Hypocrisy

Erik

In light of recent political events, and the resulting profusion of polemical writings and expressions of partisan hatred, it's dawned on me how blatantly hypocritical most of us are. I've also been struck by how blind we seem to be to this most obvious fact. A few quick examples:

1. Many on the political Left in the US passionately protest against any negative stereotyping of marginalized groups like Muslims, blacks, etc. yet have absolutely no problem doing this very thing to the 'racist', 'sexist', 'homophobic' and 'uneducated' white working class stiffs who helped bring Trump to power. On the flipside, there are quite a few on the Right who oppose unflattering portrayals of white people but don't hesitate to engage in caricaturing their perceived enemies, usually non-white and/or non-Christians, although the affluent 'latte-sipping liberal' is also a frequent target of scorn who does happen to be white. The point is we don't like to be caricatured yet we frequently caricature others.

2. American citizens - again mainly those on the Left who hate the idea of a Trump presidency - are up in arms over the alleged attempt of Russia to interfere in our presidential election, yet many of these same people support (tacitly or overtly) the policy of US-inspired regime change in other countries. The euphemism, I believe, is that the United States is a 'leader in the globalized world' and a force for good. Hillary Clinton, for example, said that she didn't believe democratic elections should have been held in the Palestinian territories, or if they did take place we should have made sure we tweaked the outcome in our favor. Yet she and her ilk are now intimating that our democracy is in peril because of Russia's ostensible meddling. So of course it's fine for us to interfere in the internal politics of other nations yet it's not OK for them to do it to us? Of course the Right manifests this nationalist hypocrisy too, or would do it if the roles were reversed!

3. Many on the political Right are urging Democrats in Congress to overcome political partisanship and work with President-Elect Trump once he enters office, and to do so for the greater good of the country--yet they have not granted President Obama this same courtesy at any time during his presidency. Same thing for Democrats who counseled Republicans in 2008 and 2012 to overcome their political biases and work together with Obama, and who are now screaming 'NOT MY PRESIDENT' since their preferred candidate wasn't elected.

4. Progressives will often denounce any rush to condemn violence against civilians as possibly being an act of Islamic terror, yet they have no qualms (generally speaking) about ascribing nefarious motives in the killing of black people at the hand's of white police officers. In the latter case it's generally assumed from the start that no caution in ascertaining facts is needed, and that the victim must have been innocent of any wrongdoing, or at least did not do anything that warranted the use of lethal force. The Right will invariably defend police officers from the type of hasty judgments that groups like BLM make when a black person is killed, yet they'll throw caution to the wind when they feel Islamic terrorism may be involved in certain bombings or shootings even before much evidence has been gathered.

I feel I could go on and on with particular examples, many unrelated to politics, but this scene seems to contain the most obvious and egregious examples of hypocrisy and self-delusion.

Please excuse the naivety of my inquiry, but in light of this phenomena I have a few questions: Why do we as human beings have such a powerful tendency to succumb to logical and moral inconsistency? Is there some innate evolutionary survival mechanism which shields us from allowing our double-standards to rise to the level of transparency? Stated differently, is this just how we're wired? If we did overcome this hardwiring, and recognized our tendency to exempt ourselves from the very things we accuse others of doing (or not doing), could this foster some debilitating sense of guilt and shame? Is this willful blindness and deception part of our ego's attempt to create a healthy sense of self-esteem or even self-love? Most importantly, for me at least, is there some way to overcome - or at least minimize - this seemingly natural proclivity towards self-deception? Is setting off on a genuine quest for truth (if there is such a thing) even desirable? There would seem to be little if any practical utility to such an endeavor, and much loneliness and potential danger. In other words, do we need to maintain 'useful' illusions just to cope with life?

I can't articulate these ideas very well yet, but it does appear to me that my ego is the biggest obstacle to not only truth, but to genuine human decency. Perhaps the two are related. And by decency I mean the attempt to understand and empathize rather than condemn (although there are cases where condemnation seems appropriate), to love the 'other' even when they've wronged us and don't deserve our love, and the sublime sort of self-less love (with its corresponding emphasis on breaking illusions and searching for truth) that motivated a Socrates or a Buddha or a Jesus. Again, poorly articulated but I'm groping my way through this topic and trying to make some sense of things. It seems like deconstructing or humbling that ego is a precondition for things like 'authentic' philosophy, spirituality and statesmanship.

