Why is hypocrisy such a "bad" thing?

[Gucumatz]

An honest and open-ended question - why do we as a society look down upon hypocrisy like we do?

Hypocrisy means people are willing to do what is necessary. If someone fails to hold up their position/moral standard/etc. but hypocrisy alone shouldn't be enough to invalidate a standard of thinking. Hypocrisy shows a person is willing to adjust and change, even if their public facade currently doesn't suggest it. The problem it seems is people seem to fail to separate a specific action from the concept of hypocrisy itself.

The reasoning behind hypocrisy should be the bigger concern and how an individual plans to deal with said hypocrisy once they become aware of it

 

[Pangur Bán]

Although the modern West is one of the most unequal societies in the history of the world, we like to premise interactions on a facade of equality and to externalize prescriptions we issue (i.e. attributing them to outside forces, like the 'common good', 'morality', 'good sense', 'necessities of our time', etc). Saying don't do x while doing it yourself gives a lie to that. It is far more polite to do x but call it something else, or to lie and pretend you don't do x, or to do x in secret.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

See, I don't condemn what you described there as hypocrisy. Someone who talks heavily about pacifism, then finds out when they are confronted by a situation that violence comes naturally and they are even quite okay with killing has just had their position invalidated by experience.

What I condemn as hypocrisy is the condemnation of others for getting caught doing what you yourself are doing in secret. For example, the number of GOP congressmen who are tough on crime, bashing gays at every opportunity, and making a public appearance at church every Sunday...and then turn out to be funneling campaign money into their personal accounts, or pedophiles, or sending photos of their junk to congressional pages, or hooking up in men's rooms, or lord only knows what. That's hypocrisy.

 

[Tahuti]

Hypocrisy is a form of weakness, a lack of courage. It either proves the lack of strength on your part as an individual or that you hold on to ideals you cannot accomplish.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Not necessarily weakness, Tovergieter. Hypocrisy can be a great sign of strength. You can demonstrate your power to flaunt social norms with impunity.

 

[JollyRoger]

Hypocrisy is a deviant lifestyle choice.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Let's visit the "pray away the hypocrispy" camp that just opened next town.

 

[Phrossack]

I'd been thinking of making this thread, but never got around to it.

I have noticed a tendency of many to take more offense to hypocrisy than to anything else. Like calling out countries for actions inconsistent with their proclaimed ideals of freedom and justice while being silent or apologetic towards countries (or groups like ISIS) that commit even worse deeds but at least don't claim to be that great. "Hey, at least they're honest about it" is a common line, one which implies that it is better than to be consistently bad than inconsistently good. It's better to be a proud serial killer than someone who claims theft is wrong but who shoplifted once in that view.

Or, to use another example, imagine someone declining to wear a leather jacket because they thought it was wrong to have a cow killed for the sake of fashion. Then a vegetarian (who is a vegetarian for ethical reasons) criticizes them for the hypocrisy of declining to wear the jacket, pointing out that they have plenty of animals killed all the time for other things, like leather shoes, leather belts, and meat.

Criticism is essentially a punishment, a way to pressure the criticized person to do something through shame. In this example, the vegetarian is criticizing the other person, not for indirectly having animals slaughtered all the time, but for having a difference between a belief and an action. If the person bought the leather jacket without a second thought, the vegetarian would probably just have accepted it. Even though that purchase would be something the vegetarian found immoral, it's at least consistent, whereas not buying the jacket would have been the less harmful option but also an inconsistent one. You'd think that the vegetarian would rather the other person not buy that jacket, but by criticizing the hesitation to buy the jacket, they're really punishing the person for not getting it. Which would suggest that they value consistency more than ethics.

I suppose hypocrisy is an easy target--you may disagree as to whether a particular action was right or wrong, but when someone intentionally does the opposite of what they say should be done, there's not much dispute.

 

[bhavv]

Two facedness, lying, just saying what is necessary to advance oneself, weakness of character, unable to stand by ones own beliefs, expressing one thing but doing the complete opposite etc.

All are just bad things. I don't like hypocrisy.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Perhaps an example would help illuminate this issue. There was an excellent article in today's paper about rampant hypocrisy:

Romano: Hypocrisy, arrogance, audacity — it's your 2015 Florida Legislature

This is not a column about abortion, contrary to its appearance.

Instead, it is about deceit and dishonesty. Maybe clout and influence.

Mostly, it is a column about hypocrisy.

If you have not yet heard, your state Legislature passed a bill a couple of months ago that requires women to show up for two separate doctor's visits and endure a 24-hour waiting period before getting an abortion.

Gov. Rick Scott signed it into law a few days ago, and the ACLU has already joined a lawsuit seeking to have it ruled unconstitutional.

Those are the barest of facts, and you are free to applaud or condemn the wisdom of this law depending on your personal views on abortion.

Just so long as we agree this particular point is not up for debate:

Florida politicians are pathetically two-faced.

You cannot get through breakfast in Tallahassee without hearing some lawmaker bellyaching about smaller government.

