meritocrat

To put it in simplistic terms, why is hypocrisy wrong?

Hypocrisy (in a simplistic sense) can be defined as saying one thing and doing the opposite. But is it always 'wrong' to do this?

Jamie_L

I think your simple definition of hypocrisy isn't complex enough to actually define hypocrisy.

from Meriam-Webster online:
a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not

This is related to fraud and lying, and involves an intent to deceive. That is wrong.

Simply doing something opposite of what you say may not actually qualify as hypocrisy. Perhaps there are mitigating circumstances. Perhaps additional information makes what you said a bad idea to do - a la pragmatism. Is changing your mind hypocrisy?

Jamie

meritocrat

But is hypocrisy always related to deceit?

For example, if a person states they feel it is wrong to eat meat but still consume meat (which could be defined as being hypocritical), where is the deceit in such an action?

yguy

To me, hypocrisy is holding others to a moral standard that one does not one's self adhere to. The deceit of others does not occur until one implies somehow that others are wrong for doing what one does one's self.

Jamie_L

I think the deceit is implied. When you tell someone else that something is wrong, they usually take it to mean you do not do that yourself.

Also implied when you say "X is wrong" is "People should not do X". If you actually do X, then either you do not believe X is wrong, or you are knowingly doing something you believe is wrong. So, either you are lying (saying "X is wrong", but not believing it to be true) or you are commiting a wrong act (believing X is wrong and doing X anyway).

Jamie

Monkeybot

I don't know how "wrong" it is, but it seems like it usually discredits the hypocrite's position.

Let's say my mind is a total blank slate with regards to animal rights, and Peter Singer comes along and tells me I should not kill animals for food. I might take him seriously; I know of a few people have become vegetarians based on Singer's reasoning. But suppose later that day I walk into McDonald's and see Singer chowing down on a Big Mac. It wouldn't automatically make Singer's position on vegetarianism wrong, but it would probably make me wonder. Was Peter Singer telling the truth? Did he only present one side of the story -- maybe there are other reasons he never mentioned that mitigate the wrongness of eating meat (in his eyes)? Should I listen to Singer in the future, given how trivially he apparently treats his own moral positions? And so on.

The Other Michael

Found at The Devil's Dictionary

cheers,
Michael

Mediancat

This isn't necessarily hypocritical, unless the person in question makes a big show of their vegetarianism in public but privately chows down on chicken wings. That would be deceiftul.

On the other hand, if they say it's wrong but eat it in public anyway, then they're simply not very good at living up to their own ideals, but they're not hypocrites, and not being deceitful.

Rob aka Mediancat

Pyrrho

I like what Jamie_L has stated so far.

Here are a few more choices for a definition of "hypocrisy" (from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypocrisy&r=3):

One of the common themes in these definitions is dishonesty.

Notice that this is not the simple 'saying one thing and doing another', as one may change one's mind, and then do what one previously stated was wrong. (Jamie_L already mentioned that, too.) Hypocrisy involves dishonesty.

If I were to tell you that it is wrong to eat meat, you would then tend to believe that I thought it was wrong to eat meat (depending, of course, on the context of the remark). If you later saw me eating meat, then you may then realize that I was previously deceiving you. You are then no longer deceived, but you were between the time I said it and the time you saw me eating meat.

Hypocrisy is, I think, always related to deceit. Sometimes, someone is unsuccessful in his or her attempts at deception, but the intention to deceive makes such instances "related to deceit". And, of course, sometimes people do not know themselves very well, so they may believe their own 'deception' (and may deceive you as a result of being deceived themselves). And, of course, sometimes people hold contradictory beliefs (which makes them irrational and necessarily wrong about something).

Thalia

I agree with this, and like the example we are using, because many people might decide they feel eating meat is wrong, but not be able to give it up right away.

Furthermore, there are things we all profess are wrong that we do sometimes in moments of weakness, because none of us lives up to our own ethical code 100%. I don't think that makes us hypocrites, I think that makes us human.

I think the difference comes when you condemn others because they aren't as ethical as you (the deceit) when you are just the same (or worse).