Moral Grandstanding in the Pandemic Era

Nearly two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen thousands of casualties, the emergence of new variants, vaccine booster shots, and social distancing policies to keep the virus at bay. South Korea is one of the countries that has since averted a nationwide crisis, but concern has risen following the recent upsurge in cases after the Chuseok holidays. Recording over 2000 new cases for six consecutive days, anxiety is fueled through online social platforms. What’s worse is the proliferation of moral grandstanding concerning COVID-19 and its health precautions.

Moral grandstanding is a psychological term coined by philosophers Justin Tosi and Brandon Warmke, meaning “the use of moral talk for self-promotion.”[1] In other words, it’s a method of conversation where one expresses their own morality, not for the sake of the issue itself, but rather for the sake of appearing as “the good person” and elevating their position within the conversation. Saying, “I’m a vegan because it’s the right thing to do” instead of “I’m a vegan because it helps the environment” would be an illustration of moral grandstanding. It renders the other person incapable of questioning the thought, for that would be perceived as “immoral.” Social media has widened the opportunity for expression and exchange of opinions and yet, has also provided the golden stage for unlimited moral grandstanding. What then is so problematic about this behavior?

The most critical issue that moral grandstanding presents is that it generates and even exacerbates conflicts, especially online. Moral grandstanders often complement their morality talk with criticism toward their target. In the pandemic era, their main target is the people who aren’t staying home: those going on a family vacation, eating out at a restaurant, going shopping at a department store, and so forth. Recently, to-be-married couples planning a wedding were the target — moral grandstanders crowded the comment section of articles on this issue, claiming how extravagant and wasteful these weddings were, not to mention how selfish these couples were to hold a wedding “in a crisis like this.” As a response, these to-be-married couples expressed how “it’s not like we’re trying to get married on purpose during a time like this, but that it just became such a time when we were trying to get married. Even if we wanted to cancel the wedding, the penalty amounts to millions and tens of millions of won.”[2] The scale of the weddings was, in fact, no more than the average scale of weddings that anyone before the pandemic would have had.

The moral grandstander in the pandemic era is busy assuming his position as a frugal, well-behaved moral citizen that doesn’t engage in outdoor activities. In doing so, he positions others as self-serving, unreasonable people that think nothing of the community. The moral grandstander cannot accept that the boundary between the civic duty to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and the individual’s rights to continue with their lives within a democratic society is not a clear-cut line. Instead, he draws his own moral boundary and calls those outside of it selfish. An additional problem observed here is how moral grandstanding cuts off any form of productive discussion on the issue and instead undermines the progress towards creating a healthy society. Whether it be a debate on the practicality of the subject or even a simple discourse on an optimal solution, grandstanders tend to dismiss doubt or disagreement. Where this “moral talk” would take anyone is thus unexplored.

Moral grandstanding may stem from the frustration and complaints about the current state of affairs — in essence, ventilation of intense emotions taking the appearance of a strong morality. Still, hope lies on the horizon. As of September 28, 75% of Korean citizens have been vaccinated with the first dose,[3] and mortality rates have decreased to 0.35% last month.[4] With the steady rise of vaccination, the Korean government is pushing the possibility of living ‘With Corona’ around late October or early November.[5] Along with this new stance, the government plans on initiating policies such as benefits for the vaccinated and readjustments to social distancing levels. Certainly, people’s emotional frustration from being cooped up and restricted in their everyday lives would be alleviated. Further, the policies following living ‘With Corona’ signifies the government being more tolerant of outdoor activities, which makes moral grandstanding harder to do. Hopefully, ‘With Corona’ will be the brightest prospect in reducing moral grandstanding amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the end, you could just ask yourself, “why?” before actually expressing your thoughts online. Why complain about the rising number of cases on your Instagram story? Why post a comment criticizing anti-vaxxers? Why express disdain on lowering social distancing levels? If the answer is simply something on the lines of “because it’s obviously right,” perhaps you should take a break from social media and rethink the logic behind your arguments. Ask yourself if your words online indeed reflect your morality offline or whether it’s just a way of venting your frustrations about society. Invite yourself to the world of constructive arguments and fruitful discussions by avoiding moral grandstanding. After all, aren’t we all on the same page when it comes to wanting to do what is right?

[1] “Grandstanding: The Use and Abuse of Moral Talk” [2] News1 [3] Edaily [4] Nocut News [5] Yonhap News