Harumi

I recommend reading George Bernard Shaw's play Androcles and the Lion when it comes to this.

He makes quite a good case of the difference between being human and being a hypocrite. True, a person might not be 100% true to their ethical code, and that would not make him a hypocrite.

I think that it might be not just deceiving others in that regard, but deceiving yourself as well.

And think about it, meeting hypocrites leaves a very bad taste in one's mouth. For example, a man commits adultery, then lectures his friend when he cheats on his girlfriend. When caught committing adultery, he is proud of what he did.

Can you honestly say that you don't despise such a person? Perhaps it is an argument from emotion, but that could be where the negative connotation of hypocrisy came from.

Dr. Retard

Here's an argument for hypocrisy casting doubt on a hypocrite's ethical claims, an argument that doesn't commit any ad hominem fallacy.

If an ethical code is any good, it means we all ought to follow it. If an ethical code is (near-)impossible to follow, then that casts doubt on the code's goodness. This from "Ought implies Can" and from the practical nature of morality.

It's a lot easier to follow an ethical code if you believe strongly that it's right. So if even Peter Singer can't live up to his own ethical code, then how likely is it that the rest of us can live up to it? In which case, what good is it?

fatherphil

i think it is wrong as defined by the general population. though i do think the term is misapplied as a discussion stopping attack way too much.

the_cave

If it's all all possible, then it's worth something. For some could attain it.

Even if it were entirely impossible, it would help us to come up with a system that were possible to follow--one that is as close as possible to the impossible system, but that still allowed us to attain to it.

Nowhere357

I would say that good is more like a path, then a destination.

The vegetarian example is useful. I figure eventually we will not need to slaughter millions of creatures every day in order to eat. I support that goal.

Meanwhile, pass the A-1 sauce please!

Pyrrho

There are two things to say:

First, since this has been a hypothetical example, it might be best if we keep that very clear, particularly since we are using a real person's name for this imaginary example. We should keep in mind that no one has demonstrated that Peter Singer fails to live up to his ethical code, whatever it may be.

Second, just because someone does not follow a particular ethical code, that does not mean that it is "(near-)impossible to follow". In the particular example at hand, there are many vegetarians and vegans who don't seem to have a problem in avoiding eating hamburger (the original hypothetical was imagining seeing Peter Singer eating a Big Mac; see Monkeybot's first post above). It is certainly not "(near-)impossible" to give up eating meat, as many thousands have done so.

Harumi

Not following an ethical code 100% of the time is not hypocritical. It's called being human.

Proclaiming to follow an ethical code, telling or forcing others to follow your own ethical code, through either violent or persuasive means, but then not doing in reality, is hypocritical.

This is because not only do you provide a lie for people who trusted you, it's also a nasty thing for people to do, and makes me want to punch them.

Dr. Retard

Yeah, where vegetarianism is concerned, there's no argument. Anyone who owns a computer can be a vegetarian, no sweat.

I'm thinking more of the hard-line utilitarian stances. For example, you must not treat your children better than any other children. And, since your children are the lucky children of an enlightened philosophy type, then you should treat them worse than other children (this because your kids are so well off, and from the law of diminishing marginal utility). I dare say that human beings can't pull this off. And if they can't, then there's no point encouraging them to pull it off. And if there's no point encouraging anyone to behave a certain way, then in what sense is it morally right? So, when the hard-line utilitarian treats his children with favoritism, this hypocrisy sheds light on the unrealistic nature of his moral theory.

Pyrrho

Do you have anyone in particular in mind? I don't recall ever hearing anyone say what you claim has been said. I have heard things that are similar, but importantly different. In the case of one's own children, in most cases, one is responsible for their care and maintenance, and one is not usually directly responsible for the care and maintenance of other children. That leads to different care being provided by one for one's own children than one provides for other children. I have never heard a utilitarian say what you claim is a "hard-line utilitarian" position.

Dr. Retard

Nope, I'm relying on word of mouth, so perhaps I'll be shown up.

I don't follow your "responsible for" talk. What does this have to do with utilitarianism? Do you mean causally responsible? If so, then once the child is out there, you can (purportedly) get more utility by benefiting some other, worse-off child. I don't follow you.