This might not be relevant to you, but in case my braindump may spark a serious conversation: //mere// virtue signaling is closer (but still not quite right). Part of the problem is that signaling (and, the more I look at this word, the more problematic it becomes, as I'm not sure what doesn't count in at least one's lightcone), virtuous or otherwise, need not be intended; agents can accidentally give away information. The virtuous agent may signal, and their signals may be both virtuous and appear otherwise to the vicious and virtuous alike. Part of the problem with the phrase "virtue signaling" is that there's a positivistic definition of the concept, but there are also justified manners in which to engage in that practice. Virtue signaling need not be fake or reduced to appearance (assuming we set aside the problem of representing a thing-in-itself). The virtuous agent may also perform or signal knowing they are signaling, and they may do so in virtue of performance. Maybe "Vicious Virtue-Signaling" is more appropriate. There are likely many attempts to label this thing we're worried about. This strikes me as the closest answer: when one aims to signal one's goodness in a deceptive manner that treats the other (including one's future self) as mere means, one has engaged in immoral or vicious virtue-signaling.
This. Basically half of LinkedIn posts these days. "Here's this guy who spent 16 hours a day selling watermelon at a traffic light. I came in and helped him find a job and now he's a CEO of a Fortune 500 company and can feed his 12 kids. #bekind"