hypocrisy

[Ovulator]

Lets take a moral standpoint that I hope everyone can agree is wrong: killing toddlers. Which would be worse a hypocrite is an devout preacher of the safety and protection of babies, but in his weaker moments has killed a toddler. Or a man who openly embraces his toddler killing ways, doesn't preach it to others, but sees no error in his ways. They have both killed one toddler.

I could use more real life situation like a pro-lifer who has an abortion vs the person who has an abortion but sees nothing wrong with it. But I don't want to really bring any real life situations into this, so which one would be worse in the hypothetical toddler killing scenario and why?

 

[Mr. Dictator]

i think that while both of them are evil the one who trys to cover it up is worse in so many ways

but i think both should be punished equally

 

[newfangle]

I am firmly a consequentialist when it comes to moral matters. Consequently(erm, no pun intended), I view both as equally 'evil', unless the toddler-killing-preacher has actually convinced another person to kill another toddler.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's funny, because you can relate this example to many different types of 'sins'.

I would feel that the preacher is the bigger hypocrite, because he extols people to not kill babies, but can't do what he says.

 

[Ovulator]

I hadn't consider actually covering it up, maybe I worded this poorly. And maybe I can't really come up with plausible situation. The one guy kills toddlers, knows its wrong, preaches its wrong, but still kills toddlers, admits he kills toddlers. The other guy just kills toddlers, sees nothing wrong with killing toddlers, admits to killing toddlers.

Other than that, they both go to church, have loving families, vote republican and watch football.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

i always knew that republicans killed babys j/k

 

[MobBoss]

I predict this thread to be closed due to is spam like hypocrisy.

 

[El_Machinae]

I hadn't consider actually covering it up, maybe I worded this poorly. And maybe I can't really come up with plausible situation. The one guy kills toddlers, knows its wrong, preaches its wrong, but still kills toddlers, admits he kills toddlers. The other guy just kills toddlers, sees nothing wrong with killing toddlers, admits to killing toddlers.

Other than that, they both go to church, have loving families, vote republican and watch football.

Isn't hypocrisy pretty well defined around not doing what you say other people should do?

 

[Mr. Dictator]

i always saw it as putting up ANY false front, so it goes both ways

somebody can dictionary.com it, im too lazy

 

[Ovulator]

Isn't hypocrisy pretty well defined around not doing what you say other people should do?

Yeah, I guess.

But the point I'm asking is which is worse: being a hypocrite about doing something wrong or not 'acknowledging' that something is wrong...for lack of a better word.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, society is better off if you extol and encourage people to not have vices that are bad for them. I mean, I could be a 300lb person, and still attempt to give excellent fitness advice over the internet.

 

[toh6wy]

If the second guy has antisocial personality disorder, then I can't really say he's worse because he can't realize what he does is wrong. But if he was sane and mentally stable, and despite what society told him, came to the conclusion that killing toddlers was good, he would be worse than the preacher.

 

[El_Machinae]

Ah ... so ...

But if he was sane and mentally stable, and despite what society told him, came to the conclusion that smoking pot was good

Is he still wrong? Worse than the preacher who smoked pot on the side?

 

[skadistic]

i always knew that republicans killed babys j/k

You have to kill them before you cook them. Sheez cooking them alive is just cruel.


Both men should be hung then drawn and quartered.

 

[toh6wy]

Ah ... so ...



Is he still wrong? Worse than the preacher who smoked pot on the side?

Not killing toddlers is (I should certainly hope) a far more basic, expected part of a person's moral code than not smoking pot. Casting aside the former is thus a lot more serious than casting aside the latter, and more reprehensible.

Also, if I thought smoking pot was wrong in any significant way, I would say that he's still worse than the preacher who smokes pot on the side.

 

[El_Machinae]

In the part I quoted, I thought you implied that the man should honor the morals of society, even if they weren't his own. That's why I switched the question, to something where 'society' seems to be against it, but individuals aren't.

 

[toh6wy]

Killing toddlers violates a moral of society in a way that is harmful to others (obviously). Smoking pot violates a moral of (some parts of) society that is not necessarily harmful to others. Therein lies the difference for me.

 

[El_Machinae]

So, it's morally wrong if it hurts people AND society says it's wrong?

Actually, a lot of people would agree. And some would say that society has no basis to object, if no one is being hurt. Others say it's wrong to hurt anyone, no matter what society says.

 

[Ayatollah So]

But if he was sane and mentally stable, and despite what society told him, came to the conclusion that killing toddlers was good, he would be worse than the preacher.

The sentient wad o hair is sapient as well. As usual.

Even if the hypocrite's moral convictions continue to fail to motivate him, at least his discussions with others will push those others in the right direction. Whereas the consistent guy not only does wrong himself, but fails to uphold the beneficial social consensus against toddler-killing. Now, hopefully, society is strong enough to shrug that bit of bad influence off. But that just reflects the bizarreness of the example. In general, it's worse to do bad things and deny they're bad (chutzpah: the Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling strategy), than to do them but admit they're bad. There are worse things than hypocrisy.

 

[Brian_B]

Equal. I'm reminded of something I heard recently regarding today's society where hypocrisy has turned into a "crime" in and of itself in the political arena. Like Rush Limbaugh is addicted to pain pills thus he can't speak out against drug use, etc. etc. While hypocrisy informs the credibility of an individual I don't think it is a substantive flaw/sin/error on it's own.