Selective Moral Outrage

Yes, we watched the entire debate last evening. It was a dumpster fire (I have described it other ways, but this is the most appropriate description based on the fact that I hope to keep this blog family friendly).

Throughout the debate, I was following comments on various social media platforms. I watched the post-debate analysis on several networks as well as on several online news outlets. Today I have continued to peruse the reaction to the debate from a wide spectrum of sources and perspectives.

While my analysis is not as thorough as it needs to be to be considered statistically accurate, and I try to be as aware as possible about my own bias, I do have some observations.

On social media, there were a number of folks who would clearly like to have another option (they are fully aware that at this point in the proceedings, that is not possible). My favorite post that expressed this perspective was a friend who simply wrote, “C: None of the above!” That post received a lot of “likes!” I don’t think that is confirmation bias to believe that this illustrates my earlier suggestion that the vast majority of our country is much more united than we are divided.

Then there were the folks who are dug in on the goal lines hurling insults at the other side. As I predicted, some of what I have read has been quite nasty.

One of the biggest challenges we face as we try to find areas of common ground is selective moral outrage. In basic terms, some behavior is just wrong. Unfortunately, too many people decide whether something is right or wrong based on their individual political, theological or ideological bias. We are quick to point out the flaws in the person with whom we disagree but seem to ignore those very same or similar flaws in the person we support.

Jesus spoke to this:

Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Friend, let me take out the speck in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.

Luke 6:41-42 NRSV

I confess, I have been guilty of this far more than I would like to admit!

Often selective moral outrage is a consequence of us living in echo chambers. To guard against this, we all need to make sure that we are seeking information from as many sources as possible. We particularly need to seek out sources that we know to have a different ideological perspective than our own.

I try to read from at least 8-10 news sources across a broad ideological spectrum. All news sources are biased. I read carefully searching for facts in the midst of opinion (there was once a much clearer delineation between “hard news” and “editorial” but in modern journalism, those lines have been blurred (and, in some cases, obliterated). The fact checkers are biased (who is checking the fact checkers?!) All news sources are also selective. All fact checkers are selective. I am sure that the argument from the editors of the news sources and fact-checkers would be that they have limited resources. They simply cannot chase down every story.

What we do with limited resources says as much or more about who we are and what we believe than if we had greater resources. Working with limited resources more clearly reveals our biases because we are going to focus our energy in a way that defends what we believe or attacks that with which we disagree.

I am particularly careful reading sections of news sources that include the words “what you need to know.” These are obviously very selective and reveal the biases of the editor of that particular news source.

Most importantly, I try to filter all of this through the lens of my faith. I try to whittle down my own log before I go looking for any specks.