This paper argues that it is epistemically unsound and morally corrosive to use human observation of potentially dangerous conditions as a basis for:

Diminishing the value or character of the person who created or inhabits those conditions,
Engaging in virtue signaling that generates fear in others, or
Using fear of such conditions as a primary deterrent for oneself.

Observation is a necessary but insufficient tool for understanding risk; it is theory-laden, context-dependent, and easily distorted by cognitive and social biases. When observation is weaponized into moral judgment, it becomes a form of epistemic laziness that substitutes fear for understanding, and social performance for genuine responsibility.

The paper draws on philosophy of science, moral psychology, and systems theory to show that:

Observation alone cannot reliably distinguish between recklessness, experimentation, and necessary risk-taking.
Moral condemnation of “dangerous” conditions often serves as a proxy for social status, not moral insight.
Overreliance on observational fear as a deterrent undermines innovation, autonomy, and collective resilience.

The conclusion is that societies and individuals should replace observational moralism with a more robust framework: one that values inquiry over condemnation, engagement over avoidance, and systemic understanding over performative caution.

1. Introduction: The Rise of Observational Moralism

In contemporary discourse, it has become common to treat the mere observation of a potentially dangerous condition as sufficient grounds for moral judgment. Whether the condition is a risky lifestyle, an experimental technology, a controversial idea, or a failure in practice, the observer often concludes:

“This is dangerous, therefore it is wrong.”
“This is dangerous, therefore the creator is irresponsible or morally inferior.”
“This is dangerous, therefore I must avoid it at all costs.”

This pattern—what we call observational moralism—has three characteristic uses:

Moral diminishment: Using observed danger to downgrade the perceived value, intelligence, or virtue of the person associated with the condition.
Virtue signaling: Publicly identifying and condemning the danger as a way of demonstrating one’s own moral sensitivity or caution, often to generate fear in others.
Self-deterrence: Using the fear of such conditions as a primary reason to avoid similar paths, even when those paths might be necessary for learning, innovation, or personal growth.

This paper contends that all three uses are deeply flawed. Observational moralism is not a reliable guide to truth, justice, or wisdom; instead, it is a socially reinforced heuristic that distorts risk, inflates moral certainty, and stifles human agency.

2. The Epistemic Limits of Observation

2.1 Observation Is Theory-Laden

In the philosophy of science, it is well established that observation is not “raw” but theory-laden. What one sees as “dangerous” depends on one’s background beliefs, values, and conceptual framework.

For example, a person who observes a high-risk experiment may interpret it as “reckless” because their theory of risk emphasizes safety and control. Another observer, working within a theory that values exploration and learning from failure, may see the same experiment as “necessary” or “courageous.” The observation is the same; the interpretation differs because of the underlying theory.

This means that moral judgments based on observation are not direct perceptions of moral facts, but inferences shaped by one’s worldview. To treat such inferences as definitive moral verdicts is to mistake a subjective interpretation for an objective truth.

2.2 The Reference Class Problem in Risk

Risk cannot be meaningfully assessed from observation alone; it requires a reference class (e.g., “What is the risk of this activity for people like this, in this context?”). But there are many ways to define the reference class, and each choice dramatically changes the estimated risk.

2.2 The Reference Class Problem in Risk

For instance, observing a single failure in a new technology does not, by itself, tell us whether the technology is generally dangerous, or whether the failure was due to specific circumstances, operator error, or external factors. To leap from “I see danger here” to “This is dangerous, therefore wrong” is to ignore the reference class problem and the need for systematic analysis.

2.3 Observation Cannot Distinguish Intent, Context, or Trade-Offs

Observation typically captures only the surface of a situation: the condition, the outcome, or the behavior. It rarely reveals:

The intent behind the action (e.g., whether it was reckless, experimental, or necessary).
The context (e.g., constraints, alternatives, and systemic pressures).
The trade-offs involved (e.g., between safety and innovation, or between short-term risk and long-term benefit).

