This is a wonderfully complex topic and brings to mind a number of thoughts that I think address some of your inquiry (although possibly not satisfactorily).

1. There is a string of research recently that seems to indicate that our assumptions about rational decision makingis far more flawed than just as an input to an economic model. Most people believe they are rational, but researchers are finding that most decisions are first and foremost emotional which we then paper over with rationalizations. This has special significance to the situation you are describing because the meat price riots and the backlash against oil companies are likely two different responses to the same emotional trigger.

2. If our decisions are emotional first, rational second then progress would take place when we train our rational reasoning to be productive in the face of emotional triggers. In the scenario of high price gas, our emotional trigger of feeling ripped off should lead to an investigation of circumstances to find out if, in fact, we are rather than setting fire to the nearest gas station.

Based on this framework, I would answer your initial querey in the affirmative. “Procedural” rather than “distributional” reasoning in the face of emotionally distressing price signals is a strong inidcator of moral progress.

Ivin

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-305.html