Terrapin Station

Why do we as human beings have such a powerful tendency to succumb to logical and moral inconsistency? — Erik

In the context of your specific comments about this, there are at least two significant things going on here, and they have some degree of interrelation, too:

(1) People have a tendency to have inflated assessments (these things are the best, the smartest, the most worthy of devotion, etc.) of an extended personal identity--their selves, their families (and especially their kids), their homes, their neighborhoods, their ethnicity or "tribe," their cities, their states/countries, their sports teams, etc. etc. are the best, combined with a tendency to deflate others outside of their extended sphere of personal identity--those things are inferior and even sometimes demonized. This probably stems from evolutionarily needing to look out for one's own, so to speak, while defending against competition for limited resources.

(2) We focus on the details of the things inside of our personal sphere and relatively ignore the details of the things outside of our personal sphere. That leads to being much more nuanced about the things inside our personal sphere (like our own political stances/the political stances of our friends, etc.) while we construct much rougher abstractions--stereotypes, often--of the things outside of our personal sphere. This is unavoidable, really--you can't know as much about the things you're not immersed in and focused on, plus it's related to the (evolutionarily-rooted) necessity for conceptual abstraction--there's too much information, about too many different things (a fortiori because everything is a particular) for us to be able to handle processing ALL of that all of the time. With respect to (1), people tend to have a fondness for things they know via repeated exposure (although that can backfire without enough variety and when many things are going wrong for someone--but acclimation bolsters attraction, especially during certain developmental stages).

Agustino

it's dawned on me how blatantly hypocritical most of us are — Erik

What about someone like me? I freely admit that I am biased against the Left and use all weapons in my arsenal against them.

I don't agree with everything the Right says or does - but the Right is the lesser evil here. My vehemence against the Left is because if the Left wins, it's tragic, if the Right, as it is today wins, it's bad, but redeemable.

Why do we as human beings have such a powerful tendency to succumb to logical and moral inconsistency? — Erik

Well I don't think I do. I am fully aware that many of my attacks on the Left are caricatures, and rhetorical points. But I make them nevertheless. Why? Because I treat it like a war - any tactics and strategies that will ensure victory, should be used. The Left has been winning because of using such tactics. Thus, the Right, in order to usurp the Left, must use the same tactics. The Left won't be able to defend, because they claim they don't use such tactics, while in fact using them. The Right, can take my position, and freely admit to using such tactics themselves while blaming the Left that they're doing precisely the same thing, but are hypocrites because they pretend they don't. The perceived moral high ground matters more to the Left, because they are farther away from the natural way of being and living. They can't lose it. But if the Right adopts this strategy, then the Left is guaranteed to lose.

Is there some innate evolutionary survival mechanism which shields us from allowing our double-standards to rise to the level of transparency? — Erik

I don't think this is of importance here. I have double-standards being fully aware that I have them. So how is this self-deception?

You can take two basic approaches to this. One is the approach which you suggest, namely persuading others of those hypocrisies, reasoning with them, and getting them to see the truth. I am disillusioned with your approach, because it ain't working, and I don't think it's ever going to work (and please try to convince me otherwise, but my experience certainly shows that human beings are too selfish, and too attached to being seen as moral for it to ever work - and in this regard, I claim that you are self-deceived yourself). Instead I submit to the other approach - each camp is to fight the other one to the best of their abilities - that's what's going to determine who emerges out as the victor. So I have no shame in fighting the Left using any tactics and strategies which work.

Erik

↪Terrapin Station

Good points. I think my own ego has been stirred into action recently and I'm honestly not liking the negative emotions associated with perceived affronts. I've always considered myself a political 'progressive' but am currently undergoing a pretty radical shift in political outlook. Not towards conservatism as traditionally conceived (small govt., free markets, etc.), but definitely away from the Left.

For example, I keep hearing from leading Democrats about a political alliance between Latino-Americans, Asian-Americans, Black-Americans, women and young people that will inevitably shape this country's future. What's conspicuously absent in this collective is any mention of older white males. It's safe to assume we're the new enemy; we're the 'other' around whom this hypothetical alliance is being formed. Well, since I belong to this maligned demographic (working-class background to boot), I've been getting a bit defensive lately and have started to formulate what I feel is a more inclusive and genuinely forward-thinking sense of personal and collective identity, one beyond the typical racial and gender categories that people use.

I think understanding this human predicament may assist any effort to 'win' people over to a new identity. I do know one thing: bludgeoning people with insults (to them, their families, their country, and the other things you pointed out which bolster their identity) will harden them to your message and preclude any genuine dialogue or possible reconciliation from taking place.

Terrapin Station

Organized political parties have always struck me as being very similar to religions.

