Word for when something wrong is made to seem normal because it is common?

Question

Someone made this statement:

You found the perfect partner (looks, finance, personality) but the sex is a bust, would you cheat?

I found it offensive that she was making the question 'would you cheat' look very normal but I didn't really know how to describe it. I pointed it out but she claimed there was no need to brush such a present day reality under the carpet. I considered it logically and eventually used the term Argumentum ad populum to express the fallacy in her statement but what I actually wanted was a word to use in describing her action i.e. making something wrong appear normal because it is common. I couldn't come up with anything, any help?

Answer 1

From your own moral point of view, you could say that she has a skewed moral compass and that she's simply rubber-stamping the mores of the morally bankrupt society that we live in.

Or something like that ...

Answer 2

You might be looking for a term such as ethical drift.

Here is an example from nursing ("a gradual erosion of ethical behavior that occurs in individuals below their level of awareness"), and here is one from business ("Slowly drifting away from professional and legal standards and personal standards a business person has long been associated with"). Have a look and see what you think.

Answer 3

The action (of asking such a question) might be referred to as gauche (“Awkward or lacking in social graces; bumbling”) or tactless (“having no tact; unaware or intentionally inconsiderate of someone else's feelings”). The behavior of asking might be considered déclassé, except that dictionary-usage of déclassé is along the lines of referring to a person “degraded from one's social class”, I think, rather than one engaging in degrading behavior.

Answer 4

This might be minimization or reduction, the opposite of exaggeration: downplaying, discounting, or understatement. The purpose is to make an unethical act seem more trivial than it is:

Minimizing makes unethical transgressions seem smaller. The person who admits that he or she did something wrong but states, "It's not that big of a deal." Minimizing is one of the most common ways we reduce our feelings of guilt and worthlessness resulting from transgressions. --The Ethical Executive

EDITED TO ADD: In your example: When asking "would you cheat?" so matter-of-factly, as if it were a common thing to ask or a reasonable option, the questioner might be minimizing the negativeness of cheating.

Answer 5

At the risk of sounding glib, you may just be looking for normalize.

Though normalize doesn't necessarily carry the connotation that its object is wrong, it does communicate what you objected to: the speaker's normative assumption [in this case, with respect to cheating].

If the question is posed in a way that assumes cheating is an uncontroversial choice (via tone or word choice, for example), then regardless of whatever response is given, the very act posing the question in such a way works to normalize the notion that cheating is a legitimate option for someone in the scenario in question. That is, if the assumption goes unquestioned.

For more, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_%28sociology%29

Answer 6

I would say she was making a "moral solecism", in other words a mistake in her use of the expression "would you cheat?" to offer it as if it were an acceptable response to the evaluation of the partner.

Looking at her statement from a formal logic standpoint, you could also argue that she is committing a sophistry, a fallacious argument based on a mistaken assumption: that cheating on a partner is an acceptable form of action based on the decision being made.

This is a good question of yours. Really has made my brain work. I wonder if what you really want is the word habituate: "make or become accustomed or used to something", because it carries the connotation of making something abnormal become normal. And certainly, that is what she is doing here, making the assumption that cheating is an acceptable option because people do it all the time.

Answer 7

I think "sheep mentality" fits. It implies following a trend because of its popularity without giving it a serious thought. It still doesn't mean the subject would be otherwise unacceptable, but it gives a definitely negative connotation.

Answer 8

This is in fact an effect of drift in social norms, not about language as such: The text-book definition of what is right and what is not stays, but the society tacitly approves of transgressions.

However, there's the related concept sometimes known as a bad factoid in technical contexts.

Someone speaks of it as if it were a fact, others help spread the impression by repeated use of the expression, and eventually it becomes axiomatic: no one questions its veracity, but everyone accepts it as a fact.

Bad factoids can sometimes be statistically proven as the 'majority opinion'. But they cannot be proven by verification of facts.

Answer 9

I will suggest:

vulgar :

• lacking in cultivation, perception, or taste
• morally crude undeveloped, or unregenerate
• lewdly or profanely indecent

or

uncouth :

• lacking in polish and grace

Answer 10

I think "naturalistic fallacy" is somewhat apropos and along the same lines of Argumentum ad populum, although she doesn't really imply one OUGHT to cheat, rather that many would.

Answer 11

What I think you're getting at is that a question can imply the validity of a certain (objectionable or invalid) choice simply by presenting it as plausible option among many.

To me, that's basically a loaded question:

A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption.

Answer 12

One could accuse her of making a complicitous assumption that cheating is normal.

Answer 13

You could say something along the lines of; "Something isn’t necessarily correct purely because popular consensus suggests it. Whilst it may be the norm in certain circles of society, it’s still morally/ethically bereft." It might also be worth pointing out that something / someone with attributes with which the plaintiff is not satisfied cannot by definition be perfect, and that it is an oxymoron to suggest otherwise.

Or you could just call them an idiot, depending on their apparent level of intelligence.

Answer 14

The correct word, in my opinion, is 'Misnomer'.

According to Wikipedia:

A misnomer is a word or term that suggests a meaning that is known to be wrong. Misnomers often arise because the thing named received its name long before its true nature was known. A misnomer may also be simply a word that is used incorrectly or misleadingly.

Answer 15

One could describe her as a "Lemming" based on behavior. Though shown to be biologically inaccurate, the term has been taken up by the popular culture specifically for people who act against common sense (and to the detriment of themselves and all) based on an urge to conform or follow trends.

---

There is probably also a way to see that the word "gentile" could be used in this way, but I think it's both radically pejorative and limited in other ways, so I'll leave the matter there given no other interest.

---

• She is quite a lemming of an author; implying that tactless infidelity is an acceptable choice in the presence of an unhappy relationship.

• The author implies that tactless infidelity is an acceptable choice in the presence of an unhappy relationship, which is quite gentile of her.