I recently saw this "commentary" published in a newspaper called the Globe and Mail. I tried to pitch them on a column-length response, as well as on a much shorter letter. Alas, the Globe and Mail has thus far shown no interest in publishing my response. It is for them only to know why that is the case. Nonetheless, the internet and the generous editors at The Post Millennial have helped ensure that good debate can still occur.
On one level, it was gratifying to see the author of the original piece try to wade into a discussion of "virtue". Virtue is an under-discussed and important concept, and further engagement with it is a good way to increase the moral coherence of our public debates. However, by conflating criticisms of "virtue-signalling" with hypothetical criticisms of virtue, Ostroff's piece is ultimately not particularly illuminating. I hope this response can clarify the appropriate distinctions.
Unlike Ostroff's piece, mine will begin with the brief definition of relevant terms.
Comment: See also: