Why is hypocrisy such a "bad" thing?

[Mise]

Yeah, exactly. "Argument from hypocrisy" may not be the best possible argument that one can make, but that doesn't mean that the argument isn't valid, or shouldn't be stated.

 

[Flying Pig]

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?

Well, yes, but most of the time people giving us arguments also tell us that they know more facts than we do. It also takes far more time than most of us have - yes, I could go away and spend a few months eating only porridge and taking cold showers and see how I feel, but I'm not that invested in it.

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.

Indeed, but it would be more likely that he was right if he believed his own argument, and more likely that he believed his own argument if he acted by it. If you imagine it as a Venn diagram, you could say that 'hypocrites' and 'right people' overlap, but not as much as 'not-hypocrites' and 'right people' do. So if we observe that a person is a hypocrite, that makes them less trustworthy. Does that make sense?

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.

In a political context, arguments usually rest on premises which certain people don't believe - for example, most radical conservatives might not believe that a certain person is 'radical and hateful'. However, most people can agree that they don't like to be deceived, and that their leaders should believe what they say - again, hypocrisy makes it more likely that a person does not believe what they say, but is saying it for some other reason. If a politician says one thing and votes for another, there's a good chance that he's lying to us to get votes, and that voting for him won't get those principles put into practice.

 

[ummmm........]

I am large, I contain multitudes.

I learned to embrace my hypocrisy in my early twenties, and with the benefit of hindsight I can say without question it made me a better person . . .

I'm down with Tim's point though. You can't really call someone out for crap you do yourself, which is part of what makes embracing your own hypocrisy such a beautiful thing. You can't get mad at someone else for being a hypocrite if you understand the truth about yourself . . .

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think it is more a matter of minimizing hypocrisy wherever it is feasible. There are bound to be a few inconsistencies in any nuanced set of views. In that sense, virtually everybody is hypocritical to some extent.

But I don't see how you can dismiss it when it is blatant and obvious merely because your opinions might be slightly contradictory.

A Conservative Government is an organized hypocrisy. Benjamin Disraeli

There's a lot more hypocrisy than before. Racism has gone back underground. Richard Pryor

Liberty is the right of every man to be honest, to think and to speak without hypocrisy. Jose Marti

 

[bhavv]

I am a hypocrite.

I say humanity sucks and that I hate all humans. But then I also say I love Snerk.

 

[Akka]

To answer the title question :

In a theorical, ethical way, hypocrisy is bad because it's intellectual dishonesty.

In a more practical way (the way our morals probably evolved through time), I'd say it's about someone showing self-serving double standards. He proves he's unreliable, that he applies a different set of rules to himself than to others, that he will not be fair with you and that he'll be more prone to backstab you.

In both case, it seems pretty self-obvious why hypocrisy is such a bad thing.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Or as my dad used to frequently state: "Don't do as I do. Do as I say."

 

[warpus]

One reason I couldn't take the Bible seriously. Because often-times, in the old testament at least, that's what the message is ^^.

The new testament is much better in that regard. "Do as I do" is a much better message than "Do as I say"

 

[Phrossack]

You can't really call someone out for crap you do yourself, which is part of what makes embracing your own hypocrisy such a beautiful thing. You can't get mad at someone else for being a hypocrite if you understand the truth about yourself . . .

Can't you? If a murderer sees a murder and cries, "Murder!", he's still right. The fact that he himself has committed a similar crime doesn't make it okay for others to do it, nor does it make him wrong for pointing out that someone else is doing it.

Now, if that first murderer is on trial for killing someone, and his defense is to try to draw attention to the fact that somebody else killed someone at some point, that's no defense, just a diversion, factually true though it may be.

 

[Hygro]

So we should lower our values and standards to match our performance?

 

[Borachio]

Ooh, look: it comes from the Greek for a stage actor, pretender, or dissembler. I didn't know that.

Ah, but where would we be if we couldn't tell lies, and be dishonest (even to ourselves), from time to time, eh?

 

[Akka]

Can't you? If a murderer sees a murder and cries, "Murder!", he's still right. The fact that he himself has committed a similar crime doesn't make it okay for others to do it, nor does it make him wrong for pointing out that someone else is doing it.

True.
It does make him look like a disgusting hypocrite though (provided, of course, the murders are in the same category and yadda yadda).

 

[Phrossack]

True.
It does make him look like a disgusting hypocrite though (provided, of course, the murders are in the same category and yadda yadda).

Let's assume that he's been a witness to a murder and is alerting others. Or perhaps is reminding people that this person is a murderer. Let's also assume that when doing so, he's not merely trying to divert attention from his own misdeeds by pointing out those of others (Whataboutism). Should he just keep his mouth shut and not alert people to a murder just because he'd be casting stones from a glass house?

I think a lot of people would probably say yes. "Don't criticize others for what you yourself are guilty of" is a very common rule, even if it's kinda wrong a lot of the time. It values consistency more than anything, and considers inconsistency to be the worst of crimes. The truth value of statements generally aren't affected by who makes them. I'm more disgusted by murder than hypocrisy, but I seem to be in the minority in that regard.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm more disgusted by murder than hypocrisy, but I seem to be in the minority in that regard.

Hypocrisy is typically far easier to conclusively show than murder, especially when all the evidence you have that a crime even occurred are statements of personal opinion to the contrary.

 

[Perfection]

It is not hypocrisy to expect others to strive for ideals you struggle to meet yourself, it is hypocrisy to condemn them for failing to achieve that ideal.