Too many regulations. Too many bureaucrats. Too much waste. Too much government creep. It is the mantra of conservatives everywhere that government should keep its nose out of our lives.

It wasn't that long ago Florida legislators were aghast at the thought of a pediatrician reminding parents to keep guns out of the reach of children.

That, lawmakers agreed, was an invasion of privacy even if children's lives were at stake. It was a violation of constitutional rights and supposedly meant families could be denied treatment if they failed to answer a doctor's questions.

So we passed a law forbidding physicians from asking about gun safety because, by gosh, no one has any business in our personal lives.

And, yet, now the Legislature is okay denying medical treatment to women unless they first jump through the state's own arbitrarily conceived hoops.

Simply calling it hypocritical does not do it justice.

It is the height of audacity and arrogance.

Rep. Jennifer Sullivan, R-Mount Dora, who was the author of the bill, describes it as empowering women. I swear I'm not making that up.

Her bill suggests women are either too emotional or too stupid to make a decision without being forced to reflect on the implications, and yet she wants you to believe she is furthering the cause of female individuality and independence.

If Sullivan honestly believes her bill is "empowering'' women, then she is a fool who, hopefully, will have a short stay in Tallahassee.

And if she used "empowering'' as a shameful way to hide the bill's intent, then she has no conscience and will probably become House speaker.

Some years ago, the Legislature tried passing another abortion hurdle by requiring women to first view a sonogram. Then-Gov. Charlie Crist was man enough to veto it.

Scott, unfortunately, is not as courageous.

Nor does he practice what he preaches.

During his second inauguration earlier this year, Scott called Florida a "fighter in a great movement against the silent growth of government.''

He said Florida "must stay committed to smaller government.'' He said we are fighting against "increased regulations'' and said Florida had no interest in more "government red tape.''

In other words, Scott strongly believes we should live free of government interference.

Except, apparently, when it doesn't suit his purposes.

Like I said before, we are all free to have our opinions and beliefs on abortion. And that includes our elected officials in Tallahassee.

But principles and core beliefs should not be a moving target. If conservatives are going to fight for their pet freedoms, they must also be willing to fight for all our freedoms.

 

[Goodfella]

To me, accusations of hypocrisy or double standards often neglect the rightness or wrongness of a discussion and, if left unsubstantiated, make the accuser's own position ambiguous.

For instance, my university invited a Marxist activist who had previously been accused of murder (but was never convicted). The school's young republicans voiced their opposition, calling her a radical and insisted that she not be invited. An acquaintance of mine shot back at them in an opinion piece in the school newspaper accusing the young republicans of hypocrisy because they themselves had invited radically homophobic conservatives to speak at club events. So he established that the young republicans were a bunch of hypocrites, but what does that say about the ethicality of inviting radical speakers to universities? Absolutely nothing. Alternatively, he should have simply explained the benefits of inviting this particular fringe activist while condemning the presence of others (such as homophobes) for running contrary to university policy.

I see similar encounters all the time in arguments on this forum, on talk shows, or in-person and they're really just illogical wastes of time.

 

[Flying Pig]

To me, accusations of hypocrisy or double standards often neglect the rightness or wrongness of a discussion and, if left unsubstantiated, make the accuser's own position ambiguous.

In an ideal world, we'd judge arguments entirely on their own merits, look into the facts, test them and decide whether they were credible, then assess whether they pointed to the conclusion that the person in question supports. In reality, though, this is often impossible: if I hear about a scientific experiment, for example, I can only very rarely go and confirm it myself, and I'm never going to be able to get a first-hand evaluation of most news stories. Even when it's theoretically possible to test arguments, quite frankly most of us don't have the time or inclination to do so. As such, we inevitably have to depend on the source of the information, and ask whether it's trustworthy. If I read a story about some business development in the Financial Times, for example, I'll be more likely to trust it than if I read the same story in the Sun.

Acting on one's own argument is a way of demonstrating trustworthiness. If, for example, somebody told me that having a cold shower every morning and eating only porridge for breakfast was good for your health, I'd be more inclined to trust him if he lived by that advice. That would mean that he had sacrificed some comfort to do it, so he evidently believes what he says. If, by contrast, a person is hypocritical, you don't have that additional reason to believe them. That doesn't necessarily mean that everything they say is wrong, but it does mean, in a world where the source of the argument, rather than the argument itself, is our best way of judging what to believe, that a sensible person should be less inclined to trust them.

There's also, of course, the point that it is usually a form of deception, and people don't like being lied to.

 

[Formaldehyde]

More recent examples:

Jon Stewart Tears Into Fox News' Hypocrisy Over Campaign Money

Jon Stewart Tackles The Hypocrisy Of Fox News's Benghazi Freakout

Jon Stewart slams Fox News over Ferguson hypocrisy: “Entirely unaccountable for their anger and divisiveness”

There isn't anything ambiguous or illogical about this.

 

[warpus]

Hypocrisy means people are willing to do what is necessary.

Hypocrisy is people saying one thing and doing the opposite.

Say what you mean and do what you say.

