# A disquisition on hypocrisy. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 22, 2003, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-disquisition-on-hypocrisy/183562 "2003-06-22T08:29:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Muad\_Dib](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/35a633/32.png) [@Muad\_Dib](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muad_Dib)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2003, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-disquisition-on-hypocrisy/183562/1 "2003-06-22T08:29:41Z")
> [@](#): > > “Mr Hackworth,” Finkle-McGraw said after the pleasantries had petered out, speaking in a new tone of voice, a the-meeting-will-come-to-order sort of voice, “please favour me with your opinion of hypocrisy.” > > “Excuse me. Hypocrisy, Your Grace?” > > ``` > “Yes. You know.” > > “It’s a vice, I suppose.” > > “A little one or a big one? Think carefully—much hinges upon the answer.” > > “I suppose that depends upon the particular circumstances > > “that will never fail to be a safe answer, Mr. Hackworth,” the Equity Lord said Reproachfully. Major Napier laughed, somewhat artificially, not knowing what to make of this line of inquiry. > > “recent events in my life have renewed my appreciation for the virtues of doing things safely,” Hackworth said. Both of the others chuckled knowingly. > > “You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices,” Finkle-McGraw said. “It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of climate, you are not allowed to criticise others—after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism?” > > Finkle-McGraw paused, knowing that he had the full attention of his audience, and began to withdraw a calabash pipe and various related supplies and implements from his pockets. As he continued, he charged the calabash with a blend of leather-brown tobacco so redolent that it made Hackworth’s mouth water. He was tempted to spoon some of it into his mouth. > > “Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused and what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour—you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devotid to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.” > > “You wouldn’t believe the things they said about the original Victorians. Calling someone a Victorian in those days was almost like calling them a fascist or a Nazi.” > > Both Hackworth and Major Napier were dumbfounded. “Your Grace!” Napier exclaimed. “I was naturally aware that their moral stance was radically different from ours—but I am astonished to be informed that they actually *condemned* the first Victorians.” > > “Of course they did.” Finkle-McGraw said. > > “Because the first Victorians were hypocrites,” Hackworth said, getting it. > > Finkle-McGraw beamed upon Hackworth like a master upon his favorite pupil. “As you can see, Major Napier, my estimate of Mr. Hackworth’s mental acuity was not ill-founded.” > > “While I would never have supposed otherwise, Your Grace,” Major Napier said, “it is nonetheless gratifying to have seen a demonstration.” Napier raised his glass in Hackworth’s direction. > > “Because they were hypocrites,” Finkle-McGraw said, after igniting his calabash and shooting a few tremendous fountains of smoke into the air, “the Victorians were despised in the late twentieth century. Many of the persons who held such opinions were, of course, guilty of the most nefandous conduct themselves, and yet saw no paradox in holding such views because they were not hypocrites themselves—they took no moral stances and lived by none.” > > “So they were morally superior to the Victorians—“ Major Napier said, still a bit snowed under. > > “—even though—in fact, *because* —they had no morals at all.” > > There was a moment of silent, bewildered head-shaking around the copper table. > > “We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy,” Finkle-McGraw continued. “In the late-twentieth-century *Weltanschauung*, a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception—he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course, most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it’s a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing.” > > “That we occasionally violate our own stated moral code,” Major Napier said, working it through, “does not imply that we are insincere in espousing that code.” > > “Of course not,” Finkle-McGraw said. “It’s perfectly obvious, really. No one ever said that it was easy to hew to a strict code of conduct. Really, the difficulties involved—the missteps we make along the way—are what make it interesting. The internal, and *eternal*, struggle, between our base impulses and the rigorous demands of our own moral system is quintessentially human. It is how we conduct ourselves in that struggle that determines how we may in time be judged by a higher power.” > > ``` > > From _The Diamond Age_ > By Neil Stephenson As you might guess, this was more than not prompted by a recent “pit” thread of mine. I remember reading this passage years ago and being astonished, as it had so clearly espoused the growing frustration and anger I have felt with the “rush to hypocrisy” in our world. You need not venture out far into the world to experience or understand this. Many of the threads and debates here are a race not to the truth, but to who can prove the hypocrisy of the other first. In such an argument the only one who wins is the man with no standards whatsoever. Am I right? Am I wrong? Or am I being “an idiotic, outdated, insular jerk”? ---