Michael

I don't think this is of importance here. I have double-standards being fully aware that I have them. So how is this self-deception? — Agustino

If the reasons you give for wanting the Left to fail are caricatures, rhetorical points, and lies, then what are the real reasons you want Left to fail? Because if these (known) false reasons are the real reasons then you have no reasons at all. But if there are other real reasons, then why not give them rather than false ones? Is it because you recognize that your real reasons are not good enough? Because why else not just commit to them alone?

jkop

We'd vote for a destroyer of the world if it meant more titties and beer prior destruction.

Agustino

If the reasons you give for wanting the Left to fail are caricatures, rhetorical points, and lies, then what are the real reasons you want Left to fail? Because if these (known) false reasons are the real reasons then you have no reasons at all. — Michael

I don't agree with everything the Right says or does - but the Right is the lesser evil here. My vehemence against the Left is because if the Left wins, it's tragic, if the Right, as it is today wins, it's bad, but redeemable. — Agustino

You're mistaking the reasons I want the Left to fall, for the manner in which to bring about the fall of the Left.

Erik

What about someone like me? I freely admit that I am biased against the Left and use all weapons in my arsenal against them. — Agustino

You're definitely an exception to the general rule. I'll grant you that, and also point out that I appreciate your honesty on this topic.

Well I don't think I do. I am fully aware that many of my attacks on the Left and caricatures, and rhetorical points. But I make them nevertheless. Why? Because I treat it like a war - any tactics and strategies that will ensure victory, should be used. The Left has been winning because of using such tactics. Thus, the Right, in order to usurp the Left, must use the same tactics. The Left won't be able to defend, because they claim they don't use such tactics, while in fact using them. The Right, can take my position, and freely admit to using such tactics themselves while blaming the Left that they're doing precisely the same thing, but are hypocrites because they pretend they don't. The perceived moral high ground matters more to the Left, because they are farther away from the natural way of being and living. They can't lose it. But if the Right adopts this strategy, then the Left is guaranteed to lose. — Agustino

There's definitely some pragmatism in the use of these tactics, but to me it's a slippery slope. Once the truth is sacrificed for the sake of political expediency, we forfeit any right to criticize or condemn those who would gladly reduce us to servile status (at least partly through the use of deception) if given the opportunity. What's left once we cede this ground? This is the issue I have with you, I think: you talk a lot about virtue and character and yet you'll gladly jettison these admirable things of the 'soul' for the sake of more worldly and ignoble goals. So there's a massive disconnect between what you say you believe in and the way you manifest those beliefs. You haven't adequately explained this discrepancy, at least not as far as I'm aware.

Now this may be an antiquated idea--laughable in fact--but I view the attempt to gain power by whatever means necessary, regardless of the consequences to the physical and/or psychological well-being of others, as extremely dangerous and immoral. Of course the issue of values is more ambiguous than that of factual matters, but even here I like to think superior ones (dedication to truth, justice, courage, temperance, an appreciation of beauty, etc.) have a compelling force on an open mind if only given a proper hearing. You only need to lie if you don't truly believe in the superiority of your positions, or if you don't trust the judgment of others (e.g. Plato's Noble Lies) to accept what you take to be truths.

I don't think this is of importance here. I have double-standards being fully aware that I have them. So how is this self-deception?

You can take two basic approaches to this. One is the approach which you suggest, namely persuading others of those hypocrisies, reasoning with them, and getting them to see the truth. I am disillusioned with your approach, because it ain't working, and I don't think it's ever going to work (and please try to convince me otherwise, but my experience certainly shows that human beings are too selfish, and too attached to being seen as moral for it to ever work). Instead I submit to the other approach - each camp is to fight the other one to the best of their abilities - that's what's going to determine who emerges out as the victor. So I have no shame in fighting the Left using any tactics and strategies which work. — Agustino

I don't think people have been given the truth. So I wouldn't say that this doesn't work. It does however seem like those who lie willingly almost always do so under the illusion that it's for some greater good. This too could be a form of self-deception. Now if you came out and told me that you didn't give a shit about anyone but yourself, and that you'd kill me for the $20 I had in my wallet if given the opportunity, then you'd be free from hypocrisy and self-deception. You'd obviously be a sociopath, but at least an honest one. In an odd way I find even this type of blunt honesty to be somehow dignified. Strange thing.

I do think your 'type' is what bothers me most about this topic. I'm referring to intelligent, educated and thoughtful people who knowingly and willingly lie to others in order to achieve ends they perceive to be in their interest (or in the interest of their group). You know the truth but conceal it and peddle false appearances instead. You're essentially a sophist. Why so much effort in deceiving people--pitching your views (here at least) as nothing more than useful lies--if they're not generally disposed towards searching for the truth and doing good? That's my issue I guess. Do we have an inherent need for self-deception, or is it that we live in a political and economic system in which powerful actors and groups are always lined up (on both sides) to seek their advantage through deception of the masses?

