It's okay to be a hypocrite

[@HerrEinzige]

I'm linking this every time I get called out on my bullshit.

[@JD_ALMIGHTY]

no no no you are bullshit

[@gethelp6271]

People often use hypocrisy as grounds to claim that what someone is saying is wrong. Being a hypocrite has nothing to do with whether a statement is correct or incorrect. For example- someone who drinks everyday can correctly discern if someone else should stop drinking. Usually all people do is say 'why should I listen to a hypocrite' even though that has nothing to do with whether they should stop drinking or not. ]

[@Sui_Generis0]

simply tu quoque fallacy

[@derekg5563]

@gethelp6271: Well, a lot of those same people probably have a number of implicit premises/arguments in mind. In the case of whether one should drink or not, it can depend on a certain network/system of tradeoffs - there could be individual facts that in isolation make it worthwhile or not to drink, but how they combine with other facts of a situation can be more important and, again, there may be implicit premises/arguments in the minds of these same people. When someone is saying that one shouldn't drink, they might be saying so relative to their particular situation regarding the tradeoffs - for that particular person, they might be drinking for inspiration (or not), or simply get a higher (or lower) boost from drinking than the average person. When one is saying that one shouldn't drink, they might mean or be taken to mean that in their system, it makes sense to take that action, as in the utterance saying "look at this system of mine in which not drinking is so great." Well, if the person does in fact drink, then they have not presented a system (if this system includes their relevant traits in a particular relational network) in which not drinking is so great. They may have _asserted_ that drinking is not great, and gave some apparent (isolated) reasons for this, but they didn't give an example of a system in which those reasons relevantly make the case what is being supposed to be the case. I can imagine things whose truth values depend on certain systems. Mathematical statements are roughly evaluated based on their relations to certain axioms within the given mathematical system, and are somewhat meaningless otherwise. It seems that if one is to make a mathematical demonstration/proof, they need to be able to provide relevant examples of something having the relations (to/within a relevant system) it is to be argued to have. However, if one is trying to demonstrate something about x, but in so doing doesn't refer to x but rather to something other than x, their demonstration then (probably) can't say much about x's relations, since one typically needs to mention x to say something about its features, including its relations. Perhaps one could try a reductio ad absurdum and assume not x, and derive a contradiction, to then prove x, but even there, such an argument would refer to x, for example via an instantiation of modus tollens on a conditional about x being false implying the truth of some other thing that happens to be false, with that consequent's falsity thereby implying the falsity of the antecedent (that x is false), which would imply that x is not false, and thus is true, assuming that x is either true or false. While it's true that a person drinking or not drinking will not change the truth value of it being good (perhaps assuming, for the sake of argument, that that's a factual kind of question), it _could_ affect the extent to which the argument proves whatever that truth value already is. If you need to show an example of a thing being a certain way, you may need that thing to be present in it or else you're not really able to see its supposed features... if the person drinks, they are not showing a system where their non-drinking is contributing something relevant, because there is no non-drinking to observe doing anything, there. One could, of course, imagine a person who has the same system as that person except for the fact that they _don't_ drink, but such a person, to demonstrate an argument in favor of not drinking, would need to explain why they hold all of those factors together to explain how their system works and what non-drinking means for it, and the role it plays in terms of the value of the system (does it raise or lower the value of the system and how), etc. A person who drinks can't really properly explain this because they would need to explain why, given all of that, they still drink, as their supposed explication of how it leads to/predicts not drinking is being countered by the evidence that they are simultaneously offering. Someone who doesn't drink who otherwise offers the same argument, would be demonstrating how one gets to not drinking, because they are not drinking and serve as an example. In the case of the person who does drink, offering it, a rational person sees a contradiction between the explication and its result, and that there is at least one hidden variable or relation between the given variables at play, and the trouble is that it's (as yet) indeterminable; for example, one doesn't know whether the mismatch is because the relations between the mentioned variables are not really as stated, or if it's because there were other, unmentioned, relevant variables that happen to apply to their system; in other words, it's (as yet) indeterminable as to whether the explication is internally inconsistent, or merely incomplete, but it has to be at least one of the two, yet not enough evidence is provided by what they said to determine which, and so there is a certain lack of information from the "example" that the person who drinks is providing in the context of showing how non-drinking relevantly applies to a certain system so as to show the correctness of non-drinking. If one already knows whether drinking is good or not, that's great; but for someone who doesn't, they will find the case of the person who doesn't drink giving the given explication more relevantly informative than the person who does drink giving the same explication aside from accurately stating that they drink. While it's possible, even in the case of the person who doesn't drink, that there is at least one hidden variable that could make the argument unsound, unlike in the case of the person who drinks, it is also possible that, instead, simultaneously, there are _no_ such variables _and_ the argument is internally consistent, and by virtue of the truth of that conjunction, is sound, and on scientific grounds, has had support added to the theory by being as yet unfalsified while being subject to a potentially falsifying test. I could be getting some things wrong here, but insofar as certain propositions have meaning in terms of how they interact in certain systems, the demonstrations of them will be in certain systems, and certain characteristics of those systems will determine what is relevantly being demonstrated and what isn't. The truth value of the proposition itself never varies, but the extent to which one can know what that truth value is from what the given person says will vary with the system that they are presenting, by the relations they are showing between their traits (including whether or not they drink) in a system as they pertain to the features of the thing in question that ultimately make it good or bad.

[@MIKAEL212345]

You post this video right as I start taking a philosophy class about hypocrisy. Neat coincidence. Here is an interesting excerpt from one of the papers in the syllabus for that class. "The claim that I wish to defend is this: hypocrisy is not a distinct moral category whose wrongness can be explained by a unitary theory. Hypocrisy often functions as an intuitive, everyday moral concept that is roughly meant to insinuate a certain insincerity on the part of the accused. Someone who is charged with “hypocrisy” is typically accused of professing certain moral beliefs, often with the intention to get others to adhere to those beliefs, but who appears unwilling to adhere to those beliefs themselves. My claim is that when we look at the nature of hypocrisy in more detail, we find that each case of what we call “hypocrisy” can be reduced to either instances of deception or instances of akrasia (or, weakness of the will); and so, the wrongness of hypocrisy can always be reduced to either the wrongness of deception or the wrongness of akrasia." The paper is HYPOCRISY AS EITHER DECEPTION OR AKRASIA by CHRISTOPHER BARTEL What do you think of this?

[@KaneB]

I haven't read that paper and honestly, I just haven't thought this topic enough to have an opinion about what exactly counts as hypocrisy. I'm just going with a dictionary definition here. One point I would make though is that prima facie, it also strikes me as implausible that the wrongness of either instances of deception or instances of akrasia would be "explained by a unitary theory". I'm not sure why it would be an issue that the wrongness of instances of something can't be explained by a unitary theory.

[@MIKAEL212345]

@@KaneB "I'm not sure why it would be an issue that the wrongness of instances of something can't be explained by a unitary theory." Well, it's still the start of the semester so I don't know this 100%, but my understanding is that the rest of the philosophy of hypocrisy literature seems to be trying to explain and understand hypocrisy and its potential wrongness using some sort of unified theory, so the paper is a reaction to all that saying, "you're all wrong, this is two different things"

[@BenStowell]

Isn't hypocrisy often borne out of a lack of self-awareness? If so then it's not deception (maybe self-deception). And it's not a lack of will, it's a lack of self-awareness.

[@jetzenijeboer4854]

​@@KaneBI think contract theory would. Because you cannot reasonably expect people to agree on a rule that you aren't willing to comply with yourself, regardless of why that is. Except if your reason for failing that rule would be some kind of force majeur like coercion or emergency situations that would acquit any other person as well. Ofcourse contract theory comes in different shapes and sizes, and i think any hobbesian line of thinking probably wóuld allow for that kind of hypocrisy, as long as it delivers us from the law of the jungle. But a more rawlsian approach, or contract theory as formulated by someone like thomas scanlon would not.

[@luszczi]

Arguing from utilitarianism, celebrities should act like they are good people, even if they are not (because many look up to them). Hypocrisy is a tribute that vice pays to virtue.

[@RaphaelAmbrosiusCosteau51]

Alternatively, a world in which very few bad things seem to occur as one where an individual will feel much more shame when they do a bad thing. This can have very serious consequences, just look at all the people struggling with religious trauma.

