Virtue signalling is the act of demonstrating your righteousness, through words or deeds, in order to score points and enhance your reputation rather than for its own sake.

The latest allegation from the political right, this one stems from the conviction of right wingers that left wingers are secretly just as selfish as they are. In a similar vein to ‘political correctness’, or the claim that “you all think it, I’m just the only one brave enough to say it”, these right wingers believe it is impossible to have an actually compassionate outlook. The question they ask themselves when they see someone being ostensibly nice is “what are they really after?”

On the surface, this perspective is naive and paranoid. Pretty much any act of kindness and generosity can be dismissed as ‘virtue signalling’. However, the concept is not entirely without merit, although it is by no means a new one. The idea of publicly demonstrating virtuous behaviour for selfish reasons is at least as old as the New Testament, which condemns those who pray in public as seeking rewards in this life rather than the next.

I have come to believe that a great many supposedly charitable organisations should be subject to much closer scrutiny, particularly in regards to their fundraising tactics. Claiming the best intentions gives us the greatest cover for selfish acts. It can be seen as impolite to suspect someone perceived as an altruist. I have seen people outraged that Mother Theresa is no longer necessarily regarded as a hero by many people. The very fact that she was perceived as doing good apparently should shield her from examination into what she actually did.

When we feel hurt, it is often comforting to turn that hurt into anger. Having an external target for our internal pain gives us something to focus on and allows us to gloss over any necessary self-reflection in favour of blaming someone else. I have witnessed numerous people in great metaphorical (and sometimes physical) pain who throw themselves into a cause with sometimes self-destructive energy. Fighting for ‘social justice’ can give us the self esteem we may otherwise lack, and fill an emptiness in our lives with new meaning. But our lives are worthwhile in themselves. Yes, we should work to improve the world. But the attitude that we are born in sin and must work off a debt is dangerous.

Having healthy levels of self esteem is necessary for self improvement. The alternative is to wallow in self-pity and hatred. So what happens is, a worthwhile cause attracts people who are deeply flawed, and instead of trying to fix themselves they throw themselves into trying to fix the world.

Right now, what seems to be happening is that bad behaviour is legitimised as long as it is done ‘for the cause’. There has emerged a popular opinion in articles that left wing, pro-feminist men don’t actually make good partners for left wing, feminist women, and that actually uninterested but sympathetic men are far better. At first I found this highly confusing, but now I think I understand why, aside from the risk of getting into a dispute over the particulars.

When someone has an abusive partner, going with them to couples therapy is strongly discouraged. This is because the abuser can learn the terminology and concepts and use them for their own ends.

The same kinds of people who are attracted to the far right – those who want to bully the weak – are also being drawn to the left. Sure, they have to pick different targets, but they are easy targets all the same. Older male members of left wing groups prey on younger female members. Dissenting feminists are subject to abuse and attempted censorship. Quiet and shy members of social groups are shouted down by loud and aggressive members.

These practices are tolerated and justified in the name of ‘punching up’. As long as you claim to be the champion of justice, it’s perfectly fine to joke about executing your political opponents. But nine times out of ten, you’re just enjoying the idea of having the power of life or death over another being. That is not a healthy attitude to hold, no matter who the target is. And too many organisations are content to let their members be consumed by rage and hatred, on the grounds that it results in passionate and dedicated activists.

What our movements should do as a matter of basic principle is to help our members become functional human beings. Only cults desire broken zealots. To expand beyond a fanatical core requires actual pleasant human interaction which is most easily carried out by actual pleasant humans. And inner peace is a necessary component of healthy self-esteem. The world is full of hateful acts and violent people. The institutions of our society are fundamentally unjust and discriminate against the most vulnerable. But it’s exactly the most vulnerable who cannot afford to live in constant fear and suspicion. It is better to expect civility and be disappointed than to expect hostility and discover it.

Now, more than ever, with the rise of populist movements across the globe, we have to refuse to follow the right wing example of manipulating people’s emotions to score political points. Lift people up from the negativity, and then educate them with facts. End the actual practice of virtue signalling: using laudable aims to justify unreasonable behaviour. We all deserve better.