Why not just come out and tell people, for instance, that we (in the US) went into Iraq for oil, and not because of any love of democracy or humanitarian aims? If 'average' people are so fixated upon their narrow self-interest then why don't we just give them truths like that? A lot of effort is expended in appealing to the moral sense that most people seem to have. I know I get pissed when someone lies to me, and I feel pangs of conscience when I lie to others. Maybe I'm just one of the sheep whom the wolf-like 'overmen' view as malleable material.

I'm veering off topic a bit now, but suffice it to say I want to fight the deceptions coming from both the Left and the Right. And increasingly I want to fight against my own deceptions more than anything else. I'm at least becoming aware of them. Anyhow, I feel your unconditional commitment to party and rigid ideology prevents you from turning more people to your side. You argue your case well at times, but at others you seem to lack the necessary emotional awareness of the subtle means which could sway an opponent to your side. You can clearly 'rally the base' though, and maybe that's all you'd like to do.

People like me are typically turned off by your consistent use of hyperbole and your admitted use of caricature in order to drive home your extremely un-nuanced position(s). You've now admitted the obvious, i.e. that you have no special attachment to truth and that you will purposely deceive in order to influence. Now that this admission has been made and your credibility has been shattered, try convincing us of the truth or superiority of your political (or other) positions.

Michael

You're mistaking the reasons I want the Left to fall, for the manner in which to bring about the fall of the Left. — Agustino

I'm not mistaking them. I'm asking you why they differ. If there are legitimate problems with the Left then why not just make them known? Why use lies? If you attack the Left by claiming that they cause some evil, and if the Left don't actually cause that evil, then why are you attacking the Left? If because they commit some other evil then why not just attack them for causing that?

Metaphysician Undercover

(1) People have a tendency to have inflated assessments (these things are the best, the smartest, the most worthy of devotion, etc.) of an extended personal identity--their selves, their families (and especially their kids), their homes, their neighborhoods, their ethnicity or "tribe," their cities, their states/countries, their sports teams, etc. etc. are the best, combined with a tendency to deflate others outside of their extended sphere of personal identity--those things are inferior and even sometimes demonized. This probably stems from evolutionarily needing to look out for one's own, so to speak, while defending against competition for limited resources. — Terrapin Station

Yes, I believe there is an innate tendency in living creatures to look out for oneself. It extends to "look out for one's family", as is evident in many species. Human beings have developed moral principles whereby they extend this to "one's neighbour". Next comes the difficult aspect. Some want to extend this moral principle to all of humanity, and even all of life in general. But if we look at extending this moral principle to all of humanity, then we must establish principles of acceptance for those people in all corners of the world. These people will have different world views, different principles, and different ways of thinking. Some people do not agree to such principles of universal acceptance, believing that some of these differences constitute a real danger, an enemy.

Now we have a difference in moral thinking, some what to extent "look out for one's family" to "look out for all of humanity" and beyond, while some think that this is a bad idea, you are inviting in the enemy. This difference of opinion creates a divide between an individual and one's neighbour, and even divisions within a family. So there is a difference of opinion as to how we should look at strangers, as people to respect, or people to fear, and this difference penetrates to the very core of morality such that it disturbs the harmony of existence between an individual and one's neighbour, and even the harmony within one's own family.

Agustino

Once the truth is sacrificed for the sake of political expediency, we forfeit any right to criticize or condemn those who would gladly reduce us to servile status (at least partly through the use of deception) if given the opportunity. — Erik

But who said I am sacrificing truth? I am still driven by truth, except that I recognise that many others aren't. So I don't seek to convince those people of truth anymore - because they don't care about it. They're using truth merely as a coverup to be free to perform the actions they seek to perform (because remember, they may not care about truth, but they want to THINK they do). So if someone seeks to condemn me and reduce me to servile status, I will seek to defend myself, mobilise those around me, and fight back. I recognise that there exists both good and evil in the world. But if that's what they want to do, I certainly won't convince them by pleading about truth. The only thing that will convince them is defeating them - ie making it impossible for them to achieve their aims. And I may lose of course. There's no guarantee - but in life there are no guarantees. So I only forfeit the right to criticise and condemn them in the sense that doing so won't change anything. But I retain the right to criticise and condemn them in the sense that for me, I am still able to do so, since I do believe in truth.

What's left once we cede this ground? — Erik

They don't care about truth. Truth won't convince them. The people who are convinced by truth are very rare and very few.