[@intellectually_lazy]

bah! then why i heart andy dick? you know, you can't spell american dream without eric andre

[@MrGabrucho]

Hypocrisy is obviously a form of dishonesty. The problem is not in speaking and than acting, rather is speaking ''while'' acting. The problem of hypocrisy is that it really indicates a deeper problem in a simplist understanding of morality, which is moral judgement. A hypocrite is someone that passes moral judgements without ground.

[@jpjeon3143]

But the logical ground for this or that value is independent of one's inability/refusal to conduct oneself in adherence to that given value, no?

[@Tracequaza]

I'll share some stuff here since if won't go away as easily and I can come back to it later, also more people can respond to it. My main thoughts: - Pointing out hypocrisy is useful to improve on arguments; when something works "on paper" but not in practice, the contradiction can be the start of figuring out the real problem. e.g. the hypothetical vegan might be "cheating" because they're not aware of good protein options, or they get embarassed/anxious when eating out with friends, or they actually disagree with the idea and feel pressured to say it. the argument being improved could be the promotion of veganism, and how to introduce the concept to others to accomplish the overall goal better - I'd say after a certain point you give this problem to psychologists, who can find more evidence for the effects of pointing out hypocrisy at different degrees. I was always given the advice "aim for perfection so that it's easier to get close enough", but I can't say if this idea is fundamentally true or how to best balance keeping the goal of perfection in mind at the same time as the underlying sentiment that "it's acceptable to be close enough", which almost seems like a hypocrisy itself - KB says that not being 100% perfect is fine, however there are times where we would like to achieve a perfect success rate, such as in life-saving medical procedures, or in the design of spacecraft. - i had the thought that being hypocritical is a kind of disorganisation of our thoughts, which is interesting considering the point about jordan peterson, and this might be related to how people view hypocrisy - there is definitely a difference in how we respond to hypocrisy of a close friend vs a public figure, the best way to do that is again something I would leave to psychologists, and that thr way we view some people as role models plays an important part in the importance of pointing out hypocrisy - i think the way KB says that some use of hypocrisy is effectively an ad hominem is very well put, i definitely agree that the criticism of hypocrisy for its own sake is common and not very productive, and that for hypocrisy itself to be a criticism it has to be related to something else, like someone entrusted with an important task - trust is a valuable resource and as evidence of hypocrisy is a good indicator of potential deceit, it is understandable how some people respond to hypocrisy, however it is important to evaluate the stakes of the situation and at what point our response becomes unjustifiable harsh

[@zolotuchien]

I can think of two points that makes hypocrisy bad. 1) A hypocrite transfers a price for achieving his goal to another people. Basically, a vegan hypocrite's position is not "people must not eat animals", but rather "other people must not eat animals". I would consider it to be an antisocial behaviour. 2) In our society benefits and positions are often distributed to people according to their merits. By being a hypocrite, a person may receive a position he is not qualified (imagine a child psychologist who is a hypocrite about not molesting children). Or, in other cases, a hypocrite can receive a benefit that other deserves more (for example, an athlete being a hypocrite about using anabolic steroids).

[@themplanetz]

Because one cannot read others minds and gage their true motives. Hypocrisy I would argue is one of the best ways to assess the vialbility of another's character. If someone consistently behaves in a manner different than which they profess ( worst methinks if they are especially vocal and judgmental about said thing). One has good grounds to dismiss them as "fake".

[@KaneB]

On the other hand, as Susan Wolf has argued, who on earth wants to be friends with a moral saint? So yes, too much hypocrisy makes you a faker, but you can let yourself have a little hypocrisy, as a treat.

[@themplanetz]

​@@KaneBhaha i like treats ❤

[@WonderfulDeath]

@@KaneB me? i want to be friends with a moral saint, very much so

[@asgmto]

@@KaneBwhy do you put the only options as being a hypocrite or a saint? You can have moments of hypocrisy, which you realize later, and still be a flawed person that nonetheless tries to be better. We are not all in the end or beginning of the spectrum.

[@asgmto]

I used to, too, but now I don't because according to Susan Wolf, people only want friends who are hypocrites and there are only hypocrites and saints in the world, and nothing inbetween :(. This is why philosophy is irrelevant and literature reigns superior@@WonderfulDeath

[@Oh_God_not_him_again]

You make some good points in that it's usually a more positive outcome for someone to believe the right thing and not live in accordance with it than for them to not believe the right thing to begin with. I also think you make a great point that charges of hypocrisy are often used as ad hominem to wrongfully dismiss arguments. However, calling someone a hypocrite is also a criticism of their moral character. If a vegan activist eats meat, this says more about their moral character than it does if a regular person eats meat. That's because the vegan activist is knowingly doing what they believe is wrong, whereas the other person is doing what they believe is perfectly okay. A willingness to guiltlessly and thoughtlessly do what you believe is wrong shows a corrupted moral integrity, meaning that you can't be trusted to do what you believe is right. It means you should perhaps be distrusted in other categories too. If someone believes killing humans is wrong and also believes killing animals is wrong, but has no problem killing animals despite that, perhaps we should be worried what that means in regards to how they treat humans behind closed doors. Criticising someone for hypocrisy is at least in part the act of criticising someone for doing what they believe is wrong. And a willingness to ignore one's own morals is a dangerous trait that we rightfully discourage, I believe. But perhaps we should still change the way we do it.

[@bboschboi]

I think there is a danger to focusing on hypocrisy as a bad thing in itself because that may make moral progress more difficult. People should be free to speak openly that the behavior they are currently engaged in is morally wrong without the extra burden of thinking of themselves as a hypocrit, the thing to focus on is what is wrong with the behavior and not the self awareness of that behavior.

[@Oh_God_not_him_again]

​@@bboschboi I agree that people should be able to speak against behaviour they're engaged in, but I still think it's inaccurate to say there's *nothing* wrong with hypocrisy, though. The willingness to do what you believe is wrong is a trait which deserves criticism in some fashion, even if we're currently going about it wrong. There needs to be *some* pressure to align your actions with your beliefs, or else lots of people will simply never feel the need to act on their beliefs.

[@vishtem33]

@@Oh_God_not_him_again External pressure tends to generate spite and acting-out, though. I don't exactly disagree. It's just that I think typical attempts at pressure are pretty lacking, and generate more hypocrisy than they eliminate. Overall I would advocate simply stating neutral observations of people's actions, without advancing _any_ kind of explanation of these actions (any explanation serves as a point of resistance). I believe people struggle to do that kind of thing because they have some kind of attachment to 'making a definite point', 'winning the argument', or 'forcing some change'.

[@adamkarlovsky6015]

I think you're wrong on this. The problem with hypocrisy is that it's evidence for others to distrust the person. If they're only doing something bad, but have behaviors consistent with what they say, others have reason to trust that they'll do what they say. People want other people to be predictable in a general way, the more hypocritical, the less predictable. Or let's say they give certain financial advice and then do the opposite, then they may be untrustworthy for presenting their real beliefs about facts about the world.

[@DarthCalculus]

I think you're mostly correct, but only about people in a vacuum. Consistency has social value (if not moral value) and people are not entirely rational actors. Hypocrisy makes you lose credibility, which diminishes your ability to influence people for good, and may cause others to believe that a virtue is actually a vice

[@uninspired3583]

People don't last very long in a vacuum, they need air

[@DarthCalculus]

@@uninspired3583 they are frictionless point mass people

[@uninspired3583]

@@DarthCalculus lol nice. I think the only thing I'd actually disagree about is the idea that people are not entirely rational actors. Logic is hard and it takes directed training to develop, which very few actually put effort into. I'd reverse it to say people aren't entirely irrational, just mostly so.

[@HideoV]

Well, I think there is another side to hypocrisy which is more personal. As in, depending what the negative magnitude of the hypocritical act is, one can feel betrayed or personally disappointed about a close one acting against supposedly shared values. I'm personally struggling a lot with tolerance for lack of consistency lately, as many of my colleagues working in a field that openly supports certain human rights, consistently are joining private companies to develop devices and services that directly infringe on those rights. While the money is good, I think that just letting it go as human weakness without any significant criticism is unhelpful. While they may still sometimes act according to the openly shared values, some amount of calling out hypocrisy or inconsistency may be useful in raising awareness about this issue. But this may also be personal bias, I lately often struggle to deal with the disappointment caused by close friend-colleagues and their choices, and I feel like I have to somehow change my thinking to ignore inconsistency, or distance myself a bit from them to avoid having always in mind the personal pain. I find both options very unsatisfying

[@siddhartacrowley]

That is the problem with capitalism

[@DeadEndFrog]

If a "good person" sometimes does bad things, its bad apperently If a "bad person" somtimes does good things, its good apperently The twist is that they are the same person

[@jlemsey2232]

Isnt this sort of a consequentialism vs intent issue? Like the difference between a person who accidentally does bad and intentionally does bad is roughly analogous to the difference between a person who does a given action with moral consistency as opposed to someone who does it without moral consistency?

[@captainbeefheart5815]

I think it depends on the type of hypocrisy. I think there’s a difference between weak-willed hypocrisy and malicious hypocrisy. Weak-willed hypocrisy is when someone is doing their best but just fails due to some personal flaw. But at least they’re trying. This might be the vegan activist who eats a burger. But a malicious hypocrite is one who is pretending to have moral views they don’t really believe in just to manipulate others while not actually following those moral rules themselves. Like someone pretending to be a vegan for clout while eating meat. Both might engage in deceit. One does so to hide his shame. The other does so for personal gain. I think sometimes pointing out hypocrisy is done to show that the moral rule being promoted isn’t feasible. If even vegan activists can’t maintain a vegan diet, is that really the standard that should be set for the average person?

[@tudornaconecinii3609]

There's also an interesting third case, which is both intentional and non-malicious. I call it the parasitic case. For example, let's say that I have a genuine belief that climate change is bad and human activity is the main cause. So I encourage people to not use air conditioning, to use less indoor heating, and to drive less. While at the same time, I ignore my own advice. It's not weak-willed because I'm not even trying to live up to my own standards. It's not malicious because I'm not doing it for clout or personal gain (I mean, I derive personal gain from my air conditioner, but I don't derive personal gain for *being* a climate activist), I genuinely want a better planet, I'm just too selfish to make personal sacrifices.

[@asphaltpilgrim]

So, could we say that the moral failing in the malicious (and parasitic?) case is the pre-meditated deceit and not the hypocrisy per se? Don't get me wrong I agree with your distinction in practice, but just wondering.

[@asphaltpilgrim]

PS Give my regards to Frank Zappa 😂

[@tudornaconecinii3609]

@@asphaltpilgrim I think it's different between the two. The moral failing (or, I guess you can argue whether it's a moral failing or a systemic failing, or whether the latter is a subset of the former; I could see it either way) in the malicious case is the fact that the culture incentivizes advocacy reputationally. The moral failing in the parasitic case is holding a value hierarchy which prefers bettering the world over not bettering the world, but also prefers avoiding self-sacrifice over bettering the world. Deceit isn't necessarily involved at all for the parasitic hypocrite. You know the saying "do as I say, not as I do"? Yeah, that's the motto.

[@KaneB]

I suppose the conventional view would be that the malicious hypocrite is worse. However, it's interesting to note that with respect to the point you raise at the end, it's the weak-willed hypocrite who poses the more serious problem. Even the vegan activists who are serious about veganism can't maintain the diet!

[@hasanalharaz7454]

I think a hypocrisy is someone that truly thinks the rules apply to others but not to themselves for no reason other then those other people aren’t them. Someone that has moral failings out of lack of willpower isn’t a hypocrite and I think someone that lies about their beliefs and doesn’t follow them out of some sort of selfish desire isn’t a hypocrite they’re simply a selfish liar because they never internally held those beliefs, they never actually cared about them. They’re especially not a hypocrite if they think in their own mind that even other people doing the same, lying for their own selfish reasons is morally ok. 8:04 honestly for me the hypocrisy does make it worse. If they were just extremely judgmental but 100% honest they would be more respectable in my eyes. The hypocrisy or lack thereof does change my perception of a person at least a bit if not more so then other things. Of course I think the logical main reason why people react negatively to a hypocrite arguing for something is because not only out of some gut reaction but because it’s proof pointing towards something being wrong with those beliefs. I mean if they guy insisting on the belief isn’t even following it there must be a reason why (like them lying about the reasons behind their “belief”). This isn’t full proof but it’s a good rule of thumb most of the time

[@blazearmoru]

The problem with hypocracy is that the tension doesn't lay with the action, but with the method of discovering which actions are acceptable. It's similar in a way to 'act' utilitarianism. The problem with hypocracy isn't that V is wrong, but that there are people who promote that V is right and they don't suffer the consequences of being wrong (hopefully die) which causes others to act in accordance to V. No matter how many people learn that V is bad (through dying), the hypocrate will not learn so the filtering system is broken. Also, it's not the tension between holding a value and failing to act accordance to the value. It's simply not holding the value and lying about it. I think there needs to be a discussion between aliefs and beliefs here to make sense of things, but if there's a disagreement between what you say A and how you act B, and we have to say that you believe in either A or B, we probably should label your beliefs as B rather than A. Edit: This becomes more important if 'good' is relative because that means what is good will evolve and change over time. This means no matter how correct you are at any single time, you'll cease to be correct when the situation changes and this is basically necessarily the case if morals are tied with correct actions and actions are tied to consequences and consequences are tied to situations. Breaking the epistemic system tied to morality is got to be the single WORST moral action. It's not making a wrong action. It's creating a system that is incapable of orienating into the correct action, and there are simply infinitely more ways to be wrong than to be right given 'pragmatic' morality. It's probably the #1 shit way to approach morality imo. Edit2: if a person is 97% vegan we can say they're 97% vegan, and 3% hypocrate which is like 1:32 of a hypocrate? It's not ok to be a piece of shit 3% of the time, but it's better than most people right? And that's how we judge people right? 3% is not a lot but if they eat meat at a rate 2000% the average person, we can say they're -1900% moral agent. That's a lot. I only have a problem with the hypocrate that avoids the consequences of their values. Edit3: "It's ok to sometimes do things you shouldn't be doing" - LOOK UP EXPLOIT VS EXPLORE (computer science). It's a learning strategy. I don't know if you go 'BUT HOOMANS LEARN VIA GOD GIVEN MAGIC' but I ask you don't take that stance going into glancing at the topic. Edit4 Regarding Consistency: I joke with people that if we removed all socialists and communists, we'll have a communist utopia with capitalists because there is no cutthroat capitalist like a communist. That's a joke but what's not a joke is that there's no law stating removal of all people of one political group wouldn't be best for their stated cause. For example: if you remove every religion that held 'being honest' as a virtue, you would be removing from a pool of people who are 99% dishonest relative to the people of mixed honesty. Being non-religious doesn't guarentee honesty, but being religious basically guarentees dishonesty. Edit5: Hypocracy does not require deception. Pointing at alief and beliefs, I can imagine someone who believes not-A doing A because it's the path of least resistance rather than out of belief. Vice versa, I can imagine someone who says they believe in A, but doesn't do A, and they have every excuse in the book. Even if they were 100% sincere, they're a hypocrate because they haven't done A. If they were used as an example of doing A, they wouldn't be a good example because they've literally never done A in their life. Edit6: Calling you a hypocrate as an arguement might be a mere ad hom but it could also be a "fuck you, you don't know either." argument. Look. We're all guessing our way through this life and I'd be upset if instead of making my own mistakes, I made YOUR mistakes. YOU make your mistakes and leave me the fuck out of it. Charges of hypocracy has a place. It's the job of intellectuals to convince us to live in a way that is moral because our actions directly impact our own lives. WE have to live through our own consequences so it's important for the intellectuals to point out where we should watch our step... but there's also something to be said when the question arises "So... this sounds good on paper, but have you tried it?", you just dodge entirely. You know what else is convincing? conmen. The dumbfucks among us, YOU INCLUDED, don't know what's good. Making a good argument =/= being good. The only thing we can do is make a guess, and quite literally bet our own lives on it. Editeditedit: final edit? I just noticed you do read these so I apologize for the many edits and the wall of text and my bad grammer. I might not sound like it but I really like your videos. They's educational. :) Final edit: I thought that last part of your video was going to be "We're going to talk about hypocracy, which is voicing views you don't actually hold... which is this video. I don't actually side with hypocracy" which would have been a fking halarious ending.

[@tudornaconecinii3609]

Two things. Thing one: With regard to edit 1, I feel like goodness being relative and changing over time doesn't really matter, because hypocrisy implies simultaneity? It's not hypocrisy to merely change your mind, provided you update your rhetoric accordingly. Some people will say you've "always disagreed with that thing you said on twitter 5 years ago, you didn't actually change your mind recently, you just realized you might be found out recently", but those people will always be out to get you so who cares. Thing two: Are you a rationalist? You sound like one.

[@blazearmoru]

I agree with the reply to #1. So long as the alignment between the virtue signaled and the virtue behaved are the same within the same timestamp. I think there's been a misunderstanding though. What I mean to say is that on a cold day, a good action is to wear warm clothes. This is less the case if it is a hot day. I don't see much of a difference between 'wearing warm clothes is good' and 'wearing warm clothes is moral'. They sound the same to me. The importance of hypocracy comes into play if there becomes a misalignment over time. If you've checked that the action is good then stop doing it but continue to preach that it is good, the filtering system is no longer working. I think in good practice, non-hypocrites are supposed to die first so that their followers know when to adapt. #2, I think I lean more towards a mix of pragmatism, empiricism, and relativism, in that order. I may or may not have misunderstood relativism though... @@tudornaconecinii3609 Edit : I noticed a possible misunderstanding for #1 so I made an edit there.

[@KaneB]

>> The problem with hypocracy isn't that V is wrong, but that there are people who promote that V is right and they don't suffer the consequences of being wrong This is a good point: when people pretend to act in accordance with a particular norm, this can result in the rest of us having incorrect information about the effect of the norm. For example, if somebody is merely pretending to be a vegan, then they will not actually experience the health consequences of veganism. I agree that this is a relevant consideration, though this will only be a problem in those cases where our assessment of the norm places a significant weight on the effect that following the norm has on the individuals that follow it. This will be the case for those who adopt a plant-based diet for health reasons. But I think most vegans place relatively low weight on that. That is, even if it's healthier to eat animal products, we still ought not do it, or at least we still ought to reduce animal consumption as much as is possible while still remaining healthy. >> I might not sound like it but I really like your videos. They's educational. :) Thanks very much!

[@blazearmoru]

"on the effect that following the norm has on the individuals that follow it." I think we agree on this but we might have a disagreement on uh... shifting environments? the possibly the unknowability of an objective reality if it exists(?) and possibly the difficulty on nailing down what counts as significant or moral? I think we can agree that we both believe for the vegan case it's a safe bet but I think there is something to be said for 2 following points. 1) We don't get to decide the risk, consequences do, and 2) The ones most subject to the consequences should be the ones with the most... rights(?) to make that decision? Something like that?... though I think at one point I believed that the one with the most knowledge should make the decision, being wrong all the time has made me rethink that belief. XD Sorry about the ugly train of thought style reply~ @@KaneB

[@norabelrose198]

I never heard someone pronounce "pious" this way until this video

[@KaneBsBett]

C. S. Peirce

[@nomesobrenome9027]

Super pissed about honesty

[@luszczi]

By the way, ever noticed how the difference in pronunciation between "pious" and "impious" makes absolutely no sense?

[@norabelrose198]

@@luszczi oh I pronounce them the same, PEYE-ous and im-PEYE-ous lol

[@tudornaconecinii3609]

4:30 the thing that is bad about pretending to be an advocate for a good value V is that many people, when they find out, are going to generalize and extrapolate from that, and update their trustworthiness towards V advocates *in general* downward. And that can lead, over time, to suspicion about V itself. I certainly know people who have relaxed their views on the rightness of veganism *because* they've known vegans who sneaked in a cheeseburger. Now, of course, this isn't something *inherently* wrong about hypocrisy, it's just an (I'd argue) irrational response people have because people are bad at math and statistics, and if people *were* better at math and statistics, then this wouldn't be an issue, but since they *are* bad, this type of negative outcome is *predictable* , and thus avoidable, and thus don't be hypocritical XD.

[@cally77777]

Pretty much all these arguments that hypocrisy is fine are unsound. To take a couple of examples, (first argument made) its not really relevant whether the action of the hypocrite is right or wrong in some objective sense. The relevant criticism is the person is doing something other than what they claim to believe is right. This could include the famous example of the Nazi who has a Jewish friend. Regardless of most people thinking that is a good thing, the Nazi is still a hypocrite. They are being morally dishonest about one of their deeply held beliefs. The other bogus argument was about hypocrisy encouraging someone to do right. So it was claimed that in order to maintain their cover of being virtuous hypocritically, someone might be encouraged to do good things. But the person does not need that encouragement. They can do good things anyway, without making false claims of virtue. Furthermore, by conceding that hypocrisy doesn't matter, the person will be encouraged into vice at any point when they are reasonably sure that no one else will find out. Such as a member of a Christian church, who is having a secret affair. This person will not be encouraged to give up the affair, so long as they can keep it secret. In addition, with respect to consistency, there's no need for someone to falsely claim that they always manage to keep to a virtuous action. For example, they could say they believe that its wrong to lie, but admit that they occasionally tell lies. This is not hypocrisy, it is owning up to one's weakness of will. The person is not putting on a false face, they are admitting they are a fallible human being. To illustrate this difference from the bible, Jesus criticised the Pharisees, the religious leaders who made a great show of their virtue, while in reality they were far from perfect. He tells a parable of the Pharisee and the Debt Collector (Publican) who both go to the temple to pray. The Pharisee's prayer is to thank god that he's not a miserable sinner like this wretched debt collector, who takes advantage of other people. The Debt Collector, in contrast, falls upon his face, and prays, 'God, be merciful, to me, a sinner!' Jesus suggests that the Debt Collector is the more commendable, because at least he recognises his own failings. Case in favour of hypocrisy: not proved.

[@kredit787]

For example, a politician can change his view on a position he no longer holds, and will be called a hypocrite, but changing views is common to anyone. I suspect hypocrisy is repulsive due to distrust and unpredictability.

[@KaneBsBett]

6:09 I think the values of Homers time, those of the ancient greeks, are interesting here. As far as I know, they saw some kind of excellence in the ability to lie successfully in certain situations. I kind of agree with that, in restricted contexts. It kind of shows rhetoric skill.

[@Maxwell_HouseFolgers]

An important question for me is how we can reconcile the fact that at different times, the same person can want different things with the apparent wrongness of hypocrisy. Say, for instance, in the morning I am resolved with the value X, but in the evening, due to a change in circumstances, information, or mood, I am sure that I don't value X. What can be said about my hypocrisy? If in the morning I express belief in X to someone, but in the evening, I don't adhere to X, I have been hypocritical in form. However, none of the wrongness seems to remain. I haven't deceived the person in the morning, and I haven't succumbed to a weakness of will in the evening; I've simply changed my mind regarding X. Is it ever immoral to change one's mind? I think that people sort of expect each other to have consistent beliefs, so no doing that stuns them and is therefore immoral.

[@AR0ACE]

One way to look at it is in terms of signaling. If someone is trying to convince you of some belief, but arent willing to make the sacrifice themselves, (called a costly signal) it only tells you that either they are lying to you, or that the sacrifice is not worth it.

[@remianker6140]

Though it's good that you pointed out these cases where hypocrisy itself is not a problem, I still think we have to be careful when justifying the act of hypocrisy. I imagine mostly the cases where hypocrisy leads to inaction and ignorance. Think brands advertising the durable and fair production of their products, while really these are mere marketing strategies and there is barely to no actual change in their negative impact. You can say it's better than consistently truthfully doing nothing, but the point of hypocrisy is to call out such behaviour in order to reinforce actual change. It's a good reflective method to call out one's own hypocrisy, since we all act contrary to our principles sometimes, that's true. But the problem with acting hypocritically is that it's convincing oneself to therefore not change in many cases.

[@SE013]

You make great points. In essence, critiquing hypocrisy as a whole would most likely make you a hypocritic unless you are a saint with an incredibly narrow view of the world. However, there is no denying that debates on hypocrisy involve moral considerations. I think what is important is to ask under which conditions it would be inacceptable to hold hypocritical views or take hypocritical actions. My take is that the criteria would be very similar to that of lies for many people. First, it matters whether the person is aware of their hypocrisy. Vegans who slip up once in a while, who admit to it, would not suffer the same accusations of hypocrisy as those who proclaim to be perfect. This is because the label of hypocrisy is a moral judgement on one's trustworthiness. Secondly, the consequence of hypocrisy matters. We tend to call someone who claims to exercise everyday who doesn't, a liar, even though they can also be considered a hypocrite. I believe it's because this person's deception has very little consequence. On the other hand, an influencer who has had plastic surgery, who criticizes plastic surgery all the while selling their own non-surgical products, would be criticized as dangerously hypocritical because they set impossible standards to a wide influenceable public through deliberate deception. So yes, I agree that we are all hypocrites and we all lie, but I think we should also examine when we really shouldn't, and when we should be held accountable for being a "hypocrite" and not just a "liar" nor simply for the outcome.

[@martinbennett2228]

It is curious that you seem to be making an argument against Kant's Categorical Imperative without explicitly referencing Kant. The Kantian question to address is whether it is OK to exact behaviour from others that you would not expect of yourself. This is particularly troublesome if the argument against the hypocrite is that s/he is making demands that others might claim, with some justifications, are impossible to sustain. Whilst hypocrisy is not relevant to the argument in abstract, in practice it can severely weaken the argument, because it provides a very direct example of how the argument is not realistic to sustain in practice.

[@jacklessa9729]

Problem 1 - Trust. If someone say they are what they are not, specially lie a lot about it(you actually is a complete stranger to people and they will probably be terrified.) and/or lie about something very important to other people(someone that says they hate gay people, but actually is gay and his homophobes friends, kids and wife will be very angry about that...). this can be a gigant punch on trust. Problem 2 - Preaching. Preaching is annoying by people who already live what they want us to live, even if they are right depending how they preach, preaching by who doesn't even do what they preaching is not just annoying, is irritating. You don't shut up about what all of us should do and you don't do it?! It is a very ridiculous person. A easy way to not be hypocrite and/or a better preacher: don't say stuff like "I'm always brave, always honest, always kind..." Just say "I try to be brave, honest, kind most of the time... But I will fail many times, but I always trying to be better in those attitudes because I value people like that and I want to be this kind of person and/or I also like other people to be more like that. So when you fail trying to be what you say you want, maybe they can understand you are weak or it's hard, but you are not trying to fool them. Everybody lies, but if you want people to trust you and you probably should want that because is useful in personal and social relationships for many different goals, you should lie less. And many lies are just to protect someone or for shame or fear of others... Are not lies to harm a person to have some profit, this is the lie people usually fear. I believe charges of hypocrisy can dismiss some positions. If you show that people can't do what they tell everyone should do, this proves the position is unsustainable. "Everyone should not having sex" some people could do that?! Maybe, but most people can't do that, even if there is a disease that is killing people when they have sex even with condoms, we probably would be instinct, even we don't want to be instinct.

[@LARESCIV]

Now ive seen everything from people rationalizing dropping nukes on politically or morally differring side, rationalizing abortus on whim and suicide on whim to now rationalizing being hypocrite/2faced Internet philosophers are just such life enriching individuals.

[@yoramgt]

A hypocrite is not someone who doesn't always live up to their values. It is someone who tries to gain something by pretending to be someone they are not.

[@KaneBsBett]

A question that just came up for me: Is there something like infinitism, coherentism and foundationalism in the sense of instrumental value? To explain what I mean: The foundationalist would think that some things have intrinsic value and other things derive instrumental value from these (Having money is good for buying a car, buying a car is good for fun, fun is just good) The coherentist will think that things only have instrumental value and that there are only instrumental loops (having money is good for buying a car, a car is good for being a salesman, being a salesman is good for having money) The infinitist will think that things only have instrumental value and that there aren't any instrumental loops, but only infinite instrumental chains (Having money is good for buying a car, buying a car is good for being a salesman, being a salesman is good for knowing how to sell stuff...)

[@real_pattern]

u can just say infinitism *about* values, or justifying / grounding values.

[@KaneB]

I don't think the analogy quite holds. The epistemic coherentist says that justification is holistic; it arises from appropriately structured webs of belief, and then individual beliefs within that web are justified in virtue of being part of the whole justified web. So the value coherentist wouldn't just say that there are only loops of instrumental value; rather they would say, following the analogy, that intrinsic value arises out of appropriately structured loops of instrumental value. But then how on earth could that be *intrinsic* value? It doesn't really make sense to say that intrinsic value arises out of instrumental value, surely? Like that's just reversing the relation between intrinsic and instrumental value.

[@KaneBsBett]

@@KaneB Hmmm🤔

[@KaneBsBett]

16:52 Lol😂😂 We need more outtakes

[@KaneB]

My fingernail still hurts 😥

[@BenStowell]

If it's okay to be a hypocrite, then it's okay to be anything? "It means everything is permitted now, one can do anything?" More precisely, if anything is irrational, then hypocrisy is irrational. Thus if hypocrisy is not irrational, then nothing is.

[@uninspired3583]

All roses are flowers but not all flowers are roses

[@MyContext]

If one takes a moral statement to be a claim to universal claim, then the hypocrisy registers as a point of deception or betrayal. Deception for those that didn't agree and betrayed for those that agreed.

[@rogerwitte]

If I remember correctly from Sunday School, half a century ago: While the Author's of the Mishnah were composing their commentary on the bible they heard that a great ethical thinker, Aristotle, was working in Greece. They sent a delegation who returned and said that Aristotle's reasoning was amazing but his personal behaviour fell short of the ideals he espoused. The Rabbi's, aware that their work would be interpreted as law, felt that it would be premature to insist people should follow Aristotle's ideas until they had been proven to be practical. (Aristotle's philosophy was eventually incorporated into Jewish theological thought via the work of Maimonides in the 12th century.

[@techleadtr6591]

what about politicians exploiting religion but not act accordingly

[@ivan55599]

l'm just a simply layperson, what comes to philosophy (only one university course on it). So is this about just moral philosophy, or can this be extended to real world, which doesn't care about moral values (as you took an example of climate activist flying with plane). l mean, then this kind of argument leads to "the end justifies the means"-mentality. In worst case scenario it would be like in CCCP; execute political opponents to create socialist society, then communism. And there is another problem: if l say to my opponent (in straightforwardly) when arguing about something and pointing about my hypocrite of doing something, then l say "l can be hypocrite", and then he/she says: "Then l can be hypocrite too", and then the conversation leads nowhere, even if my argument is better/justified or whatever (like flying on plane is bad for climate). (An that's why it is better to keep myself my own hypocrisy). In the end, l think that "morality is a spook".

[@ivan55599]

Thanks for the answer.

[@myboatforacar]

I've always said, show me someone who is 0% hypocritical and I'll show you someone with more than their share of mental health issues, probably including major depression.

[@octopusgoat2502]

It's wrong to leave youtube comments

[@KaneBsBett]

It's wrong to write replies that don't contribute anything interesting to the original comment

[@nickhbt]

And replying sucks too .

[@obcursus]

this feels like a utilitarian argument

[@SC-sj1xi]

Because it is

[@chadstearns5087]

Thanks for the video. I basically agree, except I have an issue with one of your claims early in the video that "hypocrisy in itself is not a problem". If one is acting differently than what one believes, then one is being either 1. deceptive, consciously saying things to deceive others 2. Irrational, one is not able to cohere their actions and beliefs 3. Ignorant, unaware that their actions and beliefs are incoherent and all of these are bad, although I would be pretty forgiving to hypocrisy of types (2) and (3) since I view (2) and (3) as inevitable.

[@acidbubbles419]

I was a meat eating vegan advocate for a while. Back to being fully vegan now. It just didn't make sense to start acting like I thought it was ok to eat meat just because I was doing it, that would have been actively counterproductive.

[@zeebpc]

are laws formed around not being a hypocrite or get punished? like the law against murdering people . murderers might typically be against murder, but maybe that one particular day they were a hypocrite.

[@Bubba17644]

What's the name of the painting you used for the thumbnail?

[@KaneB]

Lorenzo Lippi, "The Allegory of Simulation"

[@Bubba17644]

@@KaneB Thank you!

[@PomboCinza777]

@@KaneB A lot of people seem interested in the images you use. Maybe you should start to put the names in the description or something like that?

[@KaneB]

@@PomboCinza777No. Comments are good for the algorithm. So I force people to comment to ask for information. It's not convenient but that's the way it is, sadly.

[@mega4171]

Anything is okay to the nihilist

[@philbelanger2]

Very interesting video. I think what I find most objectionable about hypocrisy is not so much the inconsistency, but rather the fact that hypocrites often lie about not always being true to their principles in order to get the social status and recognition that comes with being seen as someone who is virtuous. Such people shouldn't have this social status, and in those cases we should point out their inconsistency to take them down a notch.

[@danwylie-sears1134]

Can there be anything good or bad about fulfilling a commitment or failing to do so, separate from the significance that the action would have had without the commitment?

[@tudornaconecinii3609]

Failing to fulfill a commitment cheapens the value of commitments as a general category. In a society where the vast majority of commitments are fulfilled, you don't have to waste resources on verification, you don't have to waste resources on enforcing failure to comply clauses, and people can enter into compacts even if they can't afford to put up collateral.

[@laddgadfly8147]

I'm not sure if it's immoral to do something hypocritical, but I would argue it's a moral flaw to be a hypocrite. One feature of a person's character that I would judge them on is if they show a willingness to do what they say is right. I think a good person is someone you can trust, and hypocrisy seems like it should undermine that trust. Hypocritical actions are some evidence you are not being responsive to the reasons you say you are. As you rightly point out, it is not proof that they aren't motivated by those reasons; people are not perfect, and they will sometimes fail to live up to the values that they state. However, I think that good people, when they make these mistakes, will give you some indication that this is not in their character, or that they at least regret the action. If you confront someone about their hypocrisy, and they just say "yeah I don't care", I think that should significantly reduce your trust in that person. Appreciate the food for thought!~

[@italogiardina8183]

Hypocrisy seems to actually be celebrated in authoritarian political nations but booed in democratic polities in part because arguably individualism entails a form of political identity that needs to have a consistent party line in order to gain the vote. So given in a democracy every citizen could be the head of state then if that person has charisma (celebrated political identity) wealth (social and financial capital) ideological consistency it may be the case that person could attain powers akin to god. Therefore hypocrisy is not the friend of aspiring super stars. The argument here is that leaders who want to retain power by necessity construct a non hypocritical public persona. Members by necessity have weakness of will and might stray into public hypocrisy sometimes by admit follies of a leadership aspirations. Therefore a leader cannot be hypocritical or else be a general member once again. It seems a new crop of leaders must emerge from the young given their career is full of possible glory.

[@schafwolle9155]

i hate double standards! Yes, hypocrisy can indeed lead to the application of double standards. When someone behaves hypocritically, they often hold themselves to different standards than they hold others. This inconsistency can result in the perception of unfairness or inequality in their actions.

[@M0ONCommander]

this is the first time I've seen your face. I can authentically state you possess a solemn splendour to your eyes the way an albrecht durer self portrait would. marvelous

[@whycantiremainanonymous8091]

Mere imperfection or inconsistency is not enough for somebody to be a hypocrite. To be a hypocrite one has to apply double standards in a self-serving manner. It's a form of injustice. Also, it's the injustice, not the priciple espoused by the hypocrite, that is protested when one criticises hypocrites. So, for example, when people criticise Joe Biden for being a hypocrite when invoking a "rules-based international order", and then forgetting about iy once US allies break the rules, people usually demand more consistent adherence to the principle (or maybe a less stringent and violent enforcement of it, given that such enforcement is highly selective). The principle as such is actually upheld by the attackers.

[@d007ization]

I suppose, since the paragon of hypocrisy is usually some kind of religious person who flagrantly and unabashedly breaks the rules they wish to impose on others, we could say that the problem is people speaking falsehoods? Or is that okay too?

[@Laotzu.Goldbug]

_COPE: The Documentary_

[@lsobrien]

In politics the hypocrisy charge is especially hollow. If you seek a candidate who already lives in perfect accordance with their stated values, look no further than the utterly compromised.

[@uninspired3583]

This is an important discussion. We're often quick to blame, but maybe there should be some space to let people be human. None of us are perfect, maybe there's a lot of pressure that doesn't need to be there.

[@John-ir4id]

I think that whether hypocrisy is good or bad depends upon the gravity of the behavior and whether or not an idea is simply held by oneself or forced upon others. What I mean is, I don't care if a vegan eats a cheeseburger, but I do care if, say, a society kills people, even as they criticize other societies - or punish individuals within their own society - for doing the same.

[@index3876]

Virtue ethics, deontology and rule utilitarianism, say, would both probably just exclude deception as a rule, so that is what they would have to say about hypocrisy. Though I suppose this challenge would still work for non-deceptive cases of hypocrisy (weakness of will, etc).

[@jakemetzger9115]

My unsolicited two cents is that charges of hypocrisy are comments about practical inconsistency of a particularly egregious kind. At least the way I see it, people can have degrees of practical inconsistency without being hypocrites. For example, a vegan who occasionally has a hamburger isn't necessarily a hypocrite, nor is she necessarily weak willed. Singular instances of inconsistency don't necessarily add up to hypocrisy, especially if the person's general character does, in fact, conform to the positions she espouses. Perhaps she has reflected on the reality of her life and realized that purism is going to be, in fact, less effective for her in the long run even if, all other things being equal, she wishes she could be a purist. Hypocrisy, as I see it, is something more along the lines of male politicians claiming gay people deserve eternal torment in hell while hiring male prostitutes for their own secret gratification -- the extremity of the position, the strength of the advocacy for the position as a universal norm, and the severity of the transgression relative to the advocated position all seem to play a role into whether a charge of hypocrisy is actually justified. I guess this entails seeing moral prescriptions less as rules that can be violated or not violated and more as ideals with which one can act in agreement with or in tension with to varying degrees. As another example, a vegan that espouses that eating meat is murder is arguably more at tension with her position when she eats a hamburger than a similar vegan that espouses that eating meat is a poor dietary choice. This difference in tension is relevant to whether a charge of hypocrisy is warranted. Hopefully this is all consistent with what was said in the video, because I agreed with most of it.

[@thorthewolf8801]

The problem with hypocrites is that how can you trust them? If we think something is good, or desirable, we will act in a way to achieve that. A hypocrite doesnt do that. Lets consider the smoker who says smoking is bad. Well, if it was indeed bad, why does he still smoke? He is right of course, but how do I know that? From a more credible source that I can trust. Look at it like the tale of the boy who cried wolf. Yes, the boy might be right in that one instance, but that doesnt matter because he lost his credibility, nobody believes him.

[@indef2def]

The most defensible normative ethics seems to be scalar consequentialism, so I'm typically deeply confused about what hypocrisy means. Of course I don't "maximize" my moral goodness, which sounds like counting to the highest number. My characterization of the moral continuum itself is one thing for people to evaluate, and my personal location on the continuum is a second thing to evaluate. Still, I might make blatantly contradictory claims about the continuum, one more general and one more specific, e.g. "Torturing innocent humans for small gain is a large moral wrong. My country's government torturing innocent humans for a small gain is only a small moral wrong." I guess using the term "hypocrisy" for this sort of thing is pretty reasonable.

[@tudornaconecinii3609]

That sounds less like two contradictory claims and more like the first claim is incomplete and contains an implied qualifier of "In general" at the beginning of it. I wouldn't consider that hypocrisy because if someone were to ask you to explicitate your qualifiers, you *would* bring that up. You're not actively trying to deceive or have double standards, your general view genuinely *isn't* universal, and you are open about that.

[@indef2def]

@@tudornaconecinii3609 Sure, if someone made those claims back-to-back, it would almost certainly be as you describe, a non-universal generalization and an exception. The kind of person who might be called a hypocrite would be asserting them in different context, the general one in more abstract philosophical conversations and the specific when it's desirable to excuse themself or an ally.

[@tudornaconecinii3609]

@@indef2def I guess for me what would make the difference in the second case is whether the excusing is done out of a genuine belief that there's exception handling going on or whether the excusing is done because it's desirable to get away with it. If it's the former, I wouldn't call that hypocrisy. I could see why, as you put it, a reasonable person "might call them a hypocrite", but I wouldn't.

[@siddhartacrowley]

But what is the point of values if everyone is a hypocrit?

[@unwono]

5:40 So you are saying that pretending is better than rejecting? I mean yeah, pretending would be better than rejecting but clearly pretending is still worse than actually being a vegan in this case. So the argument kind of falls flat. 8:18 Can you see how this only works on some values, not all of them? If I have a value of no murdering people but I go ahead and murder just one person no one would still think that I believe in that value. Breaking it once kind of breaks it forever. Being a vegan myself this honestly sounds like an argument a non-vegan would want to make but that's probably because my brain wants to compartmentalize people so I can dismiss them easier. Pretending to act in accordance to your values would only be a good thing if other subjects that can be affected exist. Veganism states that animals are subjects in themselves so I don't believe this hypocrisy argument works for veganism. Eating meat as a vegan would be essentially the same as a non-murderer murdering someone. It completely breaks the value even if no one knows about it. I don't know. Just my thoughts. Nice video.

[@KaneB]

>> I mean yeah, pretending would be better than rejecting but clearly pretending is still worse than actually being a vegan in this case. So the argument kind of falls flat. Yeah, I literally say this in the video. So I don't see how this is a problem for my position. To clarify: Suppose that Delia merely pretends to be vegan, so she claims to act in accordance with veganism but sometimes purchases meat. I'm saying: (1) What's bad about Delia's behaviour is that she purchases meat. So yes, it would be better if Delia were a genuine vegan. But this isn't because hypocrisy is bad, it's because purchasing meat is bad. (2) Delia's hypocrisy may have a bunch of positive effects, since by pretending to be vegan she purchases meat less than she otherwise would do, and perhaps she encourages other people not to purchase meat, and so on. Yes, it would be better if Delia were a genuine vegan. But given that she isn't, her hypocrisy has positive effects in this case. >> If I have a value of no murdering people but I go ahead and murder just one person no one would still think that I believe in that value It seems coherent to me that somebody could be influenced by the rule against murder without conforming to it all of the time. But I'd be happy to just grant that this point doesn't hold for all values. >> this honestly sounds like an argument a non-vegan would want to make Veganism was just an easy example to illustrate the point. I'm not a vegan anyway, and I don't claim to be so there's no hypocrisy there.

[@unwono]

@@KaneB - Her hypocrisy has positive effects in this case. I don't see how the hipocrisy has to do with anything. Her acts are what they are, and they might make her a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is just a byproduct of her acting somewhat according to her values. She isn't striving to be a hypocrite. If she were I would agree that yes, her hypocrisy has positive effects. But otherwise I fail to see how the hypocrisy itself leads to positive changes as it's not the goal of her acts. The last part of my previous comment was off topic sorry about that!

[@matiassilva713]

It's not ok to be a hypocrite. You are looking at this from a "rules"/"values" view of morality. Seeing morality as an analysis of the validity of rules. In this sense, yes, being a hypocrate is ok, because it doesnt affect how true or not the norms one speaks about it. But. Look at it from a virtue perspective. It doesnt matter how true the rule he states is. The person himself fails. To call someoneta hypocrate its not to dismiss the argument, its to dismiss a persons character. But yes we are all hypocrate, but only in the sense that we all arent perfect. Doesnt mean that we dont have to try to be better. So no, its not ok to be a hypocrate. Yes, there is something worse: being publicly against the good. But there is something better: to be capable of doing what one says should be done, or to at least try.

[@Sui_Generis0]

13:47 Dr house?

[@SlightCredence]

Well I think it’s kind of different in the lying example you gave. Yes most people agree that lying is wrong, but most people also agree that it’s excusable as long as you don’t do it too often. No one actually expects you to go your whole life without telling a lie, which means that the standard they are holding is not tell 0 lies, the standard is just to not tell too many. And most people seem to live up to that so I wouldn’t necessarily say they are hypocritical

[@ostihpem]

Hypocrisy is a form of lying. Lying is bad because it deceives other people and with it destabilizes society that depends on trust among people.

[@bankiey]

Peterson's claim that you should have your house in order is making almost the same claim. People will deny themselves opportunity for growth to avoid being hypocritical or bad in general, a condition known as 'scrupulosity'.

[@hegelsmonster5521]

It's seems to me that you understand hyprocrisy as the behaviour of asserting oneself as to be of certain kind even if's really not the case that you really are this kind therefore 'faking' : I'm hyporcrite if I claim that I never lie when in reality I often lie. But I think that is too weak for hypocrisy because there are cases possible under this understanding that I don't conceive as hyprocrisy: If I know that I pretend to be a vegan and I`m asserting before other that I'm vegan then normaly others will see that I'm pretending (because I take my faking not seriously; because I know that I'm not vegan) or will eventually through discussion with me (I can also try to prank the others but pranking is not moral but that is another subject). I suggest to add one condition to above: someone is hypocrite just in the case that he assert to be someone of certain kind and to think think that he is of this certain kind even if he isn't of this certain kind. A hypocrite vegan is someone who assert themselves as vegan and thinks that (s)he's vegan even if (s)he doesn't be a vegan What's wrong with that? Well a hyprocrite (wo)man can have the tendency to get some other bad traits. If I think I'm morally superior to some others and asserting that to others even if that claim is wrong then I deevaluate the others in comparison to myself. I take a standpoint of higher truth even if I've nor eason to do so and for instance could claim some normative claims (even if they are bad for others) to others even if they are in reality unreasonable because it's not the case that I'm morally superior..

[@samuelkristan5452]

Whilst I agree with the point at large, in the case of veganism specifically, examples of hipocrisy could be used to attack the practicability of not eating animal products. The vegan stance is usually phrased as "killing as few animals as possible within reasonable practicability" (since you still gotta kill animals with pesticides and just accidents when harvesting), the opponent might say "Look at this self-proclaimed vegan! It would seem that reasonable practicability means having a burger once in a while!". Given that practicability depends on how people behave and can behave, isn't this argument somewhat legitimate?

[@KaneB]

I feel like we could answer this objection by just pointing the many examples of vegans who have successfully given up meat? I suppose if there were loads of hypocritical vegans, maybe this could strengthen the objection though. Perhaps the objector could grant that there are a few people who have almost supernatural powers of self-control, but the majority of people will be unable to resist the temptation of the cheeseburger - "look, even all these self-proclaimed vegans can't resist!" So vegans have to allow occasional cheeseburgers on the grounds of reasonable practicality. That said, another worry with this objection is that it rests on misunderstanding what's meant by "reasonable practicality." The reason why it's okay to kill animals during e.g. accidents when harvesting is that we need industrial agriculture to feed the population, and it's okay to kill animals if that's required for us to survive. The only way to entirely stop killing animals would be to end industrial agriculture, and that would condemn most of the population to starvation. So we accept some that some animals because we would be required to make an unreasonable sacrifice to stop that. It's a big leap from that to "this cheeseburger is so tasty, I just can't resist it!" When the vegan tells you to eat plant-based food rather than the cheeseburger, she's not demanding an unreasonable sacrifice, no matter how much the cheeseburger makes your mouth water.

[@devos3212]

I dont think theres one single person living or otherwise that isn’t a hypocrite.

[@robertstuckey6407]

I think the reason people are wary of hypocrisy has to do with power. Someone taking advantage of other peoples moral behavoir without being bound by the same rules can do a lot of damage to q community.

[@Cecilia-ky3uw]

Honestly I only sub to this channel for the hope one day I'll slog through a few videos, but it just isn't in my mood anymore. I'll just comment that I will act hypocritically when it suits me, ie cite values that I don't sincerely hold as a justification or cause for my actions.

[@lockytonight5110]

depends on the hypocrisy, there is good hypocrisy where you are hypocritical because you judge your views and others on why is what you're saying is hypocritical and why, and then there is bad hypocrisy, where you don't know you're hypothetical and act like every2you stand for is logical coherent

[@themplanetz]

Epic ending 😂😂😂

[@howtoappearincompletely9739]

I'm not sure you believe that anything matters very much.

[@rebeccar25]

Camera is on its last leg

[@jlemsey2232]

Actually yeah, i guess hypocrisy is something that people almost exclusively bring up in bad faith since it relies on someone elses moral standards rather than your own. If you were acting in good faith you would levy criticism based off of your own beliefs rather than percieved inconsistency with someone elses beliefs.

[@Elzilcho87]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. The entire point of being a hypocrite is that you can't hold yourself to the values/actions/morals/ethics that you accept as being correct. If you don't follow through with what you accept as being correct, then what's even the point of coming to the conclusion of what's right and wrong in the first place? It'd be completely pointless and a massive waste of your time to ever think or believe in anything then? The consistency of the values/actions/morals/ethics that you’ve concluded as being correct gives them meaning, and not maintaining them simply makes them pointless.

[@KaneB]

Why does there have to be a point? Anyway, there are plenty of reasons why somebody might pretend to act in accordance with particular values. For instance, they might do this in order to gain social credit. Suppose that all my friends are vegan, and I wish to fit in with them, and that the more militantly somebody promotes veganism, the more they are admired by the social group. If I care about social approval, it surely wouldn't be pointless for me to pretend to be vegan.

[@Elzilcho87]

@@KaneB “Why does there have to be a point” sort of answers my question. The reason someone would choose to not be a hypocrite is that they think there really is a reason for things, and someone who doesn't think there really is a reason for anything wouldn't bother with consistency and just let themselves be hypocrites. The purpose is the reason, and I’ve no problems with people wanting to be nihilists and be hypocrites, but if they are nihilists then why even bother with the effort of ever coming to any conclusions about believing in any kind of values/actions/morals/ethics? It'd be completely pointless to do so and just a huge waste of time for them. So my point is that if you do come to any personal conclusions about any values/actions/morals/ethics then you can't be a hypocrite about them, and if you don't have any conclusions then simply sit back and enjoy the nihilism.

[@KaneB]

​@@Elzilcho87 >> if they are nihilists then why even bother... Why not? Why does it matter if it's pointless? Why does it matter if it's a waste of time?

[@Elzilcho87]

@@KaneB Did you read the end of the comment? I've got no problems with people not believing in anything. If anyone wants to be a nihilist then they can be, I'm not going to stop them.

[@KaneB]

@@Elzilcho87Yes, I did. It seemed like the end of your comment was instructing nihilists to "sit back and enjoy the nihilism" rather than put effort into defending particular values and actions. I don't see why nihilists should do that, though.

[@robertstuckey6407]

Is the pious honest person really so bad? Certainly they are annoying, but it isnt immoral to be annoying.

[@dorukdenkel]

You can see what you argue in pracrice in action movies. Mafia bosses punish or reward intentions of their crew members and not the results they get. The purpose is to avoid competition. If no one can get ahead by doing more harm, the mafia boss remains in charge. Your vegan activist eats a burger now and then but he has good intentions. That is good for the sponsor of the vegans.

[@kenfalloon3186]

There is a difference between failing to always live up to a standard and doing that whilst castigating others for not living up to that standard. Philosophy is not merely playing ipso facto logic games.

[@joshuabrecka6012]

This is the one thing I took away from Weatherson's Normative Externalism book.

[@KaneB]

Unfortunately, I've never read that, and I came up with this video after thinking about the topic for about five minutes one day, so I probably won't have anything as interesting to say as he does!

[@joshuabrecka6012]

@@KaneB Your video is far more lucid than the book. Frankly at times I found it incomprehensible... still worth a read though. As always, thanks for your time!

[@KaneB]

@@joshuabrecka6012 I'm a little surprised to hear that, because I've read a few papers by Brain Weatherson and as I recall, I rather enjoyed his writing. Or maybe I just enjoyed his ideas and forgave the writing! Anyway, thanks very much!

[@defeatedskeptic311]

An interesting train of thought. However, I am largely a moral nihilist/existentialist, which makes this argument somewhat odd. Moreover, I believe intention is far more important that consequence. When you make the argument that the person argues in favour of a belief they do not hold, that is consistent with some moral principle, is better than someone who does not follow that moral principle, it presupposes the objectiveness of "good". Even if you, subjectively, believe that the way another person behaves is better for the world, that does not mean 'they have done good', it just happens to have a beneficial consequence. For example, if there are two rich men, but one donates to charity out of a fear that a proletariat uprising is imminent and they may be spared because of this action. The one who donates is not doing good even if there are good consequences. From my perspective, hypocrisy is one of the few wrongs that you can do to yourself. I do agree with you that inconsistency is no ground for dismissal of an argument. The most common way I see hypocrisy thrown around as a way to invalidate an argument is by people who already hold a position at odds with that argument.

[@MofoWoW]

Not sure if I'm allowed to link videos, but this one fits the theme perfectly! kzbin.info/www/bejne/opvEgWWbqdt3mZY

[@Sergiuss555]

sounds superficial. Consistency matters in a way that it's the product of epistemology and cognition. If you possess those, then you should be able to explain explicitly (to yourself and others) why your words and actions diverge. Usually it's not done because just like the given examples those cases basically reflect the higher value of self-interest vs the interests of others (with the value of the "good cause" falling in-between). In a pure academic discussion hypocrisy doesn't damage the argument itself, but in an applied case, it indicates its impracticality as probably no one will place the cause above their self-interest.

[@unwono]

yo

[@dwbi24]

This is exactly the train of thought I’ve had whenever people call people virtue signalers and hypocrites, like ok you’re clearly not concerned with what it is they’re hypocritical about so why do you really care they’re disingenuous asf

[@SouthPark333Gaming]

Alex O'Connor should watch this video...

[@CuriosityGuy]

argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

[@vitogambino6051]

I summed up your arguments: nothing matters since no one know what is a good belief, belief and action can be disconnectedly practice, good enough, relax dude... no need to be so serious since everybody lied here and now, the classic "unintended evil"...

[@whirlwind872]

I think it's problematic insofar as it's a form of "dishonesty."

[@puppetman1086]

The room is white. You’re wearing a beanie and a jacket. The room must be cold. But why?

[@lucid9949]

as a vegan, i dont think its okay for vegans to be hypocriets, and i think they ought to be shamed for it. i would instantly lose respect for any vegan i see eating meat a similar case would be anti-slave activists who own slaves, or anti-murder acticists who kill for fun if you do something wrong you ought to be shamed for it, and a hypocrite by definition does something wrong not to mention, you dont even believe in morality, yet you use moralizing terms like good or bad, should or ought. this is just manipulation and deception, you dont believe in good or bad. you, like all nihilists, cannot be trusted on normative issues, as you dont believe in right or wrong, and are just in a power struggle to satisfy your ego at the expensive of whatever is arbitrarily convenient

[@Riskofdisconnect]

He's making a kind of utilitarian argument here which you seem to reject outright, which is strange to me because every vegan I know (and I am one myself) is at least sympathetic to utilitarian ideas. My sort of passive agreement with a lot of utilitarian thinking is a big reason I went vegan in the first place. If you don't mind me asking, why are you vegan?

[@lucid9949]

@@Riskofdisconnect because i think its wrong to kill animals needlessly. i think its virtue signaling to tell people to go vegan while eating animals, and it inspires an immediate reaction of disgust from me. im not a utilitarian

[@IntegralDeLinha]

Maybe the wrong part of hypocrisy is for you to become more socially praiseworthy than you should while making people that are just like you feel bad.

[@intellectually_lazy]

ja, like, no ethical consumption and all that. don't drive, and i know carbon footprint is misplacing the onus, but cola addict, and the oll, that's gotta put it through the roof. suspect it's not far off from meth, and that's some superfund level hazmat waste over here over there

[@nnkk7742]

Rare L from kane. Nothing is universally wrong but obviously hypocrisy (overt deception) is not usually a positive. This video is like saying killing is okay because self defense, which is technically true, but without a very heavy caveat is so misleading as to be virtually incorrect.

[@Joeyjojoshabbadoo]

My take, is it's just virtue signaling, more endless virtue signaling. Competitive virtue signaling. How dare this person take credit for some good quality they don't live up to. Everyone knows the only reason we try to manifest good qualities and virtues, is so we can get the personal benefit out of it, not least being able to brag about it, to look better than others. So if you're going to make me look bad, by making all these grandiose claims, which is all I care about, and then you were lying about it and you were a hypocrite the whole time... when all you really cared about is looking better than me for your part? Then yeah, it's going to annoy me. I don't want you getting over on me and then you don't even live up to it. That's why people hate hypocrisy. You don't get to brag and make me look comparatively inferior and then flake out on it. As far as the actual behavior or claimed moral virtue on the substance or the merits? That's just fodder, it doesn't really mean anything. It certainly doesn't amount to anything, as far as changing the world for the better or something like that. As always the only thing that really matters in life, as a practical matter, is don't do anything really stupid, don't get fired from your job or commit any crimes or stop paying your bills, or cause any trouble that could get you in trouble. The rest is mainly just blah, blah, blah. And so you're going to get hypocrisy as a matter of course. I guess that's what this dude is saying. I'd have to disagree on one thing. If we really wanted actual change in the world, for the good of society, then hypocrisy should be strictly verboten. Otherwise the temptation will be too great to just say it and not do it, as long as we get the coveted social credit even when mainly what we do is talk about the good shit we value and live by, but definitely don't always act on near enough. The upshot being we should all be brutal hardasses and never let anyone get away with hypocrisy.

[@albusdumbledore6642]

if dont believe the value thatt you are promoting then this is liying so hipocrisy is bad but if you believe the value but you dont have enough self dicipline for example you think eating meat is bad but you cannot stop yourself when you see a cheesburger i think this is not hipocrisy

[@neoepicurean3772]

Why pee-ous, not pie-ous?

[@KaneB]

Why not?