ground instead of in the trash can.
If that is evil then I don't know where your morality is centered around but certainly not "morally neutral".
In my late teens and early twenties I constantly guilt-tripped people close to me. It was my "thing". It hurt everyone a lot. Then one day I realized how sick it was, and stopped completely. Now I never do it to anyone for any reason, and push back whenever someone does it to me for any reason. I recommend this approach to everyone.