 

[Borachio]

What I condemn as hypocrisy is the condemnation of others for getting caught doing what you yourself are doing in secret.

Yup. That's what I think of as hypocrisy. Basically, recommending some behaviour for others that you don't do yourself.

I like to go a bit further: if I suggest someone else does something or goes somewhere (because I think they might like it), and they don't do it, then I'll go myself instead. It makes me ever so cagey about recommending things.

 

[Goodfella]

Acting on one's own argument is a way of demonstrating trustworthiness. If, for example, somebody told me that having a cold shower every morning and eating only porridge for breakfast was good for your health, I'd be more inclined to trust him if he lived by that advice. That would mean that he had sacrificed some comfort to do it, so he evidently believes what he says. If, by contrast, a person is hypocritical, you don't have that additional reason to believe them. That doesn't necessarily mean that everything they say is wrong, but it does mean, in a world where the source of the argument, rather than the argument itself, is our best way of judging what to believe, that a sensible person should be less inclined to trust them.

There's also, of course, the point that it is usually a form of deception, and people don't like being lied to.

This is all very true but if the problem is that we don't know who to trust, isn't using facts (when available) to disprove what someone says always a better way to establish their lack of trustworthiness than a mere accusation of hypocrisy? In your example of the guy who proselytized others for not eating enough porridge, it's true that he doesn't sound very credible if he's too lazy to abide by his own dietary advice. But that doesn't mean he's not right. As someone who eats meat, I know that I'd probably be healthier as a vegetarian and could help out the environment too by cutting meat from my diet. The fact that I'm slightly hypocritical and fail to abide by my own advice doesn't make me wrong. It just shows that I'm too lazy at this point in my life to make major changes like converting to a vegetarian diet. If you tell the cold-shower-porridge-lover "hey, you don't even do this yourself" you don't actually help anyone find the right or wrong in the argument which is 'are cold showers and porridge breakfasts good for your health?' Like you said, it just gives you an indication. But I feel that this indication is an inferior one to the use of facts and reasoning and people too often rely on it when these facts and the ability to reason are readily available. For instance, in the scenario I outlined in my first post, the guy who called out the young republicans for their hypocrisy could've called them out for being blind to the benefits of inviting alternative views to the campus and therefore undermined their credibility as reasonable human beings. Calling them out for inviting radical and hateful conservatives further undermines their credibility, and lastly, only lastly in my opinion, should he have lobbed the hypocrisy label at them. As you yourself have noted, accusing someone of hypocrisy is one of the easier ways of trying to get the point across that whoever you're talking to is wrong. But to me, it's really not a good way of doing that.

An example on this website occurred a few days ago that also demonstrates the ambiguity issue. User A defended the sexist remarks made by a certain nobel prize winning scientist as 'just a joke' and therefore argued that everyone who took offense to his 'joke' was being too sensitive. User B responded by telling User A that he shouldn't talk because he himself often gets offended at anti-Christian jokes. But that doesn't make any sense. Does User B feel it's okay to make any offensive joke? Does User B feel we shouldn't make any offensive jokes at all? Or does User B feel that it's okay to make some offensive jokes. From reading hundreds of User B's posts, I know it's the last option, but it still annoys me because he leaves you with an ambiguous position on the topic because he thinks it's funner to make fun of User A's hypocrisy. I actually agree with User B in that I think offensive jokes about women aren't acceptable but offensive jokes about religious people are. But that's because there's a big difference between the two groups and how they're impacted by mean jokes.

 

[Hygro]

Of course our values should be above our current performance.

 

[Rashiminos]

It's an open excuse to do other bad things under cover of being associated with good things.

 

[Mise]

@Goodfella: It forces people to make that argument though. I.e. it forces user A to specify under what conditions it is acceptable to make a joke. It's a perfectly valid counterargument: "From your past posts, you have previously indicated that 'just a joke' is not a valid defence in certain circumstances. Now you claim that 'just a joke' is a valid defence for this particular circumstance. How do you resolve this apparent contradiction?" When people talk about hypocrisy, they're not merely making fun of them for not abiding by the rules that they set for others (although there is also validity in this that FP has mentioned). They are also pointing out an apparent contradiction in their reasoning. AFAICT, B is making a perfectly valid counterargument by highlighting internal contradictions in A's argument.

Let's put this another way. Why do people not like being accused of hypocrisy? Clearly it is something that user A, for example, values. We don't like being accused of hypocrisy, and fight quite hard to defend ourselves from such accusations. We almost universally react to accusations of hypocrisy negatively. Why?

 

[Borachio]

This is all very true but if the problem is that we don't know who to trust, isn't using facts (when available) to disprove what someone says always a better way to establish their lack of trustworthiness than a mere accusation of hypocrisy?

It is. You're quite right, imo. I can't ever remember accusing someone of hypocrisy, and it's certainly not the first line to take when disagreeing with someone. It's just the icing on the cake, as it were, when one later contemplates someone's overall character. (Should one be so inclined.)

"Not only are they not right, they don't even follow their own advice." Sort of thing.