**Author:** ![DreadCthulhu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DreadCthulhu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DreadCthulhu)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2003, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-disquisition-on-hypocrisy/183562/2 "2003-06-22T10:13:03Z")
I agree with the sentiment in the post - we should look as to why a person can’t follow what he preaches. I can forgive a moment of weakness, but actual deciet bothers me quite a bit. BTW - \* The Diamond Age \* was a really good book, so THE GREAT AND DREADED CTHULHU highly reccomends you read it NOW. Or else. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2003, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-disquisition-on-hypocrisy/183562/3 "2003-06-22T14:04:02Z")
Bah…it sounds like hypocritical weasel words to me. If you can’t walk the walk, don’t talk the talk, I say. ---
**Author:** ![liberationsusie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@liberationsusie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/liberationsusie)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2003, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-disquisition-on-hypocrisy/183562/4 "2003-06-22T14:07:52Z")
The greatest hypocrisy can be found in Christians today. The bible says NO to fornication. And they are “doing it” all over the place and with multiple partners. The bible says NO to adultery. And 6 out of every 10 women polled in Washington DC claims to have had an affair. The bible says NO to pharmakia (sorcery, i.e. abortifacient drugs in particular). And millions of women are making the right CHOICE to abort but then feel false guilt about it. We watch sexy movies, nasty TV shows, cuss and swear and then still claim to believe in Jeezus! Pleeeease! Stop being hypocrites. Even Jeezus said as much, be hot or cold. Christianity is cold. Be HOT, HOT, HOT! Be real– Susie Oh yes, that forgive and love your enemies garbage-- forget it, no one does that! ---
**Author:** ![sotally\_tober](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/46a35a/32.png) [@sotally\_tober](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sotally_tober)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2003, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-disquisition-on-hypocrisy/183562/5 "2003-06-22T14:34:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by liberationsusie \* > \*\*Be real– > > Susie > \*\* I just read some of your comments in the other [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=192474). I was laughing hard over at the other thread until i saw this. Erm. Susie, are you for real?😕 Ok, in the event that this is not a joke, cite please. You’re way generalising. p.s. It is only polite to spell His name properly. ---
**Author:** ![Matchka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Matchka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Matchka)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2003, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-disquisition-on-hypocrisy/183562/6 "2003-06-23T05:12:40Z")
Susie, baby, you’re offensive. And that IS your right, but I would ask that you be so within the scope of the thread. Your logic insinuates that Christians are fornicators, adulterors, pharmakia-practicing (Ok, I admit I have NO IDEA what the appropriate adjective is for pharmakia) Showtime/HBO/Cinemax-watchers, because The Bible says that doing so is wrong. My issue is related to a basic kind of IQ test question: “True or False: Christians adhere to The Bible, The Bible says NO to X, people of unspecified heritage perform X, therefore All Christians perform X.” I ain’t saying hypocrites don’t exist within the organization, but you know better than to paint all members with the same brush. You seem to have an axe requiring substantial grinding, post your own (specific) thread and see what you get. * * * “In such an argument the only one who wins is the man with no standards whatsoever.” May I restate this as, " The person with no standards can never be seen as inconsistent because inconsistency requires a departure from a commitment to some principle or other."