Is Cultural Hypocrisy Inevitable in Moral Evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of cultural hypocrisy in the context of moral evolution, exploring whether it is inevitable for groups to exhibit hypocrisy when holding others to different standards. Participants examine the implications of moral standards, competition, and the influence of genetics versus social constructs on morality.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that it is hypocritical to hold different standards for oneself compared to others.
  • There is a question of whether any group can be considered hypocritical if they have previously engaged in similar behaviors they now criticize.
  • One participant argues that competition can complicate moral standards, as individuals may prioritize winning over maintaining integrity.
  • Another viewpoint posits that morality may have a genetic basis, influencing behaviors and the consequences of actions like "fighting dirty."
  • Conversely, some participants argue that morality is primarily a social construct, shaped by cultural evolution and societal norms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of hypocrisy and the origins of morality, with no consensus reached on whether hypocrisy is inevitable or how it relates to moral evolution.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of morality and the potential for varying interpretations based on cultural and genetic influences. The discussion remains open-ended regarding the definitions and implications of hypocrisy.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Messages
5,112
Reaction score
20
Ok what is this considered as...

You have 2 groups. Group A gets mad and publically complains about something group B did and tries to brush it off as 'ok'. Then later, group B gets mad for Group A doing the same thing but they also try to brush it off as 'ok'.

Is it right for any side to claim the other sides hypocritical? Is there a "first use" rule or osmething like that? Yah dumb question but I am bored :D
 
Physics news on Phys.org
it would hypocritical to hold 'ourselves' to different standards than we hold 'others', so yes
 
But can anyone be considered hypocritical? Isnt side A hypocritical because they did the same thing they were mad about in the past... but along with that, isn't side B hypocritical for trying getting mad because they thought it was ok the first time they did it... is there a first rule? lol. Seems like in politics you see this situation a lot.
 
From Group C's point of view both groups are just a bunch of idiots :-)
 
Sounds like every Real World episode I've ever seen, which is far too many.
This question is actually more complex than it appears. At first glance I would agree with Fourier jr. We should hold ourselves to the same standards we expect others to uphold.

The rules change if there is competition involved. If the other person is using an underhanded technique that puts you at a disadvantage then you have to weigh which is more important, maintaining moral beliefs or winning. Sometimes resorting to similar techniques isn't worth the sacrafice to personal integrity. Sometimes losing means embarrassment. It can even threaten control of resources vital to survival.

Evolution favors prejudice. The versatile survive and those that cannot, or refuse to adapt, will die. Morals are strange things, aren't they?

I think it is hypocrisy any way you look at it.
 
Last edited:
There is, of course, also a genetic basis for morality. It's not always to your advantage to fight dirty. If other people see you do it and they have a code of honor, then you could be in trouble.
 
I'm not sure that is genetic. I think of it as a social construct. You are right though, there can be penalties to fighting dirty if you are outnumbered, or lack authority. If they are unwilling to fight dirty then you will have an advantage over them too. If there is nobody that will stop you then you can do whatever you like without consequences. That wouldn't be much of a society at all. Maybe that's why we developed morals and the dichotomy is why we ask questions about them.
 
We have a culture and evolve with the culture. Morality is genetic in large part, and also cultural.
 

Similar threads

An argument that moral relativism is wrong.
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
9K
Undergrad A Bold New Take on Quantum Theory
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
How Do Everyday Concepts Become Mind-Boggling When We Think Deeply About Them?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Moral Universalism and Economic Triage by Richard Rorty
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
8K
Is There a Way to Turn My Life Around After So Much Struggle?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Perceptions of Disparate Fields of Interest
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
9K
COVID Reaction to COVID-19 Vaccine (or what to be prepared for)
  • · Replies 287 ·
10
Replies
287
Views
29K
Are the COVID Vaccines Unusually Ineffective?
  • · Replies 100 ·
4
Replies
100
Views
10K
Graduate Shinichi Mochizuki's ABC Conjecture and Replication Crisis in Maths
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
10K
Egg tossing crime -- From what location was the egg thrown?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K