Ethics and morality both seem to have a incomprehensible rejection of acknowledging hypocrisy so much that no philosopher on moral ethics has ever shed light on the subject.
Why is this the case?
Most likely it is denialability on the part of the moral philosopher given the facing reality that hypocrisy can only exist in a moral world along with corruption that follows in contrast to a amoral world where nothing of the sort exists.
By denying hypocrisy as a inevitable deterioration of morality or ethics flawed existence of double standards the moralist escapes all accountability on the fallibility of morals.
By denying hypocrisy and corruption as a inevitable result of morality or ethics the moralist is allowed the illusional perception of justification along with their perceived infallibility on the subject of morals.
It makes perfect sense as to why moralists refrain from focusing on the corruption or hypocrisy of their own doctrines.
By understanding the level of corruption and hypocrisy within moral doctrines the myth of man’s moral agency lays shipwrecked along with the discussion of altruism.
By understanding inequality as a direct result of corruption and hypocrisy which are both extensions of morality’s flawed mechanics or double standards the myth of equality is obliterated on it’s own face in that we can clearly see that all people are indeed not equal.
I once met a man in discourse upon this same very conversation and his reply was that all men are hypocrites.
In a world where everybody is hypocritical why need morality at all?
In a world where everybody is hypocritical what is so special about altruism if it exists?
The only discourse I have found to be mentioned in moral or ethical philosophies is where they describe hypocrisy and corruption as being an extension of people tearing away from moral practices.
I believe the direct opposite illustrated by my motto that hypocrisy or corruption can only exist in a moral world where in contrast in a amoral world nothing of the sort exists which basically means that instead of hypocrisy stemming from those tearing away from moral practices I believe hypocrisy stems from moral practices themselves not of that which is people.
Hypocrisy is essential in any interaction which involves collusion and cooperation, in other words when it is involves a need.
It demands some degree of self-repression and censorship.
Morality is this hypocrisy given the status of an enforced law, divine or otherwise.
It is a guarantee that no matter the changing circumstances the bullshit will continue and the weakest will be protected.
It has a stabilizing effect.
Also Satyr what really makes me comedic down to being cynical is that we describe society as being held together by authorities of a moral framework and we supposedly describe man as being a moral agent but at the same time none of us can deny that millions of people everyday are forced to do things against their own will.
Supposedly morality exists yet people are force to do things all the time against their own will which of course intentionally is not spoken about.
That’s where dissatisfaction is rooted and what each pretends is otherwise, so as to give off the impression that they are ‘happy’ or are living an ideal life.
Given enough time and this will which is not allowed to flex, atrophies, producing automatons attached to another’s will.
I don’t see hypocrisy as necessary even in extreme examples of the master-slave dichotomy if the masters themselves define what is “good”–or better yet, reject the moral “good” entirely…
Does hypocrisy exist in an “amoral” world as Joker posits? (I’m inclined to see that it doesn’t)
