Performative Righteousness and the Death of Due Process

Performative Righteousness and the Death of Due Process

The essay explores the thesis: the gravest moral danger in contemporary society is not necessarily the alleged wrongdoing of prominent or controversial figures, but the widespread readiness to embrace hatred and condemnation based on accusations lacking verified evidence. This practice reveals a profound failure of personal moral responsibility and fosters a culture where performative virtue supplants truth, ultimately causing greater harm than any single accused individual could inflict.

In an era saturated with information and outrage, certainty often arrives before knowledge. People encounter an allegation, through media, social networks, or community consensus and respond with immediate, intense hostility. The critical question, "Do I know this for sure?" is rarely asked. Instead, emotional momentum propels judgment forward, turning suspicion into conviction without the intervening step of scrutiny. This rush bypasses due process, evidence evaluation, and the humility required to admit uncertainty. The result is not justice, but a mechanism of social punishment that operates independently of facts.

Such dynamics appear across contexts, from politics to cultural industries. In highly polarized environments, accusations serve as tools for signaling moral alignment. To oppose an alleged evil is to affirm one's goodness; to question the accusation risks expulsion from the group. Communities invest heavily in this performative stance, prioritizing the appearance of fighting wrongdoing over the harder labor of establishing what actually occurred. When evidence later emerges that challenges the initial narrative, documents, retractions, court findings, or public admissions, the response is seldom retraction or apology. Instead, hostility intensifies, as if acknowledging error would undermine the entire moral framework. Those who defend due process or present contrary facts face ostracism, not because they support villainy, but because they disrupt the consensus of righteousness.

This pattern exposes a deeper pathology: the decoupling of hate from proof. Hatred without substantiation has little to do with the accused and everything to do with the psychological and social needs of those who hate. It becomes a form of emotional manipulation, where third parties are enlisted as judges in a spectacle of virtue. The accused, whether a political figure accused of grave corruption or an individual in a niche creative field, may exhibit flaws, contradictions, or a mixture of positive and negative actions. Yet the true malignancy lies not in their character, but in the systemic willingness to destroy lives or reputations on unverified claims. The perpetrators of this dynamic are culpable precisely because their actions stem from willful ignorance rather than demonstrated wrongdoing.

The broader consequence is the erosion of epistemic and moral responsibility. Individuals surrender personal agency to collective emotion or ideological pressure, outsourcing ethical decisions to prevailing narratives. When accusations function as sufficient proof, truth becomes subordinate to narrative control. Dissent is equated with complicity in evil, silencing inquiry and punishing those who insist on evidence. Societies that normalize this approach lose their capacity for rational discourse, fairness, and genuine accountability. Judgments issued under such conditions are unreliable and inhumane, rooted in conformity rather than conscience.

The greater threat emerges not from any one controversial person who may do both good and ill but from the "cult of accusations without evidence." This phenomenon fractures communities, perpetuates division, and destroys innocents (or at least the unproven guilty) while preserving the illusion of moral purity. External forces—financial incentives, political agendas, or coordinated campaigns, can amplify these unverified claims, turning them into orthodoxy and deepening societal rifts.

As Mark Twain observed, 

"The problem ain't what we don't know, it's what we know for sure which just ain't so." 

Misplaced certainty fuels cycles of harm far beyond isolated incidents. Authentic moral progress demands a relentless commitment to evidence before hatred, personal accountability for one's beliefs, and the courage to revise judgments when facts compel revision, no matter how uncomfortable. Only by insisting on this discipline can society escape the trap of performative outrage and reclaim the possibility of truth-based justice.