When moral judgment is based on observation alone, it tends to ignore these dimensions and instead attributes moral failure to the person associated with the condition. This is a form of fundamental attribution error: explaining behavior by internal traits (e.g., “they are irresponsible”) while underestimating situational factors.

3. Moral Condemnation of the Creator: A Form of Epistemic Laziness

3.1 From “Dangerous” to “Bad”: A Fallacious Inference

A common pattern in observational moralism is:

I observe a condition that appears dangerous.
I infer that the condition is morally wrong.
I infer that the person who created or inhabits that condition is morally inferior.

This chain of reasoning is fallacious because it conflates risk with moral fault. Not all dangerous conditions are created by morally bad people, and not all morally bad people create dangerous conditions.

For example, a scientist who runs a high-risk experiment may be acting with great care and responsibility, even if the experiment fails. Conversely, a person who lives a “safe” life may be complicit in systemic harms (e.g., environmental degradation, exploitation) that are less visible but more damaging in the long run.

To condemn the creator of a dangerous condition without understanding their reasoning, constraints, and alternatives is to substitute moral posturing for moral reasoning.

3.2 The Role of Social Threat in Moral Condemnation

Empirical research in moral psychology shows that individuals who feel socially threatened (e.g., excluded, insecure, or anxious) are more likely to condemn moral wrongdoers severely. This suggests that moral condemnation is often not a dispassionate judgment of right and wrong, but a defensive reaction to perceived threat.

When people use observation of danger to condemn others, they may be attempting to:

Reassert their own social standing by positioning themselves as “safer” or “more responsible.”
Avert further harm by making an example of the “wrongdoer.”
Signal their own virtue to gain social approval.

In this light, moral condemnation of the creator of a dangerous condition is often less about justice and more about self-protection and social positioning.

4. Virtue Signaling and the Aesthetics of Caution

4.1 Virtue Signaling as Social Information

Virtue signaling—publicly expressing moral concern, especially about risk and danger—can function as a form of social information. It signals to others that the signaler is on the “right side” of a moral issue, and it can influence group norms and beliefs.

However, when virtue signaling is based on observation of danger, it often takes the form of:

Ramping up: Exaggerating the severity of the danger to appear more morally serious.
Piling on: Repeating condemnation already made by others to signal group membership.
Trumping up: Detecting or inventing moral problems where they may not exist, to demonstrate superior moral insight.

These behaviors can devalue moral discourse by making moral language cheap and moral condemnation routine. When every deviation from safety is treated as a moral failure, the distinction between genuine wrongdoing and mere risk-taking is lost.

4.2 The Epistemic Cost of Performative Caution

When virtue signaling is used to generate fear in others, it often relies on:

Selective observation: Focusing on worst-case outcomes while ignoring context, probability, and trade-offs.
Emotional amplification: Using outrage, alarm, or disgust to make the danger feel more urgent and morally significant.
Claims of self-evidence: Presenting the danger as “obvious” or “just visible,” thereby implying that those who do not see it are morally deficient.

This performative caution is epistemically costly because it:

Discourages inquiry and debate by treating moral perception as immediate and infallible.
Rewards confidence and conformity over careful reasoning and uncertainty.
Makes it harder to distinguish between real risks and socially constructed fears.

5. Self-Deterrence: Fear as a Poor Guide to Action

5.1 The Precautionary Argument and Its Limits

A common justification for using observation of danger as a deterrent is the precautionary argument: “If this activity is likely to cause significant harm, I should avoid it”. This argument has merit in contexts where the potential harm is severe and irreversible.

However, when applied too broadly, it becomes a form of epistemic conservatism: avoiding any activity that appears risky, regardless of its potential benefits, context, or alternatives. This can lead to:

Stagnation: Avoiding innovation, experimentation, and learning from failure.
Overcaution: Treating all risk as equivalent, even when some risks are necessary for progress.
Moral self-licensing: Using one’s avoidance of risk as a license to feel morally superior, while ignoring other, less visible forms of harm.