This is the issue I have with you, I think: you talk a lot about virtue and character and yet you will gladly jettison these admirable things of the 'soul' for the sake of more worldly and ignoble goals. — Erik

I don't think I do. I think the two are compatible. On the one hand, one is virtuous oneself, and acts virtuously. On the other hand, one doesn't expect everyone else to be virtuous, and those who aren't, and have no inclination to be at all, can only be dealt with rhetorically. By all means surround yourself with virtuous men and women, but not everyone you will interact with will be so, or even care about being so. Those who don't care, you must be able to protect yourself from them.

You only need to lie if you don't truly believe in their superiority, or if you don't trust the judgment of others (e.g. Plato's Noble Lies). — Erik

Well why should I trust the judgement of (most) others? It's clear that the masses of mankind are selfish. I don't blame the progressives. Most of them are progressives merely because progressivism is winning now, it's socially rewarding to be a progressive. Just you wait till the Right is winning, and you'll see most folks changing wagons as soon as possible. I don't think I'm a hypocrite - I'm fighting for the losing side, using all means possible, because I believe in the cause. If I were purely self-interested I would fight for the progressives. At the moment, there's no reward for fighting for conservatism.

It seems like those who lie willingly almost always do so under the illusion that it's for some greater good. — Erik

Yes.

If you came out and told me you didn't give a shit about anyone but yourself, and that you'd kill me for the $20 I had in my wallet if you had the opportunity, then you'd be free from both hypocrisy and self-deception. You'd obviously be a sociopath, but an honest one. — Erik

Quite obviously. That's why I said good and evil both exist in the world. Good has an advantage over evil when it fights unmasked, without any pretensions. That's why the Right needs to fight unmasked - because the Left won't be able to fight back.

I think your 'type' is what bothers me — Erik

Good, that means this discussion can be productive.

Why so much effort in deceiving people--pitching your views (here at least) as nothing more than useful deceptions--if they're not generally disposed towards searching for the truth and doing good? — Erik

It's not so much deceiving people - because to deceive them assumes that they still care about truth. But they don't. This isn't about deceiving them at all, it's simply a political way to force them to adhere to certain policies via means of social pressure (just what the Left does, but turned the other way). They may not care about truth, but certainly they do care about certain goods, such as social inclusion. I have given up the goal of changing their characters and making them virtuous - that's impossible. All that is possible, is getting them to behave and fake virtue.

Why not just come out and tell them that we (for instance) went into Iraq for oil, and not because of any humanitarian aims? — Erik

A war needs a just cause otherwise people don't support it - and if they don't support it, those in power shall lose their power. This is not necessarily because people are moral, but rather because they want to THINK they are moral. My whole effort is to get the Left in a position where they can no longer see themselves as moral - that will cause them to lose.

I know I get pissed when someone lies to me, and I feel pangs of conscience when I lie to others. — Erik

Yes me too. But not everyone is this way. And so one should take this into account.

Maybe I'm just one of the sheep whom the wolf-like 'overmen' view as malleable material. — Erik

I don't believe so, I admire and respect people like you. You have similar goals to mine - we just disagree about the means of reaching there.

Anyhow, I feel your unconditional commitment to party and rigid ideology prevents you from turning more people to your side. — Erik

That's where you don't see it. You don't see that most people will not be turned by truth (or deception for that matter). They will be turned by power. Once it becomes profitable to adhere to my party/ideology, they will all turn. Just look at Paul Ryan - before the election results, Trump was despicable, after the results, he was the greatest. Most people are just like that. Of course, they don't want to lose face, they won't immediately switch over, and they will seek to switch over through an occasion in which they don't lose face (Paul Ryan obviously isn't like that). But it doesn't change the fact. Most will adhere to the socially dominant ideology. Most will always be of the socially dominant ideology. There are few people who won't. So to sway the majority, it's never going to be about truth. Truth will only sway the very few. They are important, and it's important to sway them, but the majority is also important.

Plato was right. Democracy always decays into the dissolution of virtue. The masses don't care about truth and morality. It's a problem of the heart (will), not of the head. And just watch my words - even on these forums, you're suddenly seeing more people from the Right than ever before. Why? Because the Right is now winning. Those few like me who are fighting for a cause regardless of whether it's winning/losing - those are few. But the majority will be swayed only by power - only by being compelled to do so. Most will not be willing to sacrifice social inclusion and other goods, for the truth. Those who are, are very few.

Agustino

I'm asking you why they differ. — Michael

They differ because the majority of people don't care about truth and morality. And therefore, the majority cannot be convinced by truth and morality - so of what use stating it? Something else has to convince them.

Hypocrisy

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions