Chapter Five: Selective Outrage, The Harmful Inconsistency of Moral Values and Principles
“Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.”
Albert Einstein
Physicist Albert Einstein understood how hard it is for people to think beyond the prejudices of their social environment. Selective outrage describes the tendency of individuals to express indignation or anger over some issues while remaining indifferent to others. This behavior reflects inconsistent moral values and principles when evaluating situations. Selective outrage is common and harmful, and it deserves more scrutiny than it usually gets.
The Phenomenon of Selective Outrage
Selective outrage often depends on personal biases or interests, and the ways it can manifest are diverse. It can be observed in people’s reactions to various events. The following examples provide a glimpse of the multifaceted nature of selective outrage:
- Outrage over animal abuse while ignoring human rights violations: Many people express outrage and disgust over the mistreatment of animals while ignoring human rights violations in their own country or worldwide. For example, the United States Congress passed the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act in 2010, which criminalizes producing and distributing videos depicting animal cruelty. However, the same Congress has been criticized for not taking sufficient action to address human rights violations in other countries.
- Outrage over celebrity scandals while ignoring more significant issues: People often express outrage over celebrity scandals or controversies while neglecting the most critical matters that affect their communities or society. For example, the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa received less media coverage than the celebrity nude photo leak that occurred around the same time.
- Outrage over political events based on party affiliation: People often express outrage or support for political events based on their party affiliation or personal biases. For example, Democrats expressed outrage over the separation of families at the U.S.-Mexico border during the Trump administration. In contrast, Republicans expressed outrage over the alleged election fraud in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election.
- Outrage over police brutality while ignoring violence within communities: Many people express outrage over police brutality or misconduct while ignoring violence within their communities. For example, there were over 4,000 shootings in Chicago in 2016, but only a tiny fraction received national media attention.
- Outrage over environmental issues while ignoring other social and economic problems: People often express outrage over ecological issues, such as climate change or deforestation, while neglecting other interconnected social and economic issues. For example, there has been a growing movement in India to protect the tiger population. Still, some critics argue that this movement ignores the human rights violations and poverty affecting the region.
- Outrage over political correctness while ignoring discrimination and prejudice: Some people express outrage over what they perceive as political correctness or “cancel culture” while ignoring systemic discrimination and bias. For example, some commentators have criticized efforts to remove statues or symbols of Confederate leaders, arguing that it erases history or free speech while ignoring the harm these symbols can cause to people of color.
- Outrage over gun control while ignoring other public health issues: Some people express outrage over gun control measures, arguing that they infringe on their Second Amendment rights while ignoring other public health issues that cause more deaths or injuries. For example, in the United States, gun violence kills around 40,000 people yearly, while motor vehicle accidents kill over 38,000 people annually.
- Outrage over personal offenses while ignoring systemic problems: Some people express outrage over personal barbs or insults, such as being called a derogatory name, while ignoring systemic issues, such as racism or sexism, that affect marginalized groups. For example, some men have expressed outrage over being accused of sexual harassment or misconduct while ignoring the prevalence of these issues and the harm they cause to women.
- Outrage over cultural appropriation while ignoring cultural exchange: Some people express outrage over cultural appropriation, or the adoption of elements of one culture by another, while ignoring the benefits of cultural exchange and the complex history of cultural interaction. For example, some critics have accused non-Indigenous people of appropriating Indigenous culture by wearing headdresses or using Indigenous designs, ignoring that Indigenous cultures have been historically oppressed and erased.
- Outrage over immigration while ignoring other forms of discrimination: Some people express outrage over immigration policies or the influx of refugees while ignoring other forms of discrimination or prejudice, such as racism or homophobia. For example, some politicians or media outlets have demonized immigrants or refugees while ignoring the root causes of migration, such as war, poverty, or climate change.
- Outrage over privacy violations by corporations while ignoring government surveillance: Some people express outrage over corporations collecting personal data or violating privacy rights while ignoring government surveillance or infringement on civil liberties. For example, some critics have raised concerns over social media companies collecting user data or sharing information with third parties while ignoring government surveillance programs or data breaches.
- Outrage over offensive language while ignoring harmful actions: Some people express outrage over foul language or jokes while ignoring harmful actions or policies that affect marginalized groups. For example, some people may criticize others for using racially charged language or making sexist jokes while ignoring more pressing issues, such as police brutality or workplace discrimination.
- Outrage over climate change while ignoring other environmental issues: Some people express outrage over climate change or environmental degradation while ignoring other ecological problems, such as pollution or deforestation. For example, some activists may focus on reducing carbon emissions or promoting renewable energy while ignoring the impact of industrial farming or unsustainable resource extraction.
- Outrage over perceived threats to traditional values while ignoring human rights: Some people express outrage over perceived threats to traditional values or morals, such as same-sex marriage or gender equality, while ignoring the fundamental human rights of others. For example, some religious or conservative groups may oppose LGBTQ+ rights or reproductive rights while ignoring the impact of their policies on marginalized communities.
- Outrage over cancel culture while ignoring historical injustice: Some people express outrage over cancel culture or perceived threats to free speech while ignoring the historical injustices that have silenced or marginalized certain voices. For example, some commentators or academics may criticize cancel culture or “woke” politics while missing the legacy of slavery, colonialism, or genocide that has shaped our society.
Why Is Selective Outrage Harmful?
Selective outrage does damage in more than one direction. It erodes the credibility of the person expressing it, because observers notice the inconsistency long before the speaker does. It pulls attention away from problems that genuinely need action. And it can stigmatize the targets of the outrage, damaging reputations and well-being over something that was never weighed fairly.
How Common is Selective Outrage?
Determining the prevalence of selective outrage is challenging, but research on motivated skepticism and politically motivated selective exposure suggests the tendency is widespread [541,656]. People often notice, amplify, and emotionally invest in issues that align with their prior beliefs while overlooking comparable cases that complicate their preferred narrative [541,656].
Before Joining the Outrage
Before joining the outrage bandwagon, we need to evaluate the situation carefully and consider the likely consequences. Maintaining consistency in our moral values and principles is essential to avoid hypocrisy and moral inconsistency. We should also focus our attention on significant issues, avoiding distractions that selective outrage may create.
None of this means outrage is always wrong. Some things deserve anger. The test is whether your anger follows your principles or your tribe: if the same act only bothers you when the other side does it, that is worth sitting with before you join in.