When an individual or institution uses performative words or actions to present themselves as committed to moral or social values in order to gain attention and admiration, without a genuine commitment to those values.
Definition:
The Virtue Signalling Fallacy occurs when an individual or institution, instead of taking real action to address a moral or social problem, uses performative words or gestures to build a moral image and attract public admiration.
For example, a company accused of violating workers’ rights releases a passionate statement on International Workers’ Day about “respect for human resources” and “justice in the workplace”, attempting to restore its moral image without making any real change in working conditions or fair pay.
In such behaviour, the primary motive is to display moral goodness, not to practise moral virtues. Here, it should be noted that this fallacy relies more on creating an external image of virtue than on sincerity in values.
This fallacy shares similarities with the Appeal to Virtue Fallacy. The difference is that in the Appeal to Virtue, a good reputation is used to justify a claim, whereas in Virtue Signalling, declarations and emotional expressions are used to gain moral approval and avoid practical responsibility.
Typical structure of this fallacy:
- A social or moral issue (A) arises in society that requires practical action.
- Instead of taking real or practical measures, the person or institution issues a public statement (B) in which they take a strong moral stance, express intense emotions, and pretend to be committed to ethical values.
- False conclusion: since the person or institution has declared a moral stance (B), they have fulfilled their moral duty and are freed from the obligation to take real action to solve the problem (A).
Examples from real life:
1. In politics:
Politician C, during the election campaign, passionately speaks about poverty, injustice, and the suffering of the disadvantaged, calling himself “the voice of the voiceless”. Yet after winning, he votes for policies that cut social welfare budgets.
Here, it should be noted that his actions project a caring and compassionate image and attract voters’ support, without showing any genuine commitment to addressing the root causes of poverty or injustice in practice.
2. In social media:
Following a humanitarian crisis or natural disaster that requires real financial or practical help, user A posts long, emotional stories and angry messages about “injustice and oppression”, using popular hashtags to display their empathy and moral concern.
Here, it should be noted that this action projects a compassionate image and earns moral approval from friends and followers, without making any real difference to the victims’ situation.
3. In companies and organisations:
Company B, while almost all its executives are white men, issues passionate statements on International Women’s Day about “equality”, “diversity”, and “respect for all people”, and changes its logo to symbolic colours.
Here, it should be noted that this act presents a progressive and inclusive image of the company and draws public admiration, without bringing any real change to its hiring policies or management structure.
Why is this fallacy dangerous?
- Undermining genuine values: when values become mere tools of publicity, their true meaning is weakened.
- Deceiving the public: people are misled into believing that real change has occurred.
- Creating social disillusionment: when the gap between words and actions becomes clear, public trust in moral values is damaged.
How can we recognise and respond to it?
To identify this fallacy, one must distinguish hypocritical moral gestures from genuine moral commitments and ask:
– Has the person or institution paid, or is willing to pay, any cost for defending the values they proclaim?
– Have their statements or positions led to measurable behavioural or structural change?
– Are these declarations made mainly in public and performative spaces, or do they persist in real actions and decisions as well?
An appropriate response might be: “Your moral stance is commendable, but values gain their true meaning only when they are realised in action. Could you provide an example of a real step you have taken in this regard?”
This approach helps strengthen critical thinking and moral responsibility.
Conclusion:
The Virtue Signalling Fallacy reminds us that fine words and performative behaviour cannot replace genuine moral action.
In a world where meaning is lost and appearances overshadow true virtues, distinguishing between moral posturing and real commitment to values becomes essential.
Virtue regains its meaning and transformative power only when it rises above rhetoric and is realised in both individual and collective action. The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines education as the cultivation of moral virtues in human beings.