The Red Herring Of Hypocrisy

[variant]

Morality is more about what people ought or ought not to do or should do or should not do. This is the ought of moral obligation.

It is about assigning value to certain acts, labeling them as good or bad, right or wrong.

Why does it matter? This is more of a personal position I hold. It matters to me for several reasons, but you may not care one bit.

Quite simply, if morality is based solely upon the opinions of human beings, then there is nothing that obligates me to prefer a particular morality over any other except my own interests.

This is untrue there are objective consequences for our actions whether or not our morality is subjective.

If morality is objective and based on the commands of a Good and Just God, then I am obligated to live a certain way and if I fail to do so, I am guilty and will be called to account for failing to live as I know I ought to have lived. For example: I would be obligated to love my neighbor as myself and if I failed to do this, I would be guilty of not living how I should have lived. I would be a transgressor. I would be a "law-breaker".

So it seems to me it matters a great deal.

All things are permitted if there is no immortality and no God to judge us for our deeds. We become gods in determining what is good and bad, right and wrong.

But if we are immortal and if there is a God to judge use (something I argue is the case) then we do not determine what is good and bad, right or wrong, but morality is something discovered, not invented, just like any other law that we discover.

It matters to me a great deal because if moral values and duties are objective, then moral relativism is false. I do not want to live according to what is false, but what is true.

Once again, none of these may seem significant to you and you might not care if God exists, or if morality is objective. There are some apatheists who do not care whether or not God exists.

So whether or not something "matters" seems to me to be an issue that is subjective. Nor would I really try to convince you to believe that these subjects matter if you are not of the opinion already that they matter.

You believe in a God you can't demonstrate exists, so, your morality is just as based upon your subjective interpretation of the universe as anyone else's.

Then you turn around and judge others based upon their morality not being as objective as yours.

 

[bhsmte]

This is untrue there are objective consequences for our actions whether or not our morality is subjective.



You believe in a God you can't demonstrate exists, so, your morality is just as based upon your subjective interpretation of the universe as anyone else's.

Then you turn around and judge others based upon their morality not being as objective as yours.

As I have said before, if one needs some authority or rule book to tell them how to act, I would seriously question that person's ability to think on their own.

 

[variant]

As I have said before, if one needs some authority or rule book to tell them how to act, I would seriously question that person's ability to think on their own.

And, without thinking on their own about why they should act one way or another, can we really call what they are doing morality?

 

[PsychoSarah]

It has nothing to do with whether or not an argument is formally and informally valid, sound, contains true premises and therefore good.

Thus to say: "You are a hypocrite, therefore your argument is false", would be a non-sequitur of the ad hominem variety.

I could smoke a pack of cigs a day and present you with a deductive argument for why you should not smoke, my being a hypocrite does not make the argument false.

Would the fact that I was a hypocrite have an affect on you? I am pretty sure it would, especially if you loved smoking and did not want to stop. You might just say well you are a hypocrite, I do not have to listen to you.

And you could say that. But you could not use that as a reason to reject the deductive argument I put forth.

True, but again it depends on the situation.

 

[Feldon]

Respectfully, I think hypocrisy is very, very relevant. Would I want to follow a Preacher or Priest who says one thing, but lives a different way? Would you want that to be your moral example? Of course not!

I recognize that none of us is perfect, and we all are flawed & sinful. I'm not looking for perfection or calling out people as hypocrites for minor transgressions, but to me, hypocrisy is more than not living up to your own ideals. Like, a QB isn't a "hypocrite" if he talks all week about how important ball security is, and then throws 3 interceptions. Sometimes real life is HARD!

To me, hypocrisy is more like a variant of HONESTY. It would be more akin to an abolitionist secretly owning slaves -- something that makes a statement about their integrity, sincerity & truthfulness. THAT is a hypocrite!

If the person you're talking to can't be trusted & doesn't act in good faith, of course that would make it more difficult for him to persuade you to his position.... right??

 

[bhsmte]

Respectfully, I think hypocrisy is very, very relevant. Would I want to follow a Preacher or Priest who says one thing, but lives a different way? Would you want that to be your moral example? Of course not!

I recognize that none of us is perfect, and we all are flawed & sinful. I'm not looking for perfection or calling out people as hypocrites for minor transgressions, but to me, hypocrisy is more than not living up to your own ideals. Like, a QB isn't a "hypocrite" if he talks all week about how important ball security is, and then throws 3 interceptions. Sometimes real life is HARD!

To me, hypocrisy is more like a variant of HONESTY. It would be more akin to an abolitionist secretly owning slaves -- something that makes a statement about their integrity, sincerity & truthfulness. THAT is a hypocrite!

If the person you're talking to can't be trusted & doesn't act in good faith, of course that would make it more difficult for him to persuade you to his position.... right??

Let's face it, there seems to be a lot of people in this world, that are more concerned about how other people live their lives, then how they live their own life and they like to meddle and judge people at will.

That is, indeed hypocrisy and hypocrisy, craters credibility in my book.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

If you don't believe in a conclusion enough to act upon it you don't really believe it.

On this you and I agree.

 

[seeingeyes]

How many arguments have you been in, where because you haven't done what you are saying, somehow it undermines your point.

Why does that even matter? Why do people care so much about whether or not people are hypocritics. Logically, it shouldn't undermine their point at all, but yet it does.

I can be lazy and still tell someone being lazy is bad and be correct.

If you are not doing what you are saying, then you are not leading as Christ leads. Therefore, no one need listen to you whether you are right or not.

 

[bhsmte]

How many arguments have you been in, where because you haven't done what you are saying, somehow it undermines your point.

Why does that even matter? Why do people care so much about whether or not people are hypocritics. Logically, it shouldn't undermine their point at all, but yet it does.

I can be lazy and still tell someone being lazy is bad and be correct.

It matters because of credibility.

Ever hear the phrase; actions speak louder than words? Actions are what credibility is built on not words. Anyone can use rhetoric, not everyone can back it up with actions.

 

[Feldon]

It matters because of credibility.

Ever hear the phrase; actions speak louder than words? Actions are what credibility is built on not words. Anyone can use rhetoric, not everyone can back it up with actions.

Yes! You said it much better then I did!

 

[Received]

It matters because of credibility.

Ever hear the phrase; actions speak louder than words? Actions are what credibility is built on not words. Anyone can use rhetoric, not everyone can back it up with actions.

Well, in an argumentative setting credibility refers to an individual's ability to consistently and rationally make good arguments, not to his actions.

At the same time, I have a Nietzschean streak in me that rejects even considering an argument by certain people with bad characters. That's definitely unfair and an ad hominem. Oh well.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, in an argumentative setting credibility refers to an individual's ability to consistently and rationally make good arguments, not to his actions.

At the same time, I have a Nietzschean streak in me that rejects even considering an argument by certain people with bad characters. That's definitely unfair and an ad hominem. Oh well.

If one has no information in regards to the person making the argument, I agree.

But, lets say you have a debate amongst two people and one person is spewing out a bunch of rhetoric, which may be accurate, but the other side has evidence that the one spewing the argument has demonstrated actions that go against his rhetoric?

Let's say you have a presidential debate and one guy is citing all this scientific information about climate change being true which is compelling, but the other guy has evidence the same person has voted against climate change related legislation every single time. That argument, would basically be quite shallow, in my opinion.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Respectfully, I think hypocrisy is very, very relevant. Would I want to follow a Preacher or Priest who says one thing, but lives a different way? Would you want that to be your moral example? Of course not!

"Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but do not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice."

Matt 23:1-3

 

[quatona]

It matters because of credibility.

Ever hear the phrase; actions speak louder than words? Actions are what credibility is built on not words. Anyone can use rhetoric, not everyone can back it up with actions.

I am a strong smoker. I do know the health dangers, I know how much money it costs, I know all the rational arguments why smoking is not a good idea. I acknowledge them, I agree with them.
Yet, I personally want to smoke and will keep smoking.
I think that intellectual honesty requires me to not be silent about the risks and drawbacks of smoking. They don´t cease to be facts (or become mere rhethorics) just because I personally smoke. That´s because they are facts and facts don´t depend on my credibility.

 

[variant]

I am a strong smoker. I do know the health dangers, I know how much money it costs, I know all the rational arguments why smoking is not a good idea. I acknowledge them, I agree with them.
Yet, I personally want to smoke and will keep smoking.
I think that intellectual honesty requires me to not be silent about the risks and drawbacks of smoking. They don´t cease to be facts (or become mere rhethorics) just because I personally smoke. That´s because they are facts and facts don´t depend on my credibility.

So, your argument is that other people shouldn't smoke.

What if they want to?

 

[quatona]

So, your argument is that other people shouldn't smoke.

No. If anything, my argument would be that noone should smoke. But so far I have just stated facts.

What if they want to?

What to it? If they want, they will. Just like I do. I´m just trying to make sure they make an educated decision (I´m not very vocal about it, though - after all, the facts are not exactly breaking news or something). They might pay a price for it. I´m not in the position to tell them whether the benefits compensate for the price or not.

 

[variant]

What to it? If they want, they will. I´m just trying to make sure they make an educated decision. They might pay a price for it. I´m not in the position to tell them whether the benefits compensate for the price or not.

Precisely the point.

 

[bhsmte]

I am a strong smoker. I do know the health dangers, I know how much money it costs, I know all the rational arguments why smoking is not a good idea. I acknowledge them, I agree with them.
Yet, I personally want to smoke and will keep smoking.
I think that intellectual honesty requires me to not be silent about the risks and drawbacks of smoking. They don´t cease to be facts (or become mere rhethorics) just because I personally smoke. That´s because they are facts and facts don´t depend on my credibility.

I disagree.

Although you may be stating a fact, what you are stating coming from you as a smoker telling others not to smoke impacts credibility IMO.

If I was 30 pounds overweight and got a checkup from my doctor and he told me I needed to lose weight for my health, but he himself is 100 pounds overweight, that message will not have the credibility it would coming from a doctor who is not overweight, even though he is technically correct.

 

[bhsmte]

No. If anything, my argument would be that noone should smoke. But so far I have just stated facts.
What to it? If they want, they will. Just like I do. I´m just trying to make sure they make an educated decision (I´m not very vocal about it, though - after all, the facts are not exactly breaking news or something). They might pay a price for it. I´m not in the position to tell them whether the benefits compensate for the price or not.

How can you make sure they make an educated decision and not smoke for their health, when you have not made an educated decision yourself and say you smoke because you want to?

That would be like me telling my kids not to smoke, if all they did was see me smoke everyday.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

How can you make sure they make an educated decision and not smoke for their health, when you have not made an educated decision yourself and say you smoke because you want to?

Knowing all the health risks involved and deciding to smoke anyway, that's an educated decision too.

Actually, federal law ha required health warnings on tobacco products for fifty years now, and some people still choose to smoke. Imagine that.