Virtue signaling is when Democrats love to show how charitable and loving they are by giving other people's money away. They say "That's what Jesus would do" as if Jesus were a socialist like them. Then when you look at their personal giving (other than taxes), it doesn't exist.

Here's a couple good ones: "We're gonna make the wealthy pay their fair share" and "I'm trying to make amends for my white privilege and I've come a long way."

So, yeah, it's like fake news, quite perverted.

Plato, on virtue:
Plato thus rejects the divine command theory (which says that God's will MAKES things good or bad). Plato seems to hold intuitionism (which says that things can be inherently good or bad). In Plato's Republic, the four cardinal virtues are wisdom, temperance, courage and justice. These reflect the nature of the soul.

To be clear, I’d like to define what I understand virtue signaling to be and then to differentiate virtue signaling from legitimate moral discourse seeking the betterment of mankind. My understanding of virtue signaling focuses on the intent of the individual with the disclaimer that intent is not easily determined. If the person’s intent in proclaiming their version of morality is to beat down others or to make themselves appear more righteous amongst those that they are signaling to, then it is clear to me that this is a moral perversion.

With that being said, I do not think that intent is always so easy to determine. I think I can say ALL moral proclamations make others feel “less-than” or threaten the hearers sense of their own self worth, if the moral proclamation differs from how the hearer lives. A moral proclamation inherently sets up a dynamic that orders the “righteous” (or those that are not in violation of the moral proclamation) above the “unrighteous” (those who violate the tents of the moral proclamation). Nothing of this dynamic speaks to the legitimacy or the validity of the claim, it happens irrespective of whether the moral proclamation is valid or invalid.

I think fundamentally, before any discourse can be had on morality, you have to decide on your own purposes for engaging in a moral discussion. Everyone is not aiming for the same thing and we generally mean different and contradictory things when we use words like “right” and “wrong”. Even as far as considering what makes a person “better”, there are a variety of answers and possibly an infinite number of ways to disagree on what makes a person “better”. Basically, my point is that any discussion on morality is pointless if you aren’t starting with the same understanding of right and wrong and seeking the same idea of better.

Yes. It is the herd's morality. A shallow ethics for the Mass Man. They have such low character and a lack of courage they are incapable of being virtuous in any way. Therefore, they signal how virtuous they are to anyone willing (or unwilling) to listen. In a naturally ordered society they would be expected to shut up and defer to their betters. Yet, in this Clownworld they are given a podium to spew their degeneracy. The masses should always be oppressed. If not, they will destroy all that is good, beautiful and civilized.

Morality is as personal as religion. There have always been virtue signaling since time began. Only it was called bragging. Duh. Just cause you put a pig in sequins and velvet doesn't mean it isn't a pig.