5.2 The Autonomy Cost of Observational Fear

Philosophers of risk have argued that imposing risk can diminish the autonomy of those subject to it, by narrowing their range of safe options. But the same logic applies to self-imposed fear: when one uses observation of danger as a primary deterrent, one is effectively laying a trap for oneself.

By defining one’s choices in terms of what is “safe” or “not dangerous,” one may:

Foreclose valuable opportunities for growth, learning, and contribution.
Become dependent on external signals of danger, rather than developing one’s own judgment.
Mistake the avoidance of danger for the achievement of virtue.

True autonomy requires not the elimination of risk, but the capacity to understand, manage, and sometimes transcend it.

6. A Better Framework: From Observation to Understanding

6.1 Replace Condemnation with Inquiry

Instead of using observation of danger to condemn the creator of a condition, a more constructive approach is to ask:

What are the causal factors behind this condition?
What trade-offs were involved?
What alternatives were available?
What can be learned from this case?

This shifts the focus from moral judgment to understanding, and from blame to responsibility.

6.2 Replace Virtue Signaling with Deliberation

Instead of using observation of danger as a tool for virtue signaling, a more productive use of moral discourse is:

Presenting evidence and arguments about risk, rather than just expressing outrage.
Acknowledging uncertainty, complexity, and trade-offs.
Engaging with disagreement as a source of higher-order evidence, rather than as a threat to one’s moral standing.

This supports a deliberative function of moral discourse, in which beliefs are updated in response to evidence, not just social pressure.

6.3 Replace Fear-Based Deterrence with Risk Literacy

Instead of using fear of dangerous conditions as a primary deterrent, individuals and institutions should cultivate risk literacy:

Understanding the difference between risk, uncertainty, and ambiguity.
Recognizing the role of context, reference classes, and systemic factors.
Developing the capacity to make informed, context-sensitive decisions under uncertainty.

Risk literacy does not eliminate fear, but it transforms it from a paralyzing emotion into a manageable input to decision-making.

7. Conclusion: Toward a Culture of Understanding, Not Moralism

Observational moralism—using the observation of potentially dangerous conditions to diminish others, to virtue-signal, or to deter oneself—is a poor substitute for genuine moral and epistemic responsibility. It is epistemically unsound because it treats theory-laden, context-dependent observations as definitive moral verdicts. It is morally corrosive because it rewards performative caution over courage, conformity over inquiry, and fear over understanding.

A better path is to:

Treat observation as a starting point for inquiry, not a basis for condemnation.
Replace virtue signaling with evidence-based deliberation.
Replace fear-based deterrence with risk literacy and systemic understanding.

Human progress depends not on avoiding all conditions that appear dangerous, but on understanding them, transforming them, and sometimes creating them in the service of greater goods. In that light, the truly virtuous stance is not the public rejection of risk, but the disciplined engagement with it.

References

Chiffi, D., Berchialla, P., & Gregori, D. (2017). An Epistemological View on Risk Exposure Assessment: A Case Study. The Open Nursing Journal, 11, 203–210. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874434601711010203
Carlson, R., & Zaki, J. (2020). Don’t Be Afraid to Virtue Signal — It Can Be a Powerful Tool to Change People’s Minds. Psychological Science, https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/dont-be-afraid-to-virtue-signal-it-can-be-a-powerful-tool-to-change-peoples-minds.html
Oberdiek, J. (2017). Imposing Risk: A Normative Framework. Oxford University Press.
Harman, G. (1977). Ethics and Observation. In Essays on Morality in Practice (pp. 1–17).
Tosi, J., & Warmke, B. (2016). Moral Grandstanding. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 44(3), 197–217.
Levy, N. (2020). Virtue signalling is virtuous. Synthese, 198, 11713–11735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02653-9
Chakroff, A., & Young, L. (2015). Harmful situations, impure people. Cognition, 134, 1–10.
MacCoun, R. J. (2003). The Psychology of Condemnation: Underlying Emotions and their Consequences. Brooklyn Law Review, 68(4), 1599–1648.
Sjöberg, L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 20(1), 1–12.
Christensen, D. (2007). Epistemic Self-Respect. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 75(2), 336–356.