? This is akin to a belief of mine that it is essentially impossible to perform an immoral act–because intentionally comitting an act requires you to accept that it is the right thing to do. liberationsuzie touches on this with her ‘choice for abortion’ example. You are right, it IS tiresome to suffer a debate in which the STATED goal is consensus and the IMPLIED goal is the jugular. But even here, the unprincipled “victor” is not the victor, but merely an hypocrite because participation in the debate implies acceptance of attainment of the STATED goal as the objective–the purpose or “moral” of the discourse. Intentional deviation from that stated “moral” is hypocricy…no? Do I need to get some sleep?:o ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2003, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-disquisition-on-hypocrisy/183562/7 "2003-06-23T13:34:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by liberationsusie \* > \*\*The greatest hypocrisy can be found in Christians today. > > The bible says NO to fornication. And they are “doing it” all over the place and with multiple partners. > > The bible says NO to adultery. And 6 out of every 10 women polled in Washington DC claims to have had an affair. \*\* Welcome to the SDMB, **liberationsusie** , and to Great Debates in particular. Please provide cites for your poll. I am assuming that this was a poll of Christians only. Also, did you have a reason to assume that the results of this poll applied to Christians worldwide? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by liberationsusie \* > \*\* > The bible says NO to pharmakia (sorcery, i.e. abortifacient drugs in particular). And millions of women are making the right CHOICE to abort but then feel false guilt about it. > \*\* Could you explain why you believe this referred to use of abortifacient drugs “in particular”? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![liberationsusie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@liberationsusie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/liberationsusie)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2003, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-disquisition-on-hypocrisy/183562/8 "2003-06-23T15:31:24Z")
The Anchor Bible Dictionary, [Abortion in Antiquity], Vol. 1, p. 33. PHARMAKIA (PHARMAKOI) mentioned as sorcery in Revelation 21:8 and 22:15 appears to refer to those who obtained abortifacient potions (cf. 9:21; 18:23; Galatians 5:20). NBC, Washington Affiliate, Channel 4 (News Bite 1997) A random poll of 1,000 women in the District of Columbia found that 6 out of every 10 women surveyed admitted to having an adulterous relationship within the last year. I had no intention to derail your topic. Sorry if you find my views offensive. I get a lot of that. Enjoy your debate, and stay free– Susie ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2003, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-disquisition-on-hypocrisy/183562/9 "2003-06-23T17:03:01Z")
Though it’s not stated outright, it seems to me that the quoted passage in the OP implies that folks who complain about hypocrisy today do so _only because_ they have **no** moral views, and wish to feel superior to the hypocrites (Victorians in this case). This, to me, is illogical. There are many reasons to be opposed to hypocrisy, first and foremost (IMO) being to ensure consistency – if you talk about the evils of drinking while indulging in drink yourself, then you’ve undercut your own argument. “Don’t talk the talk if you can’t walk the walk,” and all that. The notion that opposition to hypocrisy must be rooted in an amoral worldview does not hold water. > [@](#): > > “That we occasionally violate our own stated moral code,” Major Napier said, working it through, “does not imply that we are insincere in espousing that code.” It _might_ not, but if you _repeatedly_ violate your own stated moral code, especially after those violations have been brought to your attention, then you **are** being insincere in espousing that code. An occassional lapse is far different from an abusive habit. ---
**Author:** ![moejuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@moejuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moejuck)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2003, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-disquisition-on-hypocrisy/183562/10 "2003-06-23T17:08:42Z")
Muad’Dib, This seems to be very prevalent in society today. I think what you are saying, in laymen’s terms, is that the truthful person doesn’t get to make thier point, merely the one who can shout the loudest. We see this in politics all of the time. Once one of the candidates dips into the negative, the other thinks they must hit even lower below the belt. Neither believes that taking the “high road” is an option. So to win an argument these days, or to even make a point, you are almost forced into showing that your opponent is somehow an idiot, a hypocrite, a loser, whatever. Liberationsuzie showed a good example of this in ignoring the point of the OP and instead only attacking an entire group of people without foundation. We have all been hypocritical at some point in time or another, so to point out the hypocrisy in someone else to show them up is hypocritical in itself. To paraphrase something a wise man once said, “Don’t worry about the thorn in your friend’s eye, while you ignore the tree in your own”. