The Great Moral Cleansing Has Begun

The psychology of a timeless tradition

Photo by Karsten Winegeart on Unsplash

Decades ago, an Oxford psychologist got curious about primate group sizes. His research led him to predict that humans could maintain about 150 close personal relationships. They could care about 150 people.

That was it.

That number became known as “Dunbar’s Number” or “social brain hypothesis,” and it held up pretty well. We can have lots of acquaintances. At the end of the day, we can only care deeply about 150 people.

You could say that humanity is having one giant freakout right now, because the internet and social media have presented us with far more people and problems to care about than our brains can handle.

We invented a term for it.

Starts with a d…

Our technology has given us tools to witness vast amounts of pain and suffering, but they’ve given us f—k all to do anything about it. You can donate online, and that’s where our agency stops. Our politicians don’t listen to us anymore, if they ever did, and they’re actively seeking more ways to insulate themselves from accountability. We can create enormous problems that put the entire planet in danger, but we struggle to comprehend them. Ask someone to care about a million people, and they shut down. That’s a big part of the problem.

Meanwhile, everyone has a moral self-image.

They have a sense of right and wrong, instilled in them from childhood. They believe they’re a good person who does “the right thing” no matter what. If you threaten someone’s moral self-image, watch out.

Unfortunately, studies have shown that many of us don’t do the right thing when it’s too hard, or there’s something we want more. In particular, these studies have found that moral values like “community” or “care” actually play a small role in everyone’s daily moral behaviors. In other words, people are much more likely to talk-talk-talk about their values than practice them.

We’ve reached an era where everyone goes around virtue signalling all the time, and accusing each other of doing it. In fact, studies have confirmed moral grandstanding as a status-seeking move. It’s a dominance display. As a society, we’re increasingly engaging in acts of moral grandstanding to improve our rank and reputation. We do it on social media all the time. Politicians and influencers make strong moral stands purely in exchange for popularity. They change their position once they’re elected, or after they’ve made enough money.

I’ve noticed something else.

One major study found that once 25 percent of a society adopts a particular belief, they can usually persuade the majority.

These days, it feels like a lot of big voices wait until a certain moral belief reaches that threshold, then they finally adopt it. They pretend it was always their position. They take all the credit. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of problems we’re dealing with that won’t reach that tipping point. They could use a boost from those bigger voices, but the bigger boost isn’t coming.

If you adopt an unpopular moral stance too soon, or champion one that’s out of fashion, you commit the unforgivable transgression of telling everyone else they’re kind of a bad person. They won’t join you.

They’ll attack you.

You can find examples throughout history. At the beginning of every war we’ve ever fought (with one exception), it was morally bankrupt to protest. Then later, it was safe to oppose. Seatbelts. Carseats. Cigarette smoke. Radium. Washing your hands. We go through this cycle over and over again.

Right now, I’m reading about Omar El Akkad, and these words stand out: “once we’re safe, our empathy is often performative… it’s more expedient to be against evil after it’s over.” We’re watching in real time as society reaches a tipping point, and we see mainstream media outlets and politicians pivoting their positions, acting like they were always on the right side.

If 75 percent of people are always waiting to see which moral stand to take, that goes a long way to explaining the mess we’re in.

What happens when someone realizes they did something wrong? Do they try to make it right? Not exactly. They’ll do anything to restore that moral self-image. Sometimes, they apologize. Other times, they rationalize. They justify. They blame the victims. They frame themselves as heroes doing something for the greater good, or they act like misunderstood victims. According to some studies, they find the least demanding ways to restore their moral self-image. They might express the intent to do something, or engage in superficial rituals.

Someone can even restore their moral self-image by remembering what a good person they are. For example, one study found that someone who writes a flattering story about themselves will donate a fifth as much as someone who writes a more honest reflection of their past actions.

When you understand all this, you begin to see why there’s so much energy in performative morality, the talk-talk-talk about being a good person that’s rarely backed up with real action.

It’s called moral cleansing.

That’s the term psychologists use to describe all the behavior aimed at restoring someone’s moral self-image. Maybe you’ve been watching all this, and you weren’t sure what to make of it. Well, these studies help.

We’re watching the great moral cleansing. It’s going to include a lot of big newspapers, a lot of big celebrities, and eventually a lot of big politicians. A lot of people have spent the last several years shirking their moral responsibilities, and now they’re looking for ways to wash away the stains. They’re looking for positions to adopt and stands to take. They’re going to shout them over the waterfalls. Maybe you’re not interested in participating in this contest, to see who can declare their morality the loudest at just the right moment.

You don’t have to be loud to be right.

Or good.