From Rationalwiki
| Cogito ergo sum Logic and rhetoric |
| Key articles |
|
| General logic |
|
| Bad logic |
v - t - e
|
“”After all, it is necessary to get behind someone before you can stab them in the back.
|
| —Sir Humphrey Appleby, Yes, Prime Minister[2] |
Hypocrisy is a deceitful tactic used most often by those in power, who say "you must do this" or "you cannot do that" or " this is wrong", while purporting that they themselves do not do said thing when, in fact, they do. For example, a politician who believes in "family values" is known to cheat on his wife, or when a self-help author tells people to save 10% of their income yet never does so themselves.
A hypocrite (from the Greek, "actor"[3]) is someone who espouses a view, perspective, or philosophy without adhering to it in any meaningful way themselves, especially if they claim that their philosophy applies to all people. The ultimate snarkology of the hypocrite is, "Do as I say, not as I do." Generally, "hypocrite" is a pejorative term; there are practically no cases where hypocrisy is considered a good thing unless you're a demagogue like Donald Trump, or one of his followers. And even then, nobody with a functional brain sees the hypocrisy in question as commendable.
“”How is it that a supposedly perfect God doesn't know — or doesn't believe — that slavery is wrong? How is it that God doesn't believe men and women are equals? How can it be that such a God can condemn shellfish and pork, yet cannot level an outright condemnation of rape? How is it that when Hitler commited[sic] genocide he was a monster, and condemned by religious people the world over — and yet these same people can read of acts of genocide, committed either in the name of God, or supposedly committed by God himself, and find that to be righteous and holy? Why is it that when dealing with — and thinking about — God, one must set aside our moral and ethical standards? More importantly, I ask myself each day why religious people don't ask these questions?
|
| —Casper Rigsby, Holy Sh!t — The Insanity of Blind Faith[4] |
“”You cannot be Pagan and homosexual or even tolerate homosexuality. […] there are other rules in the Pagan philosophy for women, though.
|
| —Varg Vikernes[5] |
Hypocrisy often takes the form of the "double standard", the act of judging similar acts differently depending on who is responsible for them or judging people by different criteria because of who they are. Thus, a woman who has had many sexual partners may be seen as a "slut", while a similarly-experienced man may be admired for his studliness. In American legal history, the use of double standards may be seen in the higher penalties attached to the possession of crack cocaine (typically more popular with African-Americans) as opposed to the lesser penalties for possession of the powdered form of the drug typically favored by white people.
“”There is no famine or actual starvation [in the Soviet Union], nor is there likely to be.
|
| —Walter Duranty,The New York Times, November 15, 1931[6] |
“”You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. Deaths from famine are a necessary price to pay.
|
| —Walter Duranty talking about "never happened but right", The New York Times, May 14, 1933[6] |
“”Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.
|
| —William F. Buckley[7] |
Putting these statements together, it is clear that the inequality of "1+1 is less than 1" is produced. It is normal to have conflicting opinions within the same faction, but there are always people who think that conflicting opinions are correct. This hypocrisy is usually to please different audiences or evade responsibility. Refusing to stick to a coherent position, the speaker is willing to switch "truths" at any time to gain double support in different situations. Unfortunately, it was quite difficult to get the outcome it deserved — no support.
This situation is very common when defending immature political systems (especially totalitarian systems). A better explanation is that the person you are typing with is an asshole who is looking for fabricated arguments everywhere on the Internet(Defenders will destroy a piece of evidence to reverse history, but they often choose different points of destruction.), and has no ability to recognize their own contradictions. Clearly, in reality doublethink does not require totalitarian government's brainwashing
The following cases are objectively very stupid, but they are common in reality:
This is in contrast to the willful recommendation of acting against a personal practice. Someone can believe that it is better to live in a suburb and may want to themselves, but due to obligations or lack of resources is unable to. This, though not hypocrisy, can be dangerous because making such a recommendation without personal experience may lead someone to do something they regret.
On the other hand, a (former) drug addict who suffers for their drug usage may be very well qualified in admonishing others to not get started in harmful, expensive, illegal and addictive substances.[note 1]
There is an argument sometimes made that there are degrees of hypocrisy, and some are worse than others. In a very rough order from (what is usually held to be) least to most blameworthy:
There's a further, special case: What TV Tropes calls "Straw hypocrisy", where somebody advocates for a position they do not actually believe in.[9] The exact blameworthiness can vary wildly based on such factors as the position advocated, the difference between the claimed and true beliefs, and reasons for doing so.
Categories: [Deceit]