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2003, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-disquisition-on-hypocrisy/183562/11 "2003-06-23T19:29:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by liberationsusie \* > \*\*The Anchor Bible Dictionary, [Abortion in Antiquity], Vol. 1, p. 33. > > PHARMAKIA (PHARMAKOI) mentioned as sorcery in Revelation 21:8 and 22:15 appears to refer to those who obtained abortifacient potions (cf. 9:21; 18:23; Galatians 5:20). > > NBC, Washington Affiliate, Channel 4 (News Bite 1997) > > A random poll of 1,000 women in the District of Columbia found that 6 out of every 10 women surveyed admitted to having an adulterous relationship within the last year. > > I had no intention to derail your topic. Sorry if you find my views offensive. I get a lot of that. > > Enjoy your debate, and stay free– > > Susie \*\* I see the B-word appearing under the screen name of our latest short-term guest. Gee, I never saw **that** one coming. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2003, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-disquisition-on-hypocrisy/183562/12 "2003-06-23T20:48:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > Though it’s not stated outright, it seems to me that the quoted passage in the OP implies that folks who complain about hypocrisy today do so _only because_ they have **no** moral views, and wish to feel superior to the hypocrites (Victorians in this case). I had a similar interpretation as **rjung**. I read the passage to imply that folks elevate the sin of hypocirsy because that’s the only sin left: moral relativity eliminates all other sins. OTOH Gertrude Himmelfarb has argued that it was better for the Victorians to strive for high moral behavior, even though they often fell short of their ideals, than not to strive at all. My own view is that moral relativism itself is invariably hypocritical. E.g., there are plenty of people who espouse that the values of certain primative peoples should be respected, but most of these same people will disrepect various modern groups on the other side, such as anti-abortion folks and other non-liberals. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2003, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-disquisition-on-hypocrisy/183562/13 "2003-06-23T20:56:05Z")
“Moral relativism” is by no means synonymous with “all value-sets are equally worthy of respect”. It’s a popular straw man, though. ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2003, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-disquisition-on-hypocrisy/183562/14 "2003-06-23T21:55:24Z")
> [@](#): > > “Moral relativism” is by no means synonymous with “all value-sets are equally worthy of respect”. It’s a popular straw man, though. No, but it frequently degenerates into that, for all intents and purposes. Look at the recent series of screeds against William Bennett following the revelation that he gambles. Instantly, he was deiscredited, his every word rendered irrelevant. And this is the way it commonly works. If a smoker tells you that smoking is bad for you, sure, he may be a hypocrite… but does that make him wrong? The H-word is frequently used to shut up an opponent whose views one doesn’t want to consider. If nobody is allowed to give moral advice unless they’re completely innocent in the relevent area, then we’ve effectively made it taboo to discuss morals at all. Everybody has probably lied at some point, thus nobody is allowed to say that lying is bad. Everyone has been angry and hurt someone, thus nobody can say that hurting people out of anger is bad. If only the pure can preach morality, and nobody is pure, who’s left to guide us? Does each person get to pick and choose their own morality? Yes, hypocricy is, in and of itself, a bad thing. But it’s so far from being the worst thing out there that it hardly bears mentioning. And in a world full of imperfect people, to dwell on the sin of hypocricy is foolish. Jeff ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2003, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-disquisition-on-hypocrisy/183562/15 "2003-06-23T22:19:08Z")
I have often thought that a hatred for hypocrisy as the worst of all transgressions is the route to a moral race for the bottom in terms of standards. Particularly if combined with the notion that acting in conformity to a set of rules, as opposed to one’s inner impulses, is a form of hypocrisy, and the notion that human nature is essentially selfish, violent and amoral. If all three are true - hypocrisy is the worst of transgressions, acting in conformity is hypocritical, and human nature is vile - only the truly vile in action are true to themselves, are free of hypocrisy.