Substack latest
Hypocrisy: Two Observations
Comments
3 responses to “Hypocrisy: Two Observations”
-
Hello Bill,
Hypocrisy seems to include an element of deception or of a double standard, neither of which is captured by your definition. You defined a hypocrite as follows:A hypocrite is one who espouses high moral standards, but makes little or no attempt to live in accordance with them.
A definition capturing the idea of deception would be a definition along the lines of pretending to be something one is not. (The origin of the word is Greek and carried the meaning of being an actor or stage player, i.e., playing a role different from who you really are.) To capture this idea here is an alternative definition:
(1) If person A pretends to have virtue X while lacking virtue X, then person A is a hypocrite.
I also mentioned above the idea of a double standard – holding a person to a standard that one is unwilling to hold themselves to. Here is one way to capture this idea:
(2) If person A and person B both lack virtue X, and if person A, (i) knows they lack virtue X, (ii) withholds judgment against themselves for such a lack, and (iii) judges person B to be deficient because of their lack of virtue X, then person A is a hypocrite.
These definitions represent my intuition on this. Your definition, although consistent with these intuitions, does not include these ideas. Your definition certainly brings the indictment of inconsistency – they are individuals who do not practice what they preach. But, do they rise to the level of being hypocrites? I am not so sure.
Brian -
Thanks for the comments, Brian. By the way, Elliot is coming to visit me in late June. It would be great to be able to arrange a meeting including you, me, Elliot and Mike V. You will remember our last meeting at Lucky Lou’s in Mesa.
I like your definitions. But I wasn’t trying to define ‘hypocrite’; I was opposing a false understanding of what a hypocrite is. I said: >>The main point that needs to be made is that a hypocrite cannot be defined as a person who espouses high moral standards but fails to live up to them. For on that definition, all who espouse high moral standards would be hypocrites.<< The closest I came to a definition was this: >>A hypocrite is one who espouses high moral standards, but makes little or no attempt to live in accordance with them. He is one who pays ‘lip service’ to high ideals, by ‘talking the talk,’ but without ‘walking the walk.’ Someone who talks the talk, walks the walk, but stumbles a lot cannot be justly accused of hypocrisy. That’s my main point.<< I think your two points could be added to mine to make a fuller definition. -
Hello Bill,
I would love to join you, Mike and Elliot. Thank you for the invitation.
Your main point is well taken: a hypocrite is not necessarily someone who fails to live up to the standards he espouses.
One question I have is whether someone is necessarily a hypocrite if they make little or no attempt to live by a standard they espouse. Let’s say that I agree moderation is a good thing and is something that ought to direct one’s life. Let’s also say that in spite of this, I choose to ignore it because I like to imbibe certain beverages in rather immoderate amounts. I willingly admit that this is a vice, and that I am the lesser for it. But, imbibing a little Jack is preferable to me than imbibing a little virtue. Would I still be a hypocrite?
Brian
Leave a Reply to BV Cancel reply