People tend to cherry-pick principles when they suit them and ignore them when they don't.
The Pervasive Pattern: Duplicitous Dance of Principle Prioritization
We humans pride ourselves on our lofty ethics and vaunted systems of morality. We espouse ironclad ethical codes and tout the integrity of our principles as sacred, inviolable bedrocks meant to steer us true in our decision-making and behaviour. Yet in practice, our commitment to living by such professed ethics is sporadic at best and frequently downright hypocritical.
For all our sanctimonious preaching about the ethical guidelines and moral tenets we allegedly uphold, there exists an unmistakable human tendency to cherry-pick which principles we follow in any given situation based on what is most convenient or self-serving. The supposedly sacrosanct codes we revere become mere malleable facades we readily contort or simply ignore when adhering to them no longer suits our interests.
This Duplicitous Dance of Principle Prioritization manifests across myriad domains and facets of the human condition. We routinely subordinate virtuous stances to personal incentives and rationalized self-interest. In this ultra-pragmatic ethical relativism, our dedication to any ideology or integrity framework is paradoxically contingent on the circumstances making fealty to those ethics advantageous. Upholding principles becomes a malleable choice rather than an unwavering obligation.
The Roots of Rationalized Ethical Contravention
This ethical pluralism we engage in stems in part from the inherent complexities of attempting to apply clear-cut ethical frameworks to the messiness and context-dependency of real-world scenarios. In theory, adopting a robust philosophical foundation grounded in defined ethical tenets means we'll enjoy unshakeable consistency in our choices because our decisions get run through an impartial filter of moral reasoning.
But in actuality, invariably following a single rigid set of ethical principles proves extraordinarily challenging when navigating the infinite shades of grey that make up the typical ethical quandary. Principles frequently rub up against other principles, creating exquisitely tangled philosophical knots with no tidy unwinding. Situational factors and colliding incentives render uniform application of ethical dictums more idealistic ambition than realizable outcome.
In such chronically murky territory where moral stances require pragmatic interpretation and degrees of flexibility, our propensity becomes favouring whichever ethical precepts most conveniently justify the payoff or outcome we already wanted. We fixate on the parts of ethical dogma that permit and shepherd us toward the self-serving conclusion while blithely ignoring or downplaying tenets that would steer us away from that preferred personal interest.
The Undeniable Lure: Duplicitous Dance of Principle Prioritization
This tendency to engage in the Duplicitous Dance of Principle Prioritization, replete with cherry-picking ethical stances to match our situational motivations, can be partially attributed to the quirks and biases ingrained in human psychology and cognition. Our subconscious thought processes related to belief formation and decision-making involve a host of systematic errors and blind spots that inadvertently push us toward moral pluralism.
Confirmation bias and motivated reasoning, for example, predispose us to automatically privilege information aligned with our pre-existing presumptions while irrationally discounting or outright ignoring contradictory evidence or ethical principles. In essence, we unconsciously seek out ethical stances corroborating what we already wanted to believe or do in the first place.
Meanwhile, the psychological phenomenon of ethics... makes us extraordinarily adept at retroactively generating convincing moral rationalizations to justify almost any behaviour, no matter how duplicitous or hypocritical. Only after the fact do we concoct plausible-sounding ethical narratives meant to portray whichever unprincipled choice we made as actually adhering to our moral code.
In reality, these behaviours were likely impelled more by primal, visceral impulses and naked self-interest. But our gift for after-the-fact moral reasoning tricks us into feeling we behaved virtuously and without ethical breach.
Pluralistic Personal Ethics Amidst Competing Interests
On a more conscious level, the Duplicitous Dance of Principle Prioritization also stems from the difficulty of formulating a single, immutable set of ethics that gracefully adjudicates all the conflicts of interest arising from our complex tapestry of identities, backgrounds, privileges and agendas. We all accumulate an intricate catalogue of situational scruples that sometimes requires us to pick and choose ethical stances tailor-made for preserving or advancing our vested interests.
For instance, a business executive may earnestly subscribe to broad ethical principles like honesty and transparency in the abstract, only to subtly relax or skirt those principles when full candour about struggling finances or strategic plans might jeopardize the company's bottom line. An LGBTQ activist may proselytize indiscriminate inclusivity and equality as ethical lodestars, except when Immigration or Islam become the subject – then cultural relativism and value hierarchies take precedence. A self-proclaimed civil libertarian may cite free speech as an absolute, sacrosanct right until others begin expressing extremist hate speech, at which point that principle conveniently gets supplanted by other community values.
Few of us maintain 100% consistency across the sweeping array of ethical domains touching on our multifarious identities and circumstances. Even with the best of intentions, the practicalities of balancing all ethical equities becomes a Sisyphean task demanding routine compromise.
The Cultural & Institutional Implications of Philosophy Pluralism
Of course, our Duplicitous Dance of Principle Prioritization doesn't just play out on a personal level. Just like individuals develop convoluted ethical frameworks reflecting myriad special interests, entire institutions, demographics and cultures reshape ethical codes to sustain power structures or defend privileges benefiting the ingroup.
We repeatedly see nations and governing bodies upholding ethical principles and international norms only until sidestepping them increases wealth, territory or global influence at which point "national interest" ethically eclipses all else. Marginalized majorities within societies may evangelize for the equitable application of democratic rights and liberties until they gain power, and then the rhetoric shifts to dismissing those same values as threats to authority and cohesion.
Political factions oscillate between moralizing about elevated ethical ideals when out of power before pragmatically jettisoning principles once in control of governance levers. Social justice movements decry unethical acts against their constituents while rationalizing or turning blind eyes to identical transgressions committed by their own members.
Organized religions may treat scriptural tenets as absolute gospel at times only to interpret away strictures that become too burdensome. At every echelon, preserving primacy, control and the benefits of belonging to the predominant group appears to supersede rigid adherence to principle.
Ethical tenets, however fervent their invocations, are forever treated as soluble, secondary maxims malleable to rationalized self-interest when push comes to shove. Far from being inviolable precepts, moral codes function more as philosophical buffets where we load up on ethical stances feeding our agendas while avoiding anything that might impinge on advantages.
Ethical Cherry-Picking as the Path of Least Resistance
This propensity toward the Duplicitous Dance of Principle Prioritization endures across all corners of civilization and human endeavour because, to be candid, ethical pluralism and situational re-interpretation of values are simply more convenient and pragmatic. At least in the near term, following ethical codes that prop up hierarchies and doing what we want feels much easier than the fraught path of full ideological and behavioural consistency.
It allows the elite classes to extol free market ideals and chide others for laziness until conversations turn to wealth redistribution or raising minimum wages. Then capitalistic survival-of-the-fittest mantras reigning supreme make for far more palatable principles over equality. Why jeopardize accumulated riches?
It permits civic leaders and nation-states to performatively invoke democratic ideals and admonish human rights abuses abroad while simultaneously rubber-stamping domestic overreach, surveillance policies and crackdowns on civil liberties when seen as essential for maintaining domestic control and social order. Dispensing with that "liberty" principle was highly expedient when outgroups became threatening.
It lets companies champion ethics like environmental stewardship or corporate social responsibility...right up until the moment actually implementing those principles eats into profit margins. Then fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value swiftly usurps any other ethical pretences as the new preeminent virtue.
These double-standard dilemmas play out in practically every arena imaginable. Philosophical frameworks claiming ultimate authority grow curiously diminished every time living out their full logical implications would incur costs or discomfort for the group wielding them. Religious faiths paper over scriptural contradictions and "contextualize" away moral doctrines they find outdated or burdensome. Even interpersonal relationships and families frequently turn a blind eye to ethical breaches the more those groups close ranks and rationalize ends-justify-means relativism.
At some point or another, nearly every human collective exercises the option to engage in a Duplicitous Dance of Principle Prioritization whenever strict ethical consistency becomes too inconvenient, too disruptive, or too threatening to the primacy and interests of those in power. The "transcendent" principles being espoused reveal themselves as mere ethical-political branding rather than actually binding edicts. Advertised ethical identities end up being more pretence than practice.
The Never-Ending Struggle Toward Ethical Consistency
That humans perpetually struggle to uphold principles with dutiful consistency doesn't exactly constitute surprising news. Our evolutionary heritage has endowed us with both innate psychological biases and fierce strains of tribalized self-interest that inherently make us imperfect vessels for moral and ethical conduct. Even when armed with the most rigorously defined ethical frameworks imaginable, we remain exquisitely vulnerable to the seductive allure of engaging in situational principle re-prioritization and rationalized self-preservation when push comes to ethical shove.
Yet while true ethical immaculacy, free from any traces of the Duplicitous Dance of Principle Prioritization, may forever elude us, the spirited pursuit of greater principled consistency must remain a perennial personal and civilizational ambition. A society completely untethered from any substantive ethical moorings and operating solely on unprincipled expediency represents a morally rudderless powder keg. Striving for higher realms of ethical integrity, even if imperfectly manifested, means injecting essential stabilizing counter-forces into the human condition.
On an individual level, this means developing profound self-awareness about our own propensities for duplicitous ethical drift and rationalization. We must rigorously confront our true underlying motivations and biases whenever we feel that twitch of wavering away from full-throated ethical maxims. Practising humility about our myopic self-interest while interrogating second-order incentives keeps us ever-vigilant about consistency.
We would also do well to proactively stress-test the integrity of our most closely-held ethical convictions against thorny situational predicaments and conflicts of interest we realistically expect to confront in life. Simulating trials of moral fibre with clear rules of engagement about impermissible compromise instils preventative wisdom to keep us from crumbling during true ethical crucibles.
Indeed, universally enshrining certain ultra-high ethical tenets as absolutely sacrosanct, immutable core values never to violate may be the most fortifying safeguard against the Duplicitous Dance of Principle Prioritization creep. Such inviolable ethics serve as philosophical anchors keeping us tethered whenever the situational appeal of convenience tempts us. For instance, formulating ultra-stringent honour codes around truth and reciprocity defangs any context-based rationalizations to breach those principles. Institutions wrestling with fiendishly complicated applied ethics might still mandate human welfare and fundamental rights as wholly inviolable bottom lines regardless of incentives to make exceptions.
Just as critical are developing the psychological attitudes and mindsets that preemptively neutralize our likelihood of falling back on ethical relativism or philosophical contortion. Accepting impervious ethical fealty as an irreducible source of pride and inner resolve – while still accepting that occasional sub-optimal outcomes will result – represents an essential deterrent against a slipper slope of ethical hackery.
If we cultivate an abiding noble humility about sometimes having to bite ethical bullets for the sake of integrity over expedience, we forge philosophies more immune to the Duplicitous Dance of Principle Prioritization. Any insinuation of elastic ethics or rationalized deterioration should prompt reflexive recoil and accountability rather than doubling down on situational ethic-eschewing.
Scaling Ethical Firewalls Against Convenience
Substantive progress toward rigorous ethical consistency on larger societal and civilizational scales will require adopting similarly stalwart systemic resilience against the human tendency toward a Duplicitous Dance of Principle Prioritization. Impartial, third-party monitoring, accountability and adjudication systems with binding authority help remove human factors incentivizing unprincipled interpretation flexibility. We see this with double-blind experiments in research disciplines, oversight bodies in civil service and law, and rating agencies in business and finance.
Ideally, such accountability functions administering ethical conduct would come from techno-philosophical mechanisms without subconscious fealties or incentives – credibly neutral arbiters less susceptible to human ethical pluralism. AI systems aligned toward immutable ethical foundations show promise here, though proper value loading and oversight remain an existential challenge to surmount. Decentralizing philosophical authority and distributing ethical decision-making power across diverse demographics and viewpoints further raises the difficulty of privileging parochial interests over formal ethical commitments. Democratic ethics elections on key moral issues rather than just representatives reduce the ease with which individual actors or power bases can unilaterally and discretionally re-calibrate ethical precepts.
In all arenas nudging civilization toward more stalwart ethical consistency, the key is erecting ever-more ethical firewalls against convenience – practical and psychological barricades making it exceedingly costly for individuals and institutions to backslide into Duplicitous Dance of Principle Prioritization on a mere ethics caprice.
The Perpetual Struggle Against Hypocrisy
Of course, none of this represents some utopian fantasy where humankind purges itself of every last spore of ethical relativism and defeats the Duplicitous Dance of Principle Prioritization once and for all. Our evolutionary psychology and deep-seated self-serving tribalism will continuously seek inlets. Material interests will forever beckon that tempting rationalization about ethically undercutting others "just this once."
But to entirely resign ourselves to an existence of cherry-picked ethics and accepted hypocrisy is every bit as damaging as naively believing we can achieve transcendental amorality. Calling out the intrinsic human shortcomings that enable flexibility around principles isn't an excuse to wallow in bad-faith dealings but a catalyst to ceaselessly recommit ourselves to combating further cultural and psychological ethical erosion.
The mark of true wisdom on ethical conduct may involve fully acknowledging our imperfect human proclivity for convenience-prioritizing principle contravention while still mustering inexhaustible personal and civilizational willpower to perpetually minimize its prevalence. Reducing our appetites for salving hypocritical breaches while elevating our allergy toward ethical self-rationalization remains a crucial aspiration, even if final ethical consistency remains a mirage on the horizon.
If we accept context-specific duplicitous ethic reprioritization as unfortunate yet universal human foibles to be ceaselessly resisted rather than surrendering to, perhaps that's the closest this uniquely flawed species gets to a tenable path of principled virtue.
Comments